Hey kids, let me show you proof that God's real

[mingus]

He's saying that there is no difference to the rest of us. Two people "know" things that no one else can see or hear.

If there is some deity out there, it could do a lot better than talking to a few isolated individuals here and there, and being indistinguishable from crazy people, IF it gave a shit.

Either it doesn't give a shit, or it doesn't exist. Both have the same effect on what I should believe.

Honestly, I agree with the middle part. I don’t know why I was picked. But I was picked. It’s be cool if you knew, I think. Just for the sake that we would have less arguments on this matter (which have gone on forever).

But for whatever reason (& I believe God has His reason & it’s a Good reason) you weren’t picked to know.

[mingus]

It's your claim that you'd have a smile on your face while being inhumanely tortured. Those are literally your words.

I know you can never back up that claim. It's stupid.

Yeah but that smile is indicative that I have no fear in the face of imminent or otherwise Evil made against me. Because I know that Good—& the knowledge that there is a Good & there is an Evil & there is a Judge who will judge us on where our loyalties are—always defeats Evil. IOW, if my loyalties are with Good, I have no fear of anything.

[spurraider21]

Not sure how you think this is even applicable.
It's applicable because it demonstrates a flaw in the improbability argument.

Roll a die 10 times. You had a 1 in 60 million chance of rolling that sequence. How did you defy the odds :wow... how was that pure happenstance/accident??!?

[Blake]

Yeah but that smile is indicative that I have no fear in the face of imminent or otherwise Evil made against me. Because I know that Good—& the knowledge that there is a Good & there is an Evil & there is a Judge who will judge us on where our loyalties are—always defeats Evil. IOW, if my loyalties are with Good, I have no fear of anything.

Uh huh

[mingus]

Uh huh

The only thing I & anyone else who knows like I do actually have to lose is God. Losing God is the only fear. Because losing God means fearing Evil, which doesn’t allow you to eliminate it.

[Blake]

The only thing I & anyone else who knows like I do actually have to lose is God. Losing God is the only fear. Because losing God means fearing Evil, which doesn’t allow you to eliminate it.

Totally not crazy

[Blake]

I will give you props for finally getting brave and saying what you believe in. You knew I'd make fun of you and you still did it. :tu

[Avante]

I always get a kick out of how hard people work at .....I don't believe so you shouldn't either......hahahaha~~~~~ Why would anyone give a damn?

Has anyone ever read.....ok ok ya changed my mind.....on the internet? That has never happened so why people worry so damn much about what others believe.......???????????????

I do know it's far better being around those with a God than those without one.

[ElNono]

Somebody read "kids" in the subject and showed up... no surprises there...

[Spurtacular]

It's applicable because it demonstrates a flaw in the improbability argument.

Roll a die 10 times. You had a 1 in 60 million chance of rolling that sequence. How did you defy the odds :wow... how was that pure happenstance/accident??!?

I see. Well, I dunno if it comes down to odds as you'd put it; but if that is how you want to see it, then you're making my case about the odds of it all working out just so right without the hand of province.

[Spurtacular]

Actually, it hasn't.

You described your personal incredulity that it could be anything but creationism.

That isn't science.

What is the scientific basis of creationism?

Been answered, dickhead.

[Avante]

Somebody read "kids" in the subject and showed up... no surprises there...

Dude, did you ever read what started all that stupid bullshit? It was me talking about sick ass pedos and how ya shoot those sick fucks.

Dude, don't be an idiot,ok?

There is nothing anywhere with me saying anyting other than ya shoot sick ass pedos.

[Spurtacular]

Dude, did you ever read what started all that stupid bullshit? It was me talking about sick ass pedos and how ya shoot those sick fucks.

Dude, don't be an idiot,ok?

There is nothing anywhere with me saying anyting other than ya shoot sick ass pedos.

You fell for the en vogue ST ploy of calling someone a pedo for a reaction, tbh. In the future don't bother, bro. I mean, you're still kind of a jackass. But just some friendly advice cos only wankers are doing this pedo schtick.

[ElNono]

You fell for the en vogue ST ploy of calling someone a pedo for a reaction, tbh. In the future don't bother, bro. I mean, you're still kind of a jackass. But just some friendly advice cos only wankers are doing this pedo schtick.

I said "somebody" and he completely owned it up, tbh... they don't call him The Terror of Olongapo for nothing, tbh...

[Spurtacular]

I said "somebody" and he completely owned it up, tbh... they don't call him The Terror of Olongapo for nothing, tbh...

Still haven't seen one self promoting pedo post on ST for all the talk of it, tbh.

[spurraider21]

I see. Well, I dunno if it comes down to odds as you'd put it; but if that is how you want to see it, then you're making my case about the odds of it all working out just so right without the hand of province.
Nah you’re just missing the point. The whole “incredible odds/accident” talk only makes sense if there was a predetermined outcome. Otherwise, all outcomes are equally unimpressive

[Spurtacular]

Nah you’re just missing the point. The whole “incredible odds/accident” talk only makes sense if there was a predetermined outcome. Otherwise, all outcomes are equally unimpressive

It is a predetermined outcome. The ingredients for self sustaining life are quite precise as science has shown.

[Blake]

It is a predetermined outcome. The ingredients for self sustaining life are quite precise as science has shown.

who predetermined it

[spurraider21]

It is a predetermined outcome. The ingredients for self sustaining life are quite precise as science has shown.
Who said it’s predetermined. For all we know, life doesn’t exist outside of earth. To think the whole history of the universe was predetermined so one planet in one solar system in one galaxy could have life for a relatively short period of time is pretty silly. We really aren’t that significant in the scheme of things

[Spurtacular]

Who said it’s predetermined. For all we know, life doesn’t exist outside of earth. To think the whole history of the universe was predetermined so one planet in one solar system in one galaxy could have life for a relatively short period of time is pretty silly. We really aren’t that significant in the scheme of things

I was using predetermined in the context you used it; that certain conditions would need to be met for life. You're now trying to shift to fatalism (which really has no bearing on the debate, tbh).

[ElNono]

It's not who, it's how... you can opine that everything is predetermined, but in order for it to be science, you have to show the observable/testable theory. If it has no testable/observable properties, it's simply not science, it's just some imaginary construction where you can replace 'god' with 'spaghetti monster' with 'aliens', etc etc etc

[spurraider21]

I was using predetermined in the context you used it; that certain conditions would need to be met for life. You're now trying to shift to fatalism (which really has no bearing on the debate, tbh).
That’s not the context i was using. Think of the dice example. It’s not remarkable to roll a certain sequence unless you knew what sequence you were trying to roll before doing so. That’s what i am taking about when i say predetermined.

The fact that so many things had to go right for life to exist on earth is only remarkable if the universe was aiming for that particular result. We’re not that important

[Spurtacular]

That’s not the context i was using. Think of the dice example. It’s not remarkable to roll a certain sequence unless you knew what sequence you were trying to roll before doing so. That’s what i am taking about when i say predetermined.

The fact that so many things had to go right for life to exist on earth is only remarkable if the universe was aiming for that particular result. We’re not that important

Your dice example is utterly retarded from the God standpoint in that it leaves it up to chance. Thus you would be speaking of it in terms of scientific happenstance as it relates to evolution. I agree that the belief in such happenstance is lunacy.

[spurraider21]

Your dice example is utterly retarded from the God standpoint in that it leaves it up to chance. Thus you would be speaking of it in terms of scientific happenstance as it relates to evolution. I agree that the belief in such happenstance is lunacy.
You are agreeing with nobody but yourself. The dice thought project is meant to show that viewing events by their probability after the fact is flawed approach. The odds only matter if you are trying to get to a predetermined result.

ie flipping a coin 10 times and getting heads, heads, tails, heads, tails, tails, heads, tails, heads, tails isn’t remarkable. You wouldn’t think “what are the odds i got those results purely by happenstance.” You only would say that if before you flipped the coin you decided that you wanted to roll exactly heads heads tails heads tails tails heads tails heads tails.

[Spurtacular]

You are agreeing with nobody but yourself. The dice thought project is meant to show that viewing events by their probability after the fact is flawed approach. The odds only matter if you are trying to get to a predetermined result.

ie flipping a coin 10 times and getting heads, heads, tails, heads, tails, tails, heads, tails, heads, tails isn’t remarkable. You wouldn’t think “what are the odds i got those results purely by happenstance.” You only would say that if before you flipped the coin you decided that you wanted to roll exactly heads heads tails heads tails tails heads tails heads tails.

The fact that you think there are odds to begin with is wherein you go wrong. The conditions for human life independent of a deity are non-existent.

[spurraider21]

The fact that you think there are odds to begin with is wherein you go wrong. The conditions for human life independent of a deity are non-existent.
where do you get that from?

[Pavlov]

Been answered, dickhead.No, it really hasn't.

You're just kind of a slow fella, aren't you?

[sickdsm]

where do you get that from?

I skipped over the majority of this conversation buti will still say this is a chicken vs the egg conversation. No side will ever be able to explain origin. Someone posted that matter CAN be created from nothing. It still needs something to trigger it. Likewise the religion debate, who created a deity?


Pro science acting holier than thou have some egg on their face (multiple puns intended) for not having at least a legitimate theory on the birth of everything from nothing. And die hard religion zealots also share that equally from believing God always just kinda was without a back plot.

[spurraider21]

I skipped over the majority of this conversation buti will still say this is a chicken vs the egg conversation. No side will ever be able to explain origin. Someone posted that matter CAN be created from nothing. It still needs something to trigger it. Likewise the religion debate, who created a deity?


Pro science acting holier than thou have some egg on their face (multiple puns intended) for not having at least a legitimate theory on the birth of everything from nothing. And die hard religion zealots also share that equally from believing God always just kinda was without a back plot.
it's completely different.

science is able to say "we dont know... yet" and then strive to find answers.

religion says "i already know 100%, its a supernatural deity" and the search ends.

also, the egg came first. that's not even in question

ps... baseline bum said matter can come in and out of existence, as long as there is no net change over a significant period of time. we dont fully understand things yet, and thats ok.

[RandomGuy]

Honestly, I agree with the middle part. I don’t know why I was picked. But I was picked. It’s be cool if you knew, I think. Just for the sake that we would have less arguments on this matter (which have gone on forever).

But for whatever reason (& I believe God has His reason & it’s a Good reason) you weren’t picked to know.

Why is that? Why keep it a secret?

If the motivation was to spread the Word, a being capable of creating a star, let alone a universe, would find it trivially easy to communicate a message to every human on planet.

The only logical conclusions are therefore:
It is unwilling to communicate with all people, i.e. it is untrue that is wants to communicate with all humans.
It is unable to communicate with all people, i.e. it isn't all powerful.
It doesn't exist, i.e. your perception of receiving communication is a self-inflicted delusion.

Which is it?

[RandomGuy]

The fact that you think there are odds to begin with is wherein you go wrong. The conditions for human life independent of a deity are non-existent.

Based on what? The anthropic principle is a fatally flawed argument at our stage of understanding the universe.

[RandomGuy]

I skipped over the majority of this conversation buti will still say this is a chicken vs the egg conversation. No side will ever be able to explain origin. Someone posted that matter CAN be created from nothing. It still needs something to trigger it. Likewise the religion debate, who created a deity?


Pro science acting holier than thou have some egg on their face (multiple puns intended) for not having at least a legitimate theory on the birth of everything from nothing. And die hard religion zealots also share that equally from believing God always just kinda was without a back plot.

Everything we have learned breaks down without a time function. When t=0, the equations break down. Cause/effect are only meaningful concepts with time.

"Pro science acting holier than thou have some egg on their face (multiple puns intended) for not having at least a legitimate theory on the birth of everything from nothing. "

This is a textbook example of "argument from ignorance". It is a really, really, really badly flawed line of reasoning.

If you particularly care:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Religion isn't right about god/God/Gods simply because science can't explain EVERYTHING all at once.

Just because I don't know the score of last nights game, doesn't mean that some asshat coming along claiming it was 17 to 953 is correct because he choses to pull some score out of his ass.

[TeyshaBlue]

Why is that? Why keep it a secret?

If the motivation was to spread the Word, a being capable of creating a star, let alone a universe, would find it trivially easy to communicate a message to every human on planet.

The only logical conclusions are therefore:
It is unwilling to communicate with all people, i.e. it is untrue that is wants to communicate with all humans.
It is unable to communicate with all people, i.e. it isn't all powerful.
It doesn't exist, i.e. your perception of receiving communication is a self-inflicted delusion.

Which is it?

Anthropomorphizing a diety is dicey at best.

[rjv]

i think what the whole "which came first" analogy is problematic because we cannot retrodict to the past (based on laboratory experiments-where all external influences except the experimenter are excluded). furthermore, we cannot predict the very specific large scale structure of the universe today from data of the standard inflationary model expansion because inhomogenous traits in regards to density have since grown from the quantum fluctuations in whatever substance powered inflation. the existence of our galaxy and earth and life on earth, for example, was not determined by the initial data of the very early universe. so, it would be like looking at an egg but you had no idea that it was a chicken egg or even really an egg at all. and the egg or chicken question is, in many ways, an issue of time as well or a question of immanence. this could become a philosophical riddle or a problem for cosmology, as in the evolving block universe versus the block universe model. multiverse theory can maybe change this question but multiverse theory relies pretty much on math alone and more speculation than science is comfortable (or should be comfortable) with.

[Blake]

If there's a multiverse is there a multi-god situation out there.....who all report to a higher power. .....who reports to me

[spurraider21]

Anthropomorphizing a diety is dicey at best.
we're in his image tbh. he done anthropomorphized himself

[rjv]

If there's a multiverse is there a multi-god situation out there.....who all report to a higher power. .....who reports to me

if there's a multiverse, technically there could be a universe out there in which the multiverse is false.

[spurraider21]

if there's a multiverse, technically there could be a universe out there in which the multiverse is false.
interesting thought, but i can't see it.

the greater multiverse would be external to that specific universe. if you consider each universe a drop of water in an ocean, thats like saying in one of those drops, there is no ocean.

[rjv]

interesting thought, but i can't see it.

the greater multiverse would be external to that specific universe. if you consider each universe a drop of water in an ocean, thats like saying in one of those drops, there is no ocean.

i was being mostly facetious but the multiverse model has many flaws, including a lack of agreement among cosmologists on the term much less the model. there is a level 1 multiverse and there is one that allows for almost an infinite amount with infinite possibilities (including my halfway serious claim). still, it is really more of a concept than a theory at this time.

[TeyshaBlue]

we're in his image tbh. he done anthropomorphized himself

What an awkward fucking word.

[Blake]

https://dailypost.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/transmogrifier.jpg?w=227&h=291

[rjv]

https://dailypost.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/transmogrifier.jpg?w=227&h=291

best comic strip ever (with apologies to the far side).

[TeyshaBlue]

best comic strip ever (with apologies to the far side).

Close race.

[pgardn]

One of my favorites and I'm not sure why...

http://i68.tinypic.com/jqm7fs.jpg

[pgardn]

Science has nothing to say about deities, except you don't use them trying to explain physical phenomena.

[mingus]

Why is that? Why keep it a secret?

If the motivation was to spread the Word, a being capable of creating a star, let alone a universe, would find it trivially easy to communicate a message to every human on planet.

The only logical conclusions are therefore:
It is unwilling to communicate with all people, i.e. it is untrue that is wants to communicate with all humans.
It is unable to communicate with all people, i.e. it isn't all powerful.
It doesn't exist, i.e. your perception of receiving communication is a self-inflicted delusion.

Which is it?

The answer is the first one.

You’ll find out like I did, one day, that the people God chose were Jews.

[mingus]

And I can say that with as much certainty as anything. Why He did, I’m still not sure.

[spurraider21]

The answer is the first one.

You’ll find out like I did, one day, that the people God chose were Jews.
How did you find out that God chose the Jews

[mingus]

How did you find out that God chose the Jews

We’re getting into that territory where a lot of that info I don’t want floating around on the Internet.

[mingus]

And, no, that isn’t an “evasion” tactic, but the chips just fail so that you’re a person on the internet that I don’t know & I only entrust that info with people I do know—at least fairly well.

[spurraider21]

And, no, that isn’t an “evasion” tactic, but the chips just fail so that you’re a person on the internet that I don’t know & I only entrust that info with people I do know—at least fairly well.
you're the one who initially offered to share it in a pm tbh :lol

besides, something as specific as "god chose the jews" can't be learned from some random life experience... that seems like a pretty direct message, either some sort of prophetic vision or a direct line of communication from the big guy.

[sickdsm]

Everything we have learned breaks down without a time function. When t=0, the equations break down. Cause/effect are only meaningful concepts with time.

"Pro science acting holier than thou have some egg on their face (multiple puns intended) for not having at least a legitimate theory on the birth of everything from nothing. "

This is a textbook example of "argument from ignorance". It is a really, really, really badly flawed line of reasoning.

If you particularly care:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Religion isn't right about god/God/Gods simply because science can't explain EVERYTHING all at once.

Just because I don't know the score of last nights game, doesn't mean that some asshat coming along claiming it was 17 to 953 is correct because he choses to pull some score out of his ass.
Whoa settle down. Great things can be made from nothing and it needs nothing to start the process. That's what your saying? Then there still would be the why.

[mingus]

I guess you can definitely describe it as that

[pgardn]

Whoa settle down. Great things can be made from nothing and it needs nothing to start the process. That's what your saying? Then there still would be the why.

Why what?

[Blake]

Then there still would be the why.

No

[sickdsm]

No

You have a link for that?

[sickdsm]

Why what?

Taking RG'S word for it that science has proven that matter can materialize out of nothing with nothing there to be a catalyst for it. Again, even IF that is the case, there would still need to be the how and of WHY that would have happened.


Would appreciate next time for some solid links on that theory, instead of RG being a dick about it. Clearly I'm not there only one questions how and why we are here.

[pgardn]

Taking RG'S word for it that science has proven that matter can materialize out of nothing with nothing there to be a catalyst for it. Again, even IF that is the case, there would still need to be the how and of WHY that would have happened.


Would appreciate next time for some solid links on that theory, instead of RG being a dick about it. Clearly I'm not there only one questions how and why we are here.

Science was never made to explain all our questions, especially intent based or why questions. That's the realm of philosophy and religion. Science is limited in scope. It's silly to think science can come close to answering all of our questions. So in this way I take a very different look at science than RG. Because a huge number of questions can't be observed or tested through experiments. There is no predictive power in some of our questions. IMO science types, of which I am one, have enormous hubris about what we can know. I would stress that when new "finds" are made through science, and seem to do a better job explaining and predicting compared to old models, hundreds of new questions burst forth. There is no theory of everything in science, there is no God particle IMO. There are no set of simple equations to explain all of our questions. We have enough trouble understanding the implications new models invariably have.

And our physical world did not materialize out of nothing. Science has nothing to say about before the Big Bang as there was no before... In science...

I would add that IMO, the main source of hubris comes from physics types who don't really understand our biological brains. Physics types deal with very fundamental questions. Once variables start to pile in, they understand the models break down. The emergent properties that result from adding in new variables make things horribly difficult. They always have. We do not live at a point in our knowledge and thinking where we are the lucky ones living on the cusp of the greatest discoveries IMO. But people like to think that they do.

All of the aforementioned being stated, the discovery of the Higgs field and associated particle model, and the discovery of gravitational waves is very satisfying. But hardly the end, or, we are getting so close.... close to what... now a torrent of new questions arise.

[pgardn]

I say we stay humble about what we think we know.

[Blake]

You have a link for that?

You're the one claiming purpose.

[mingus]

I will give you props for finally getting brave and saying what you believe in. You knew I'd make fun of you and you still did it. :tu

I’m not saying what I believe. I’m saying what I know.

And, yeah, you’ll laugh. But you’ll only do so out of ignorance. An ignorance you can’t help. So I have no ill will towards that.

And there’s nothing inherently wrong about being ignorant. We’re all ignorant to some degree & about different things.

[spurraider21]

I’m not saying what I believe. I’m saying what I know.

And, yeah, you’ll laugh. But you’ll only do so out of ignorance. An ignorance you can’t help. So I have no ill will towards that.

And there’s nothing inherently wrong about being ignorant. We’re all ignorant to some degree & about different things.
the ghost that never lies

[Pavlov]

It's easy for folk to remain ignorant on matters when the person who "knows" everything refuses to talk about it.

[Blake]

I’m not saying what I believe. I’m saying what I know.

And, yeah, you’ll laugh.

:lol it's adorable you still have an invisible friend at your age

[mingus]

:lol it's adorable you still have an invisible friend at your age

Why is it “adorable”?

[Blake]

Why is it “adorable”?

It's like little kids believing in Santa. They're adorable too.

[Chris]

Why is it “adorable”?

If Allah was your invisible friend Blake would roll out the red carpet for you. Poor fella is confused about a lot of things.

[Blake]

If Allah was your invisible friend Blake would roll out the red carpet for you. Poor fella is confused about a lot of things.

If Allah was your invisible friend, Chris would be terrified of you.

[Chris]

If Allah was your invisible friend, Chris would be terrified of you.

Yes I'm afraid of Totalitarian terrorism. You're clearly ready to bend/roll over.

[Blake]

Yes I'm afraid of Totalitarian terrorism. You're clearly ready to bend/roll over.

:lol "Totalitarian terrorism"

[Chris]

:lol "Totalitarian terrorism"

Sorry for making you use google. I will smaller words next time.

[sickdsm]

You're the one claiming purpose.
Thread discussing scientific reasoning about the origin of everything. I add that we need a why behind any how.


Pretty much standard in the science world is it not? You argue against science saying that answering why something happened is not an issue worth looking into.


Sounds like you're the one believing in fairy tales.

My sister is a scientist in a lab working on a cure for Alzheimer's. She has to talk about why a certain response happen in the lab rats. If she doesn't come up with the why, then the how is nothing noteworthy.

[benefactor]

And, no, that isn’t an “evasion” tactic, but the chips just fail so that you’re a person on the internet that I don’t know & I only entrust that info with people I do know—at least fairly well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kiiuc0M4L40

[pgardn]

Thread discussing scientific reasoning about the origin of everything. I add that we need a why behind any how.


Pretty much standard in the science world is it not? You argue against science saying that answering why something happened is not an issue worth looking into.


Sounds like you're the one believing in fairy tales.

My sister is a scientist in a lab working on a cure for Alzheimer's. She has to talk about why a certain response happen in the lab rats. If she doesn't come up with the why, then the how is nothing noteworthy.

But she can't say, because God said so. If the intent of the rat comes down to a supernatural set of explanations, it's no use in a science setting because it can't be tested/observed. The why will involve some established neurological reaction model to a set of circumstances, chemical, environmental, both...

I thoroughly believe there there is a place for religion and philosophy in the lives of humans. The problem, in my opinion,is that religious types set down a set of inflexible rules that sometimes conflict with rational observations and models ...ex. the Earth is the center of the universe. "I don't know" is fair and perfectly reasonable response. Religion and philosophy often discuss the nature of fairness, right and wrong, etc... Unless you are dealing directly with brains and explaining this through some sort of advantage in a social hierarchy, you get nowhere in science.

Sorry to interject. This was for another poster. But I like these types of discussions.

I see the aloof nature that science can appear to bestow upon a human brain trying to reason through something the brain might never have been set up to do. We will never answer everything we want to know through science IMO. It's a restricted use endeavor. We also must realize the possible answers given by religion and philosophy will sometimes not satisfy our reason oriented brains. I also challenge my own word, reason, in the aforementioned. "We" really believe we have no flaws in logic and reasoning... that's strange to me. We believe our ability to sense and describe the world about us is immune to deep fundamental flaws... That's strange.

[Blake]

Thread discussing scientific reasoning about the origin of everything. I add that we need a why behind any how.


Pretty much standard in the science world is it not? You argue against science saying that answering why something happened is not an issue worth looking into.


Sounds like you're the one believing in fairy tales.

My sister is a scientist in a lab working on a cure for Alzheimer's. She has to talk about why a certain response happen in the lab rats. If she doesn't come up with the why, then the how is nothing noteworthy.

You're conflating "how" and "why".

And i'm not sure you know what a fairy tale is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Agreed, but your ALWAYS going to run into the "but where did that come from? Issue. It's an issue that the more the thinks about it the more your head hurts. Matter cannot be created not destroyed so where did it come from? And religion can't answer that either. If God created everything/anything, where did he come from? Neither will ever fully answer those questions.

Only from creationist retards intent on the first cause proof of God.

The reality is our need to temporally order everything is not necessarily the truth.

[mingus]

It's like little kids believing in Santa. They're adorable too.

Oh okay.

[Blake]

http://zgur.20minutes-blogs.fr/media/00/01/3771686853.jpg

[sickdsm]

You're conflating "how" and "why".

And i'm not sure you know what a fairy tale is.



So your saying science is content knowing the how of twins being born but could care less about the why?

[sickdsm]

But she can't say, because God said so. If the intent of the rat comes down to a supernatural set of explanations, it's no use in a science setting because it can't be tested/observed. The why will involve some established neurological reaction model to a set of circumstances, chemical, environmental, both...

I thoroughly believe there there is a place for religion and philosophy in the lives of humans. The problem, in my opinion,is that religious types set down a set of inflexible rules that sometimes conflict with rational observations and models ...ex. the Earth is the center of the universe. "I don't know" is fair and perfectly reasonable response. Religion and philosophy often discuss the nature of fairness, right and wrong, etc... Unless you are dealing directly with brains and explaining this through some sort of advantage in a social hierarchy, you get nowhere in science.

Sorry to interject. This was for another poster. But I like these types of discussions.

I see the aloof nature that science can appear to bestow upon a human brain trying to reason through something the brain might never have been set up to do. We will never answer everything we want to know through science IMO. It's a restricted use endeavor. We also must realize the possible answers given by religion and philosophy will sometimes not satisfy our reason oriented brains. I also challenge my own word, reason, in the aforementioned. "We" really believe we have no flaws in logic and reasoning... that's strange to me. We believe our ability to sense and describe the world about us is immune to deep fundamental flaws... That's strange.

Not sure if that half of the post was intended for me or not.


For the record I'm on the side of science. People seem quick to assume, some are always looking for a conflict. I always point to science, the flip side is idiots like Bouton's. Anti GMO type are the liberal equivalent of believing a big ark carried two of every kind of animal through a flood.

[Blake]

So your saying science is content knowing the how of twins being born but could care less about the why?

Why would science care why the mom decided/didn't decide to get pregnant?

How did the Solar System come into existence? Explainable

Why did the Solar System come into existence? Philosophy

[pgardn]

Not sure if that half of the post was intended for me or not.


For the record I'm on the side of science. People seem quick to assume, some are always looking for a conflict. I always point to science, the flip side is idiots like Bouton's. Anti GMO type are the liberal equivalent of believing a big ark carried two of every kind of animal through a flood.

It's to the general audience. And a response to your post.

Underlined.... Absolutely.

Science, philosophy, and religion are very different type of efforts to answer different questions due to very different human needs. We crave explanations. The power of science lies in its predictive power, for the most part. But there are other questions we have that don't lend themselves to science.

So I tend to see the differences between these very human endeavors instead of overlapping them. It just makes more sense to me. And I see humans as limited in what we can know. Science just happens to be endlessly fascinating to me.

[pgardn]

Good and bad people.

Discuss.

Where are our philosophy types and our theologians...

[sickdsm]

Why would science care why the mom decided/didn't decide to get pregnant?

How did the Solar System come into existence? Explainable

Why did the Solar System come into existence? Philosophy

The why being we know how identical twins are formed but not why.

[Blake]

The why being we know how identical twins are formed but not why.

Uh. Feel free to explain why they are formed then.

[sickdsm]

Uh. Feel free to explain why they are formed then.

Can't quite figure out if you think you need to get the last word, your just an idiot, or your just bitter.


The science community is working very hard on the why issues. When did i ever infer that i was smarter or knew more that the scientists that work in that field? If I knew the answer i'd contact someone that could verify it........

[Blake]

Can't quite figure out if you think you need to get the last word, your just an idiot, or your just bitter.


The science community is working very hard on the why issues. When did i ever infer that i was smarter or knew more that the scientists that work in that field? If I knew the answer i'd contact someone that could verify it........

Yeah, you're still conflating "how" and "why"

[boutons_deux]

scientists work with the rational, any why, if there is one, will not be in the rational domain.

[Blake]

Can't quite figure out if you think you need to get the last word, your just an idiot.......

The science community is working very hard on the why issues.

K, I'm gonna throw you a bone.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2010/05/04/126512360/the-how-and-the-why-can-science-explain-purpose

After this, you're on your own.

[RandomGuy]

The fact that you think there are odds to begin with is wherein you go wrong. The conditions for human life independent of a deity are non-existent.

How do you know that?

[RandomGuy]

Whoa settle down. Great things can be made from nothing and it needs nothing to start the process. That's what your saying? Then there still would be the why.

Sorry, re-read my post, and it's overall tone wasn't quite what I was shooting for, which is more laid back.

I do not claim "everything came from nothing", no.

I merely say "I don't know". I just don't fill in the blank with my favorite explanation.

I don't know "why" either.

We don't know enough about the universe, and may never know, that such a thing REQUIRES some vague, ill-defined being to happen. Things happen. Things don't happen.

I just don't see any good reason to think that any of it was intentional.

[RandomGuy]

scientists work with the rational, any why, if there is one, will not be in the rational domain.

To some extent.

Why do the tides come in? The moon orbits the planet, and gravity causes changes in sea level.

Ultimate purpose... that is up to us, IMO. I don't think there is. We are ultimately a happenstance of the way the universe is put together.

I liken it to the puddle analogy.


Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.