Which is everything that's wrong with this country, both from the Republican and liberal perspective. My views on the right wing bible belt are obvious so there's no need to go further on det one, but I'm sick of liberal politicians whoring gay marriage to pander to liberals when their economic and foreign policy views suck.
I bring up gay marriage when it comes to religion, but politics wise, it's pretty obvious that gay marriage being universally legal is inevitable in this country, so supporting the legalization of gay marriage shouldn't be enough reason to send someone to congress, or in Obama's case the white house. He's a major example of a liberal politician who uses social issues to get liberal votes in spite of the fact he's a corporate and zionist shill.
It would be if someone wanted to use today's science to prove the existence of God. IMO what he is saying is that existence of God is currently beyond the realm and capabilities of Science. Remember Science is always evolving. You could not expect to prove the existence of Atoms in the year 650B.C. does not mean eventually science could not evolve to prove such thing.
Please show me any scriptural evidence to the contrary.
See, this why is you don't understand what I'm saying. Metaphysics isn't something a person chooses to believe. It's a realm of questions that exist in the intellectual universe. The question, "Is there a reason for all this?" Is something you can say yes to, no to, or IDGAF to, but it's not something you can believe or not belief in. Metaphysics have no place in science because science doesn't strive to answer those questions. Science is based on empiricism, not rationalism. That doesn't make science superior; it just makes them different.
It doesn't matter that both sociology and chemistry are sciences. If theism were a science, then there'd be no need for an analogy in the first place. The point I'm trying to make is that you can't use incompatible disciplines to define each other. Sociology isn't pointless just because it can't explain chemistry. In the same way, metaphysics isn't pointless just because it doesn't explain science.
Theism isn't a theory; it's a belief. It goes beyond science. In that same way, atheism also goes beyond science. Neither one affects the workability of scientific theories. When was the last time a belief in god (not belief in a religion) got in the way of science?
Name a single "why" that was ascertained empirically. Don't list a how, like explaining that gravity is why the Earth moves around the sun. A genuine motive/reason that explains some natural process.No, science strives to answer all the questions. The reality is that certain questions cannot be answered right now. Could be because technology hasn't evolved enough yet, because of insurmountable time constrains, etc. So when it cannot answer a question, the result is: "We don't know yet", not some magical/metaphysical attribution to the observation. If science did that, there would be no incentive to further research. Every unknown would automatically be "metaphysical/god/deity" and move on.
Yeah, once again, this retort stems from you misunderstanding what metaphysics is. It's not mysticism or supernaturalism, like you seem to think. I showed why religion doesn't have to be based in theism, and why theism doesn't have to entail religion. That DOES entirely address the idea that they are both based in the same premise; they're not.But you didn't address it. You keep bringing up imaginary stuff that has nothing to do with science. If your stance is "I believe in metaphysics and invisible dudes in the sky that have nothing to do with science" then, okay.
The whole point of my argument is that taking the strong view that god doesn't exists is neither necessary nor helpful when pursuing science. You can explain how the universe works in its entirety without even addressing the notion of god. Science doesn't answer why, because why isn't determined through empiricism. It's determined (albeit by no means definitively or even accurately) through rationalism. Both science and metaphysics guide humans. In fact, metaphysics guides science in the first place.You replied to my post where I stated that the logical conclusion from not knowing is stating "We don't know who created what yet, further research is needed".
I wasn't making an argument to defend/attack theism/atheism/religion. It's clear anybody can believe in whatever the they want.
You're conflating two completely different arguments. The scientific process hasn't evolved much at all. You *always* start from a testable, falsifiable theory. What you're saying that's evolving is technology. For example, only recently we were able to test some of Eistein's theory of relativity claims. But in order to actually test a theory, you need to explain what you should see when you observe the phenomena. In other words, make it falsifiable.
There's no such thing with a deity. Anything non-empirical is just one giant wild guess without any ability to test it.
Thanks for trying to clarify, but Nono's right. I AM saying that science can NEVER disprove the existence of god. I mean, I guess god could just show himself one day and put an end to all this like he did in that one South Park episode. But my point is that science deals with causes, not reasons. Finding out everything about how the universe works doesn't mean that it doesn't work that way for a reason. The universe could just be one huge computer program that we live in, and us figuring out the code to it doesn't allow us to dismiss the idea that someone wrote the code.
More functionally, I was addressing the general idea that atheists hold that the belief in god is innately irrational; it's not. What makes it look that way is the constraint the notion of god has due to all the extensions that people add on. God doesn't have to be some invisible man in the sky. He doesn't have to be good or love us. He doesn't have to come save us if where in trouble, or tell us how to live our lives. We dismiss the idea of god because what ignorant (not in a bad way) people attributed to him no longer jives with the way we understand the world to work now.
In my personal belief, our lives are predetermined due to the causal closure of the physical, which is a theory most atheists should hold. We are machines running on our paths. I don't necessarily think there's a reason to this, but I don't think there's an intelligence to it. I think we should try to understand what that intelligence is, which is why I love science and pursued it in college.
Last edited by Chinook; 05-01-2013 at 06:41 PM.
Agree with your analysis of science just fine. But just as it's irresponsible to say that there is a god because you can't disprove it, so too is it irresponsible to say that there isn't a god because you can't prove it. For all we know, god is sitting out in space like he is in Futurama waiting for someone to bump into him. Neither of us believe it, but I think the logical thing to do is not to dismiss it.
God's law(Torah) is not Jewish law, but the Talmud is. The Messiah came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil the law. We are under the Spirit of the law, which is more restrictive than the letter of the law. Under the letter of the law you can take the gay,witch and sins which require the death penalty outside the city, and stone him to death.
right now. As science was unable to test existece of Atoms in 650B.C.
Who knows in 500 years science might be able to prove souls and an ultimate soul exists?
well science can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus of the Easter Bunny either for example. Or that I have a pair of invisible hands. Science is just a little peek hole that humans use to discern the universe.
Completely disagree. Metaphysics is entirely a mental construction that a person chooses to believe in or not, much like theism, religion, god, the flying spaghetti monster, etc.
A perfectly normal answer to that question is "I don't know", and it's a perfectly logical and valid answer. When you start attributing the unknown to something else you're doing it on your own volition.
You would need to establish that metaphysics is a 'discipline' (a field of study) in the first place, and not a bunch of made up stuff. The reason is not a science is because it isn't serious. There's no bar like the one set by the scientific process. Anybody can smoke a joint and be a meta-physicist.
Galileo? Intelligent design? And ofcourse it affects the workability of scientific theories: it's inherently incompatible. As I said before, if we take as a premise that everything unknown is the product of some metaphysical effect, there's no longer an incentive to do any further research.
We don't know yet. That's the answer. And it's a perfectly fine answer as to why. Now if you have a testable, verifiable theory of why, present it, and science will be happy to take a look at it.
There's no requirement to attribute what we don't know to anything. People that do, do it entirely on what they choose to guess it is.
I'd like to know what you think metaphysics is. Not even the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy apparently really knows.
Completely disagree here too. Science doesn't answer 'why' simply because nobody has come up with a theory that fits the scientific process and makes sense. Science can perfectly address that question when such an empirical theory is proposed.
Also completely disagree to put science and metaphysics at the same level. Science actually provide solid building blocks for the evolution of society (technology is a contemporary prime example of that). Metaphysics is basically a mental jerk off.
And no, what drives science is the discovery of the unknown. Not the direct attribution of the unknown to some imaginary en y.
Asking to prove a negative is a logical fallacy (the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"). I keep telling you this, but I get the impression you don't understand what that means.
Where's the Soul theory that proposes a testable, falsifiable claim?
A 'Soul' isn't even a theory, much less a testable theory (unlike atoms). It's simply imagination construct attributing the unknown to 'something'.
If somebody came up with a testable 'soul' theory, then sure. It probably wouldn't be called 'soul', but what it really is.
Yes, and you can't (and shouldn't) try to assert that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't exist (or never existed, to be more accurate) as a 100-percent definitive view. It's functionally definitive, though.
There are logical defenses (meaning defenses through logic, not iron-clad defenses) of the existence of god that I touched on upthread. But I'm getting exhausted, and I've been putting off studying for my finals for far too long.
So I say we should call a armistice, ElNono . I am not trying to infringe on your beliefs, and I hope I didn't come off that way. I was aiming to define the debate more accurately so that people wouldn't just keep shouting back and forth at each other. It didn't really work out, but whatever. We agree functionally, and we can agree to disagree on the rest.
If you want to discuss any of this further, I'm game in about a week or so. But I have about eight hours of transcribing to do. Those multi-quote messages will be the death of me, I swear.
where was the atomic theory in 650 B.C.??
Nono in 650B.C.: "if someone came up with a testable 'atom' theory, then sure. It probably wouldn't be called 'atom' but what it really is.A 'Soul' isn't even a theory, much less a testable theory (unlike atoms). It's simply imagination construct attributing the unknown to 'something'.
If somebody came up with a testable 'soul' theory, then sure. It probably wouldn't be called 'soul', but what it really is.
I'm good. We disagree and that's fine by me.
and not even Science should be taken as a 100 percent definitive view. It is probably the closest to reality we can get but IMO still not 'it'
In the Western tradition, the existence of atoms was first proposed by Greek philosophers such as Democritus, Leucippus, and the Epicureans. The atomists theorized that the natural world consists of two fundamental parts: indivisible atoms and empty void. Atoms are indestructible and immutable and there are an infinite variety of shapes and sizes. They move through the void, bouncing off each other, sometimes becoming hooked with one or more others to form a cluster. Clusters of different shapes, arrangements, and positions give rise to the various macroscopic substances in the world.
Looks like a testable, falsifiable theory to me. Turns out that they were wrong too, we now know atoms are not indestructible.
hater in 2013A.D.: "where was the atomic theory in 650 B.C.??"
Good. We both believe in science and all that. I don't think debating our disagreements is destructive, either. It's just gets exhausting in text and what not. I should have learned my lesson after trying to debate my friends through text messages.I'm good. We disagree and that's fine by me.
there was a reason why I picked year 650B.C. Those theories came much later.
Still, how is that theory testable in 650B.C.? (or 300-B.C. for that matter?)
I think you're confusing what 'testable' means. It doesn't mean that it needs to be tested right at that moment.
Testability, a property applying to an empirical hypothesis, involves two components: (1) the logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means that counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible, and (2) the practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such counterexamples if they do exist. In short, a hypothesis is testable if there is some real hope of deciding whether it is true or false of real experience. Upon this property of its cons uent hypotheses rests the ability to decide whether a theory can be supported or falsified by the data of actual experience. If hypotheses are tested, initial results may also be labeled inconclusive.
In other words, the 'data' that eventually proves or disproves the theory can come much later. What makes a theory testable are the claims of what that data will look like.
And multiple other commandments (there's a lot of them) tell us to kill, so...
not arguing that at all.
not even arguing that there currently is no valid God theory. Although not agreeing either.
I'm saying sometime in the future there might be a valid god theory and even later in the future it might be proven. To say there is no possibility of that would be equivalent to saying the same about Atoms in 650B.C.
The current 'god' construct would need to change radically to an empirical form. Atoms never had that problem.
Crazy how Collins got us here talking on a range of social topics most of it having nothing to do with how many poles he smoked ...
I was raised in a faith based home, and still go though I struggle with my own faith t times ...
One thing my phobic uncle brought up to my Deacon grandfather (his pops) was where were the dinosaurs in the Bible?
I know it's a simple argument and one that you can easily dismiss with faith ... but when I was going through a questioning the world phase as a freshman in college ...
I like my late uncle wondered how did man and dinos co-exist?
I moved past that and look at the OT as kind of a frame-work ... but I do get why some question it ...because I did so myself at one time.
Last edited by Killakobe81; 05-01-2013 at 08:07 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
