NationStates Jolt Archive

With so many theories of how we came to be from the Big Bang to Creationism to even he Chaos Theory, my question as a firm believer in God and Jesus Christ is this...

Does anyone really give a flying toss how we got here? I mean, is it really that important whether it was a single reaction that caused a cosmic chain reaction or whether it was some cosmic entity that placed everything in perfect place?

I suppose my main question is this:

Should we be focusing on answering this question, or is it time we moved on with our lives and look to the present day/future?

With so many theories of how we came to be from the Big Bang to Creationism to even he Chaos Theory, my question as a firm believer in God and Jesus Christ is this...

Does anyone really give a flying toss how we got here? I mean, is it really that important whether it was a single reaction that caused a cosmic chain reaction or whether it was some cosmic entity that placed everything in perfect place?

I suppose my main question is this:

Should we be focusing on answering this question, or is it time we moved on with our lives and look to the present day/future?

That depends on the asnwers to the following questions.

If you are religous are you prepared to see that some people are not and will never be, and in addition are you prepeared to leave them alone, and stop telling them how evil they are?

If you are not religious are you prepared to see that some people are religous and will always be so, and in addition are you prepeard to leave them alone and stop telling them how stupid they are?

With so many theories of how we came to be from the Big Bang to Creationism to even he Chaos Theory

what, exactly, do you think chaos theory is?

Does anyone really give a flying toss how we got here?

yes

There is no reason why we should believe in the same thing, is there?No. Because belief is irrelevant. Knowledge is key.

There is no reason why we should believe in the same thing, is there?

is there not value in truth? i mean, presumably there is some fact of the matter. why shouldn't we grant higher status to views that come closer to expressing those facts, and lower status to views that are just incorrect?

With that attitude, who cares about any (pre-)history? Who cares about truth?non-believers. ;)

That depends on the asnwers to the following questions.

If you are religous are you prepared to see that some people are not and will never be, and in addition are you prepeared to leave them alone, and stop telling them how evil they are?

If you are not religious are you prepared to see that some people are religous and will always be so, and in addition are you prepeard to leave them alone and stop telling them how stupid they are?

Well as I said I'm a believer in God, but personally you can believe whatever you want and, hell, you could turn to me and say "I completely disagree with you on everything, bla bla bla." and to me I just think "fine - you believe what you believe, I'll believe what I believe and we'll just move on".

There is no reason why we should believe in the same thing, is there?

With so many theories of how we came to be from the Big Bang to Creationism to even he Chaos Theory, my question as a firm believer in God and Jesus Christ is this...

Does anyone really give a flying toss how we got here? I mean, is it really that important whether it was a single reaction that caused a cosmic chain reaction or whether it was some cosmic entity that placed everything in perfect place?

I suppose my main question is this:

Should we be focusing on answering this question, or is it time we moved on with our lives and look to the present day/future?

as a firm non-believer in god and jesus christ, i find that i am more than content to let the various scientists investigate how we got here. i am in no way qualified to do the research or to even critique the work of others.

so whatever the current theory is, im fine with it while knowing that that theory will change and that by the time im at the end of my life it might bear little resemblance to what is believed today.

With so many theories of how we came to be from the Big Bang to Creationism to even he Chaos Theory, my question as a firm believer in God and Jesus Christ is this...

Does anyone really give a flying toss how we got here? I mean, is it really that important whether it was a single reaction that caused a cosmic chain reaction or whether it was some cosmic entity that placed everything in perfect place?

I suppose my main question is this:

Should we be focusing on answering this question, or is it time we moved on with our lives and look to the present day/future?

With that attitude, who cares about any (pre-)history? Who cares about truth?

"Those Who Do Not Study History Are Doomed To Repeat It" there is a theory that the "Big Bang" is the result fo two paralell universes coliding, and that this happens on a fairly regular basis. If this is so, when the next "collision" occurs, we may be able to find a way to survive it instead of simply reseting with the rest of the system.
In addition, by looking to the "past" we are able to see things like how stars form, further enhancing our knowlege of the universe.

Well as I said I'm a believer in God, ...which god? and why?

No. Because belief is irrelevant. Knowledge is key.

Nope belife is far from irrelevant, it's a massive force in our existance.

is there not value in truth? i mean, presumably there is some fact of the matter. why shouldn't we grant higher status to views that come closer to expressing those facts, and lower status to views that are just incorrect?

Which begs the question, what is true?

There is no reason why we should believe in the same thing, is there?

And like so many believers, you, too, don't seem to be able to detect the vital difference between believe and thought.
If we look at the given facts and reach conclusions, we THINK.
If we look at old books and then go out and try to make reality match what we read, we BELIEVE.
The first is vital for the advancement of humanity in all fields of life. The second, I'm not quite sure what it's good for.

First of all I must commend you on asking an intellegent question.

However, why do you want to know? Does it truly matter?Which god do you believe in? And on what basis do you hold that belief?

Which begs the question, what is true?

I think, therefore I am ;)
I observe, therefore there is truth.

First of all I must commend you on asking an intellegent question.

However, why do you want to know? Does it truly matter?

Nope it does not matter.

I think, therefore I am ;)
I observe, therefore there is truth.

Heh so you can trust that your sense data is true then?

Does anyone really give a flying toss how we got here?

Yes, I do.


I mean, is it really that important whether it was a single reaction that caused a cosmic chain reaction or whether it was some cosmic entity that placed everything in perfect place?

Yes, it is.


I suppose my main question is this:

Should we be focusing on answering this question, or is it time we moved on with our lives and look to the present day/future?
If you are incapable of doing both, I pity you.

I think, therefore I am
I observe, therefore there is truth.And when you do not observe, there is no truth?

which god? and why?

First of all I must commend you on asking an intellegent question.

However, why do you want to know? Does it truly matter?

"Those Who Do Not Study History Are Doomed To Repeat It" there is a theory that the "Big Bang" is the result fo two paralell universes coliding, and that this happens on a fairly regular basis. If this is so, when the next "collision" occurs, we may be able to find a way to survive it instead of simply reseting with the rest of the system.
In addition, by looking to the "past" we are able to see things like how stars form, further enhancing our knowlege of the universe.

Wow

I have never seen a statement that so eloquently shows that the writer knows nothing at all about physics but has read a couple of X-Men comics and believes the stuff in them.

Which begs the question, what is true?

seems like an empirical question to me

Heh so you can trust that your sense data is true then?

Well, my senses and mind are all I have available to experience and make sense of reality. Other than that, I don't have anything.
I can use my senses to observe, and my mind to analyse, as well as to gather the thoughts others formulate and compare them with what I perceive.
The more data I can gather, the more acurate my deductions about the underlying patterns of reality would be.

seems like an empirical question to me

Heh I guess so, or is it? Truth, is as far as I'm concerned, almost(remember I said that later) a misdomenor.

What is true is based on our senory data, which as we all know sometimes cannot be relied on. So in all truth there has to be an element of belife.

But we know that also don't we.

And when you do not observe, there is no truth?

Not for me, no. But I observe others observing, which leads me to the conclusion that reality exists outside my observations.

Heh I guess so, or is it? Truth, is as far as I'm concerned, almost(remember I said that later) a misdomenor.

What is true is based on our senory data, which as we all know sometimes cannot be relied on. So in all truth there has to be an element of belife.

But we know that also don't we.

Believing in our sensory input?
That would be true for people who believe in optical illusions, I guess. We can check one sensory input with other senses, and double-check with a second person if they perceive the input the same way, etc.

Heh so you can trust that your sense data is true then?It's not a matter of 'trusting' sense data or not. It has to do with the fact that we cannot talk about sense data without, well, talking about sense data! You can't trust something to be one way when there is only one option; you can't trust sense data to be true when if you didn't have such data you wouldn't be able to talk about it. As such, it makes no sense to talk about "truth" or "trust" etc, in relation to sense data in general. There simply is no criterion for truth in that context and as a result the statement means nothing. It's not even a question.

Well, my senses and mind are all I have available to experience and make sense of reality. Other than that, I don't have anything.
I can use my senses to observe, and my mind to analyse, as well as to gather the thoughts others formulate and compare them with what I perceive.
The more data I can gather, the more acurate my deductions about the underlying patterns of reality would be.

Yeah so you place trust that what you sense is the way things really are. In other words you belive that what you see is realy that way; that cup on your desk is really that shape.

Your mind is capable of many more things than makeing sense of your sense input data. It can for example create rationals for things you don't understand, it can also help you to meaning in life(what ever meaning that may be)

Ultimatly I think that is what the OP is touching on, and I agree.

Believing in our sensory input?
That would be true for people who believe in optical illusions, I guess. We can check one sensory input with other senses, and double-check with a second person if they perceive the input the same way, etc.

And if they don't? Then how do we detirmine who is right and who is wrong?

Yeah so you place trust that what you sense is the way things really are. In other words you belive that what you see is realy that way; that cup on your desk is really that shape.

Your mind is capable of many more things than makeing sense of your sense input data. It can for example create rationals for things you don't understand, it can also help you to meaning in life(what ever meaning that may be)

Ultimatly I think that is what the OP is touching on, and I agree.

I think there's belief and then there's belief.
Yes, I trust my sense when they tell me the cup has blue stripes, while I've had small arguments with my BF cause he thought they're green. Which leads directly to the conclusion that colours are perceived differently by different people.

However, if my senses told me that the stripes just changed colour, I would not believe them straight away, but try to figure out if THEY changed or if my perception did.

With so many theories of how we came to be from the Big Bang to Creationism to even he Chaos Theory, my question as a firm believer in God and Jesus Christ is this...

Chaos Theory is not in itself a theory of the origins of the Universe. Creationism is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word, and it won't even be a hypothesis until they can come up with a way to falsify the existence of an omnipotent being...

Does anyone really give a flying toss how we got here? I mean, is it really that important whether it was a single reaction that caused a cosmic chain reaction or whether it was some cosmic entity that placed everything in perfect place?

Do you have no curiosity? No imagination? No sense of wonder at the Universe? No interest in its origins and (possible) end?

Even if you don't, these questions still have practical value: Stalin tried to ignore the fact of Darwinian evolution in favour of a form of Lamarkism, and the result was famine and such damage to the study of biology in Russia that Russian Genetics still lags behind even today.

Or take nuclear power: if Creationists are right in saying that rates of radioactive decay can change significantly (they can't) then every nuclear reactor in the world is a ticking timebomb. Sure, turning them off will have disasterous consequences for world energy supply, but that's nothing compared the consequences of leaving them running if Creationism is true.

Or take animal testing: if we don't share a common ancestor with other animals then there's no reason to suppose that any animal testing will even yield results with any relevence to the effect of drugs on humans, so if Evolution is false then we need to radically rethink drug trials.

Or take computing: if Evolution is false then we should scrap the promising work being done of Evolutionary Computing (a fascinating area where circuits are designed to 'mutate' and are then exposed to Darwinian pressures, leading to fantastically clever arrangements with some components which are simply undesignable by human designers).

Or take the environment: if the Earth is only six to ten thousand years old as the Creationists assert, then much of the evidence for Greenhouse gases as a driver of Climate Change goes out of the window, and we should stop 'wasting' money on Green Technology.

Or take fossil fuels: if Creationism is right then oil doesn't take millions of years to form so we should stop worrying about the coming energy crisis and Peak Oil and start looking for ways to stimulate more natural production of oil.

It's not enough to say "It doesn't matter, it has no inpact on the here and now". It does.

I suppose my main question is this:

Should we be focusing on answering this question, or is it time we moved on with our lives and look to the present day/future?

You can't do the latter without considering the former. Creationist ignorance is dangerous.

Wow

I have never seen a statement that so eloquently shows that the writer knows nothing at all about physics but has read a couple of X-Men comics and believes the stuff in them.

Multi D theory, look it up.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077357/

Does anyone really give a flying toss how we got here? I mean, is it really that important whether it was a single reaction that caused a cosmic chain reaction or whether it was some cosmic entity that placed everything in perfect place?

While it does not unduly influence my daily life, I find it fascinating.

Should we be focusing on answering this question, or is it time we moved on with our lives and look to the present day/future?

Well.. knowledge of evolution IS required for medical stuff and such these days.
The use of the Bible in this day and age on the other hand... sure you want to go there ;) ?

It's not a matter of 'trusting' sense data or not. It has to do with the fact that we cannot talk about sense data without, well, talking about sense data! You can't trust something to be one way when there is only one option; you can't trust sense data to be true when if you didn't have such data you wouldn't be able to talk about it. As such, it makes no sense to talk about "truth" or "trust" etc, in relation to sense data in general. There simply is no criterion for truth in that context and as a result the statement means nothing. It's not even a question.

It is too a question, look it had a question mark and everything!


Lets look though at the wider reason behind the question, which was in response to Cabra's answer to my question of what is true.

She reply I think therefore I am. She thinks therfore there is truth.

My point is all truth is based on our sense data, and as we(as you have pointed out) have no ground from which to base this on other than our sense data, we must nessicarily trust it.

In effect there is no empircal evidance that what we sense is true, other than that offered to us by our senses,(rather like saying the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible) so any statment that tries to assert that there is no place for belife in our life is blatently false.

seems like an empirical question to me

Depends on the definition of truth. If we're taking the statement 'belief X is true' to be equivalent to 'belief X corresponds accurately to reality' then yes, it's an empirical question.

I think there's belief and then there's belief.
Yes, I trust my sense when they tell me the cup has blue stripes, while I've had small arguments with my BF cause he thought they're green. Which leads directly to the conclusion that colours are perceived differently by different people.

However, if my senses told me that the stripes just changed colour, I would not believe them straight away, but try to figure out if THEY changed or if my perception did.

Heh yeah I agree of course, but why make the distinction, between beliefe, and belife?

Heh yeah I agree of course, but why make the distinction, between beliefe, and belife?

Cause one is necessary to function in day-to-day life, the other one, well, isn't.

Cause one is necessary to function in day-to-day life, the other one, well, isn't.

Well I obviously disagree. Let my try it this way.

What would you say was the meaning of life?

Yes, and I reject Cabra's statement as well - I don't think it contains any information either.

No, I don't want to say it's false. Nor do I want to say it's true. The point I was getting at was: it is a misuse of the word "truth" to apply it to that sentence. It doesn't make sense to say we "necessarily trust" sense data, because we do no such thing. Trust doesn't even come into question.

Ahhh okay. I assumed that you hadn't followed my reasoning behind saying it. My bad I guess.

Why does trust not come into what we do with our sense data then?

It is too a question, look it had a question mark and everything!


Lets look though at the wider reason behind the question, which was in response to Cabra's answer to my question of what is true.

She reply I think therefore I am. She thinks therfore there is truth. Yes, and I reject Cabra's statement as well - I don't think it contains any information either.

My point is all truth is based on our sense data, and as we(as you have pointed out) have no ground from which to base this on other than our sense data, we must nessicarily trust it.

In effect there is no empircal evidance that what we sense is true, other than that offered to us by our senses,(rather like saying the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible) so any statment that tries to assert that there is no place for belife in our life is blatently false.No, I don't want to say it's false. Nor do I want to say it's true. The point I was getting at was: it is a misuse of the word "trust" (or "truth" etc) to apply it to that sentence. It doesn't make sense to say we "necessarily trust" sense data, because we do no such thing. Trust doesn't even come into question.

Ahhh okay. I assumed that you hadn't followed my reasoning behind saying it. My bad I guess.

Why does trust not come into what we do with our sense data then?Well, try thinking about it this way: "Do I trust that I am seeing what I'm seeing?" I could only say this meaningfully if there were some other way of seeing with which to compare - but there is not. All that statement does right now is demonstrate that I am not aware of how the word "trust" is used meaningfully - that is, making distinctions. "Can I trust you to take out the trash?" Yes, I will do so. "Do we want to trust this person's measurements?" Yes, we'll use them. "Can I trust you to keep your word regardless of the circumstance?" No, I'm a chaotic character who hates being tied down.

By looking at similar statements you'll see a way (or perhaps several ways) of using "trust" that does not include the way you're using it... and if, like in your case, there is no distinction between "true" senses and "untrue" senses, then you haven't really said much.

Creationism.

Just because I don't get what caused a big bang.

Does anyone really give a flying toss how we got here? I mean, is it really that important whether it was a single reaction that caused a cosmic chain reaction or whether it was some cosmic entity that placed everything in perfect place?

I care! I actually think that any thing else is a waste of human resource. We all spin our sprocket in this society so human specie, yet divided and not focused on what it matters most, could answer question like "where can we find the Creator entity and why did it crated us".


I suppose my main question is this:

[/B]Should we be focusing on answering this question, or is it time we moved on with our lives and look to the present day/future?

Life moves on with or without us thinking of how we got here. I study architecture and play my part in hope that i will be of some use. But i never stop to think of why did the Universe come to be and what lies beyond the first photons from the first reaction [the part of the universe that is not light up]

Creationism.

Just because I don't get what caused a big bang.

That's not a good reason to reject it: the Big Bang is the best theory to explain the evidence (Red-Shifting and background radiation); just because we don't know the cause that's no reason to deny that it makes sense.

Note to self - I am an idiot. Never EVER start a thread which may involve religion in any way, shape or form.

Why not ?

*goes off to smash head of wall repeatedly*

There is a smiley for that ;)

Note to self - I am an idiot. Never EVER start a thread which may involve religion in any way, shape or form.

*goes off to smash head of wall repeatedly*

Why not ?



There is a smiley for that ;)

Well as far as I'm concerned I don't ask people to justify their faith whether it be in science or some order of religion. But in return I choose not to argue my reasons for my faith, so when people ask me to justify it I end up looking like a prick because I just don't want to get into the argument.

Also, sadly religion as a subject leads to argument and fighting.

Well as far as I'm concerned I don't ask people to justify their faith whether it be in science or some order of religion.

Technically you did by implying that if we came to be due to evolution or to careful design does not matter in this day and age.
It does. I already gave the example of medicine.

Well as far as I'm concerned I don't ask people to justify their faith whether it be in science or some order of religion. But in return I choose not to argue my reasons for my faith, so when people ask me to justify it I end up looking like a prick because I just don't want to get into the argument.

Also, sadly religion as a subject leads to argument and fighting.

Most of the replies on this thread are either answering your question or pointing out factual errors in your post (and if you don't want people to disagree with you then equivocating science (i.e. empirical testing of an objective reality) to the blind faith of religion is not the way to go ;)).

I think the trouble starts from when faith stuff is trying to be applied to the real world.

Sure, Jesus or some other godly figure may have walked on water, but anyone else trying the same has to swim or sink. (Frozen water doesn't count, must be liquid in normal temperatures and pressures, and you're not allowed to wear liferafts or similar on your feet.)

So while beliefs and faiths are personal and each one is just as "real" as the other, this world operates via natural laws and there's not anything we can do to it.

Now, some sensible people of faith have decided that yes, god(s) created this world, but the creator(s) also made the natural laws and that the fact that natural laws still exist are the best evidence of god's continued work on this universe. Sounds good enough for me.

Science with actual theorems and verfiable facts is not a faith nor a religion, but when talking about the Beginning of All, I don't give a rat's ass if someone would rather believe that Big Bang started out of nowhere or if it came from some god snapping her fingers. :D

Evolutionary theory is vital to modern medicine, agriculture, and all of biology. It allows us to understand fossil sequences, which means that we can date them, identify marker species to use dating non-igneous rocks, which is essential to locating probable oil reserves. It also has a great deal of relevance in our daily lives. We can explain all of human behaviour as adaptive, and if you don't think that is necessary to "getting on with our lives" then perhaps you are not yet ready to emerge from your life of hermitry.

That just deals with life as we know it. Completely independent theories such as as the big bang and nebula theory have practical and intuitive applications, for example in physics, where it grants insights into subatomic theory which is central to nuclear physics. If we are ever able to create nuclear fusion reactors it will be, at least in part, because of cosmological theories.

It is also enlightening. Any answers to questions concerning the origin of anything, particularly those things most important to us (ie ourselves and the ground beneath us) are valuable in and of themselves. There are many things that science does not yet know, but then, just because religion offers an alternative that may appear (at least on face value) to be more complete, that is no reason to accept that over science.

If then, the question is put to me would I rather confess my ignorance and then employ rational thought and study in an effort to remedy the situation, or instead surrender myself to my ignorance and latch on to whichever explanation is most comfortable and never mind that there is no evidence involved, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the humbling confession.

which god? and why?

If I had to choose, I'd take Lord Shiva from Shaivism. Their "worldly cycle" of creation, existence and destruction is comfortably long enough - hundreds of millions of years to go for the next destruction phase. :p

With so many theories of how we came to be from the Big Bang to Creationism to even he Chaos Theory, my question as a firm believer in God and Jesus Christ is this...

Does anyone really give a flying toss how we got here? I mean, is it really that important whether it was a single reaction that caused a cosmic chain reaction or whether it was some cosmic entity that placed everything in perfect place?

I suppose my main question is this:

Should we be focusing on answering this question, or is it time we moved on with our lives and look to the present day/future?

It is important.
Because it might be possible to find out why we are here, or at least figure out what's outside our universe (if there is more than one, and if we exist).

Criticism of "I think therefore i am", and the sense of "you".
"I think therefore i am" Descartes. (incidently in his meditations he uses, "I am, I exist" which is harder to refute but not too much harder)

This relies on the premise that you think to exist, but how do you know you think? Not just react to certain things. Also just because you might think doesn't necessarily lead to you existing.

What counts as "thinking"? When a bacteria feeds off some food, or when a fly flaps it's wings, when a dog barks. These examples given indicate that what constitutes human "thinking" could be just an especially large combination of sense experience.

The whole "I think therefore i am" thing is pretty weak evidence for proving anything is real. I mean so what if you exist? doesn't mean anyone else does, in fact it's hard to tell if you really do exist in the first place.

I'll give an example,
Say you're watching your favourite TV show, you're really engrossed, then a monster frightens the living daylight's out of you and you jump back in fear, where does the part that makes "you" go when watching the TV? It seems at times like this you forget that you're really there, as you are concentrating on one thing intently the whole I exist thing becomes even more blurred.
Also another criticism is whether you're living in a dream or not.
Not just dreaming when you're awake, but dream and awakeness in an even larger dream?
As Hume said you could be just a collection of nerves that are telling you lots of different messages, but nowhere is there a real sense of "you".

So if we did figure out some new information it would help us humans be able to justify our existance, and make for some interesting ideas.

Well.. knowledge of evolution IS required for medical stuff and such these days.
Yeah, as a developmental neurobiologist, my paycheck specifically requires that I give a crap about how things "got here." So I think I'm biased a bit. :D

Heh, can't remember the source my biochemistry professor mentioned, but we were talking about brain chemistry and how brain's required for our contrived sense of self, and he used this quote to illustrate the matter:

I think I think, therefore I think I am.

Creationism.

Just because I don't get what caused a big bang.Not creationism.

Just because I don't get what caused a creator.

I think that knowing the answer to "where we came from" is its own justification.

Evolutionary theory is vital to modern medicine, agriculture, and all of biology. It allows us to understand fossil sequences, which means that we can date them, identify marker species to use dating non-igneous rocks, which is essential to locating probable oil reserves.

Excellent point. Welcome to the forum by the way. :)

Not creationism.

Just because I don't get what caused a creator.

Probably his or her schoolmates saying "betcha you can't make a universe!"

We're some kid's show-and-tell project. Just pray we'll provide amusement so that he or her decides to keep us instead of flushing us down the toilet.

And same in the simple "it's past 10pm and English isn't my first language" English, please, Jhaha? ^_^

All of you owe Wandering Angels an apology.

His point is cogent. The utter, deliberate abandonment of all science that makes a rigorous, deep examination and modeling of reality is a total waste of time.

What will you do with such knowledge, aside from the several salient and accurate references to applications ranging from the concrete, such as helping preserve human life, to the abstract, such as providing substance to introspection about that life itself?

In fact, he doesn't go far enough. Such frivolous fields as pure mathematics and psychohistory should have all public funding removed, in recognition of the FACT (not the belief, the FACT) that the excercise of reason, cognition, and even imagination are a detraction from the important business of firmly stating our religous beliefs.

Whats wrong with you fucking people?

The sad thing is that views like this are actually held by e.g. presidential candidate Huckabee.
Aside from that - nicely said ;)

All of you owe Wandering Angels an apology.

His point is cogent. The utter, deliberate abandonment of all science that makes a rigorous, deep examination and modeling of reality is a total waste of time.

What will you do with such knowledge, aside from the several salient and accurate references to applications ranging from the concrete, such as helping preserve human life, to the abstract, such as providing substance to introspection about that life itself?

In fact, he doesn't go far enough. Such frivolous fields as pure mathematics and psychohistory should have all public funding removed, in recognition of the FACT (not the belief, the FACT) that the excercise of reason, cognition, and even imagination are a detraction from the important business of firmly stating our religous beliefs.

Whats wrong with you fucking people?

That depends on the asnwers to the following questions.

If you are religous are you prepared to see that some people are not and will never be, and in addition are you prepeared to leave them alone, and stop telling them how evil they are?

I would also add "Are you prepared to do this for people who are religious but of a DIFFERENT religion than yours?"

Not creationism.

Just because I don't get what caused a creator.

No, see you don't get it.

Its perfectly okay to assign ontological primacy and/or infinite recursion to something AS LONG AS its worshipped.

Thats why God is forever both ways and the cycling of universes both ways is just fucking silly.

Descartes proved it in his famous work "On The Selective Application of Properties to Only Ideas You Like". Page 42.

Or take computing: if Evolution is false then we should scrap the promising work being done of Evolutionary Computing (a fascinating area where circuits are designed to 'mutate' and are then exposed to Darwinian pressures, leading to fantastically clever arrangements with some components which are simply undesignable by human designers).


That sounds like a realy bad idea . . . but then I've been watching the Sarah Conner Chroicles.

I think that knowing the answer to "where we came from" is its own justification.

Pfff.

Grow up. You start buying into the self-evidency of meaningful pondering, and you are going to miss A LOT of television shows.

Creationism.

Just because I don't get what caused a big bang.

Didn't you say you were a prodigy?

The sad thing is that views like this are actually held by e.g. presidential candidate Huckabee.
Aside from that - nicely said ;)

I cannot accept your compliment until you apologize for slighting Huckabee.

Pray about it.

I cannot accept your compliment until you apologize for slighting Huckabee.

Pray about it.

Hey, what the hell. I took all that time finding that info for you and you never replied. After I'd said such nice things, too.

S'all well and good constantly being fact hungry but where does it end? When have people gathered all the "facts" about life to such an extent that they need not worry anymore? Belief may not be valid in argumentative terms but what some people fail to see is that belief comprises everything. I challenge anyone - live life without ANY belief, its impossible. Additionally how can we be certain of anything? How many times does science need to "test" something until its fact? twice? 100 times? A million? There is always that damned annoying lil variable.... We know the sun will rise tomorrow - because it always has.... :p

And same in the simple "it's past 10pm and English isn't my first language" English, please, Jhaha? ^_^

I'll give you better than English, I'll give you King James English.

"He that increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow." -Deuteronians, 26:3

What I'm saying is this:

Why think for its own sake? It hurts. Just believe.

I'm joining a space alien cult (seriously).

Well as far as I'm concerned I don't ask people to justify their faith whether it be in science or some order of religion. But in return I choose not to argue my reasons for my faith, so when people ask me to justify it I end up looking like a prick because I just don't want to get into the argument.

Also, sadly religion as a subject leads to argument and fighting.

You're equivocating. The "faith" people have in science is not of the nature of religious faith. The "faith" people have in science is as demonstrably true as your "faith" that when you drink water you won't explode.

You're treating religion and science like they occupy the same space and have the same purpose. Neither is true. Religion/philosphy are speculative answers relating to absolute truth. Science is about emperical truth.

The age old empirical - rational debate. Im all rational I feel. Hume was very flawed and Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum is just undefeatable

which god? and why?

There's only one god who is referred to as "God." He just happens to be worshiped by three major religious groups in different ways. I can't stand the way the Christians, Jews, and Muslims fight over their God being the only true God. It's the same deity people!

Additionally, one lil question about people who hate the Bible. How come one minute your saying the Bible should be burnt or is useless, then the next you make assumptions about God based on Biblical implications. E.g "If God is all powerful why is there suffering?". An Omnipotent God comes from the Bible, if the Bible is so useless why build arguments on its message? Not that the Bible is an amazing book.... shud maybe listen to advice or life guidelines but never follow it word for word - thats just dangerous :(

Religion/philosphy are speculative answers relating to absolute truth. Science is about emperical truth.

religion and philosophy don't occupy the same conceptual space either. phil is much closer conceptually to sci.

and i am not sure about this absolute/empirical truth distinction you are making.

religion and philosophy don't occupy the same conceptual space either. phil is much closer conceptual to sci.

and i am not sure about this absolute/empirical truth distinction you are making.

The thing is Science uses empiricism to build knowledge - epistemology.
Empiricism is gaining knowledge of the world around us through our sensory experiences. E.g You know the sky is blue because you have built knowledge of a blue sky by looking at it with your eyes

"He that increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow." -Deuteronians, 26:3

It actually says that? Jesus Christ. Of all Bible quotes I don't think I've ever hated one more than that.

EDIT: further research tells me that this is actually Ecclesiastes 1:18. And probably has a more sensible context.

What is presented here, however, flies in the face of my entire philosophy. I could never subscribe to a religion that had this as a necessary tenet.

It actually says that? Jesus Christ. Of all Bible quotes I don't think I've ever hated one more than that.

Im with Codru on this one, you did choose a pretty shocking quote lol. The Bible does have some interesting points, its not rubbish, and we can learn from it; but it has a lot of fundamental stuff we should just read past - these parts have no relevance today

An Omnipotent God comes from the Bible, if the Bible is so useless why build arguments on its message?

They are pointing at the inconsistencies in the Bible. You know, one of the reasons they consider it a useless book.

That sounds like a realy bad idea . . . but then I've been watching the Sarah Conner Chroicles.

Heh, it's not as creepy as that :D, more akin to selective breeding of prize livestock. For example, a programmer might assign a selection criteria of being able to turn a light bulb off for a verbal command, and the system which is closest to that ideal is 'bred' for the next round. The really awesome part is that some of the most successful systems turned out to have sections which were unconnected to the rest of the circuit, and in theory shouldn't be able to affect the circuit at all, but if they were taken out the entire system stopped working (if you're a Discworld fan think of Hex, the Unseen University's computer, and the mouse's cheese). It turned out that these isolated sections were subtly affecting the overall circuit through electromagnetic effects which electrical engineers normally try to subdue in systems because they're too complicated to use effectively. Like I said, fascinating stuff.

With ideas like this in science, I honestly can't understand why so many people feel the need to invoke superstition and the supernatural to provide a sense of wonder.

True, but it was written by hundreds of different people - what wud anyone expect :p Nothing wrong with a healthy belief in God and creationism, but 1. Forcing it upon other people is wrong 2. constantly arguing ping-pong style gets really boring. Cant people do better things? Like rescue pandas ^^ love those lil patchy guys

...
If we look at the given facts and reach conclusions, we THINK.
If we look at old books and then go out and try to make reality match what we read, we BELIEVE.
...

Um, it's not that simple.

There is no single logical conclusion that follows from given facts. There are a vast range of conclusions that can be determined from a set of given facts. How do we choose one over the other? How do we formualte a theory from some observed facts? The short answer is we make a creative leap. I'm not saying that it is a totally irrational and intuitive leap. All I am saying is that it has elements of intuition and subjectivity to it. Also, we tend to assume that other theories that could affect the data are true.

So, when we look at the given facts, and we reach conclusions, we not only think, but we also imagine and even show a little bit of faith.

religion and philosophy don't occupy the same conceptual space either. phil is much closer conceptually to sci.

and i am not sure about this absolute/empirical truth distinction you are making.

Science does purport to deal with absolute truth, in other words what is necessarily and absolutely true. For example, it could be absolutely true that we are operating in The Matrix. However, science doesn't bother with such things. Absolute truth can't actually be explored. All we can go on is what can be observed directly or indirectly. As such, Science is emperical.

Philosophy on the other hand, as well as religion, can speculate on anything with or without the observable data to back it up. Philosophy is only different form religion in that it has to be logical. Otherwise, it does not experience the limits of science.

True, but it was written by hundreds of different people - what wud anyone expect :p Nothing wrong with a healthy belief in God and creationism, but 1. Forcing it upon other people is wrong 2. constantly arguing ping-pong style gets really boring. Cant people do better things? Like rescue pandas ^^ love those lil patchy guys

As has already been pointed out, there's an awful lot wrong with Creationism. People often seem to think that Creationism involves throwing out a small section of Biology, but in reality it requires us to tear the heart out of Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Geology and Ecology (to name but a few). How many oil companies go looking for oil based on Flood Geology as opposed to Uniformitarian Geology?

Um, it's not that simple.

There is no single logical conclusion that follows from given facts. There are a vast range of conclusions that can be determined from a set of given facts. How do we choose one over the other? How do we formualte a theory from some observed facts? The short answer is we make a creative leap. I'm not saying that it is a totally irrational and intuitive leap. All I am saying is that it has elements of intuition and subjectivity to it. Also, we tend to assume that other theories that could affect the data are true.

So, when we look at the given facts, and we reach conclusions, we not only think, but we also imagine and even show a little bit of faith.

Oh, nonsense. It's not a leap. We take the most sensible path to explain what we've observed. The simplest answer that explains the data. Sometimes those answers are quite creative, but they are not leaps in the way you describe and any form of a leap is nearly never necessary. When we really cannot form a conclusion we leave the question open, for example by calling it a singularity without ascribing any traits to it unless we have evidence for them.

I'll give you better than English, I'll give you King James English.

Wasn't King James gay? I seem to remember that for some reason... and the English Bible has never made much sense anyway. LOL

True, but it was written by hundreds of different people - what wud anyone expect :p Nothing wrong with a healthy belief in God and creationism, but 1. Forcing it upon other people is wrong 2. constantly arguing ping-pong style gets really boring. Cant people do better things? Like rescue pandas ^^ love those lil patchy guys




Oh...how I disagree.

As has already been pointed out, there's an awful lot wrong with Creationism. People often seem to think that Creationism involves throwing out a small section of Biology, but in reality it requires us to tear the heart out of Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Geology and Ecology (to name but a few). How many oil companies go looking for oil based on Flood Geology as opposed to Uniformitarian Geology?

I guess but who cares how much stuff a belief may contradict? Really? Not many people. If someone wants to hold their belief, often they wont care who it undermines. Hence, that is what defines a belief. I agree there is alot wrong with creationism but isnt there alot wrong with everything? Doesnt mean it should be discarded to the "irrellevant" pile by the liberal elite....

I can't help poking this in... whenever creationism is mentioned, this comes to mind.

http://www.venganza.org/

Also, to any actually religious people of faith out there (there might just be one or two of you in NSG), keep in mind that your church is as good as theirs. :)

USA, the promised land of religions. :p

Oh, nonsense. It's not a leap. We take the most sensible path to explain what we've observed. The simplest answer that explains the data. Sometimes those answers are quite creative, but they are not leaps in the way you describe and any form of a leap is nearly never necessary. When we really cannot form a conclusion we leave the question open, for example by calling it a singularity without ascribing any traits to it unless we have evidence for them.

Okay. Show me. Please provide an example of a theory that was formulated without any subjectivity, creativity, or intuition.

I can't help poking this in... whenever creationism is mentioned, this comes to mind.

http://www.venganza.org/

Also, to any actually religious people of faith out there (there might just be one or two of you in NSG), keep in mind that your church is as good as theirs. :)

USA, the promised land of religions. :p

ya know I think Pastafarianism is better :p

One more link of useful empirical testing pertaining to the subject:

http://www.codeasart.com/poetry/darwin.html

Take your time to read the huge block of text and then click on the "Start here" to take part in evolution! ^_^

Pastafarianism!

Okay. Show me. Please provide an example of a theory that was formulated without any subjectivity, creativity, or intuition.

Ah, an invalid test. Because we don't treat theories as true upon their formation. They may have been formed using those things, but it's not until using the theory and testing the theory closes those holes that we accept the theory.

Take a VW Bug. The original design of that car had a bunch of leaps of faith of course. When they designed it they didn't ensure initially that they would be able to make it or that it would work or being remotely marketable. They simply came up with a concept. Then more people worked on it and found problems with it. Slowly it morphed into something that could definitely worked. Then they tested it against the market. Again, they made changes based on the data until finally they had the car we see.

That it was initially created using some leaps, doesn't mean that the VW Bug is just a concept. It's not. It wouldn't be on the market if it wasn't.

By the time a theory is being taught or treated as true, it's gone through a rigorous process that makes your claims not apply. It is demonstrated that the theory is the only scientific conclusion that fits the facts. It has to be. It's a requirement. If I could demonstrate that another theory is equally scientific and equally fits the facts, neither would be taught as true. They would be tested more.

Exactly, they'll cheerfully disgard the whole of science in order to cling to their Creationism and all will be well until the pumps run dry, or the lights go out, or the scientists can't find cures for that deadly disease...



No.



It's got nothing to do with a 'liberal elite' it has to do with scientists and everyone else who knows what they're talking about. Sadly, Creationism can't be disgarded as irrelevant while so many people advocate it, so for now we'll have to classify it as 'utterly wrong'.

And name me one thing science has proved. Something totally undefeatable, and something that rings true no matter what? Science cannot ever climb over the block of the variable. Watch the sun rise 1000 times and its reasonable to say the sun will rise tomorrow, but there will always be that chance it wont... climb that science

Additionally, how can you argue just by saying no? Isnt that tripping yourself up? You need an argument of some form, you cant just say no

I guess but who cares how much stuff a belief may contradict? Really? Not many people. If someone wants to hold their belief, often they wont care who it undermines.

Exactly, they'll cheerfully disgard the whole of science in order to cling to their Creationism and all will be well until the pumps run dry, or the lights go out, or the scientists can't find cures for that deadly disease...

Hence, that is what defines a belief. I agree there is alot wrong with creationism but isnt there alot wrong with everything?

No.

Doesnt mean it should be discarded to the "irrellevant" pile by the liberal elite....

It's got nothing to do with a 'liberal elite' it has to do with scientists and everyone else who knows what they're talking about. Sadly, Creationism can't be disgarded as irrelevant while so many people advocate it, so for now we'll have to classify it as 'utterly wrong'.

And name me one thing science has proved. Something totally undefeatable, and something that rings true no matter what? Science cannot ever climb over the block of the variable. Watch the sun rise 1000 times and its reasonable to say the sun will rise tomorrow, but there will always be that chance it wont... climb that science


Welcome to reality. Nothing is certian.

Welcome to reality. Nothing is certian.

Amen to that. But again, I have to resort back to "I think therefore I am" by R.Descartes. I think its been disproven but even thats a pretty solid argument. Not sure rly :confused:

no, if you are a truck driver or a plumber or a shopkeeper. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe. People in those kinds of professions don't need correct information about the origin of the universe to manage their day to day lives.

If you are a scientist or a science teacher then yes, it does matter. Scientists are in the business of figuring stuff out, not coming up with rationale for their personal religious beliefs. Teachers are in the business of helping children absorb all the latest knowledge that science has to offer so those children can go on, if they so choose, to build on that knowledge. Otherwise, you would be limiting their career choices to truck driver, plumber or shopkeeper type jobs.

So if you are wondering whether creationism should be taught in schools, a resounding NO!

If you are wondering whether a privately-held belief, re-enforced in one's church should matter to someone you pass in the street then NO!

...They may have been formed using those things...snip useless stuff.....

So you are clear that these things do play a role in the formation of a theory.

I snipped all the stuff about testing a theory, as that only applies after the theory was formed, and I'm not really discussing that.

Additionally, how can you argue just by saying no? Isnt that tripping yourself up? You need an argument of some form, you cant just say no

There is an argument. Many beliefs don't ignore data that undermines them. Creationism does. So it's can't even be put at the same level as a belief that no data contradicts.

As such, even a belief in God is not at the same level as Creationism. Creationism has be disproved.

And name me one thing science has proved. Something totally undefeatable, and something that rings true no matter what? The earth isn't flat.

And name me one thing science has proved. Something totally undefeatable, and something that rings true no matter what? Science cannot ever climb over the block of the variable. Watch the sun rise 1000 times and its reasonable to say the sun will rise tomorrow, but there will always be that chance it wont... climb that science

Erm... you do know that science doesn't do proof, right? There's an entire field dedicated to proof and that's mathematics: maths can prove all sorts of cool things, like "there exists no rational number x such that x^2=2" or "if you add up the integers in any number which is a multiple of nine, the sum will always be a multiple of nine" (e.g. 1485: 1+4+8+5=18; 1+8=9).

The 'Problem' of Induction hasn't been a problem for scientists since Karl Popper introduced the concept of falsifiability.

Additionally, how can you argue just by saying no? Isnt that tripping yourself up? You need an argument of some form, you cant just say no

I only need an argument if you present an argument. All you did was write:

Hence, that is what defines a belief. I agree there is alot wrong with creationism but isnt there alot wrong with everything?

What do you expect me to do in response to this absurd statement? Give an example and I'll respond to it.

Amen to that. But again, I have to resort back to "I think therefore I am" by R.Descartes. I think its been disproven but even thats a pretty solid argument. Not sure rly :confused:

The cogito is pretty sound, it's the attempt to move on from that to an Ontological proof of God that falls apart at the seams, as does the attempt to prove mind-body duality. Descartes problem is that once he got to "I can prove that I, a thinking thing, exist" he really has nowhere to go once it's admitted that all a priori proofs of God fail.

And name me one thing science has proved. Something totally undefeatable, and something that rings true no matter what? Science cannot ever climb over the block of the variable. Watch the sun rise 1000 times and its reasonable to say the sun will rise tomorrow, but there will always be that chance it wont... climb that science
That is the beauty and strength of science: no idea is above being challenge, everything can be disproved if the evidence that would do so was ever found. Proof without certainty is infinitely preferable to certainty without proof. Though of course, "proof" is not the correct word. All science ever has is evidence, and any scientist who talks about "proof" or something being "proved" actually means evidence.

This is not a mountain that science needs to climb. It is the hill atop which science has built its castle.

That is the beauty and strength of science: no idea is above being challenge, everything can be disproved if the evidence that would do so was ever found. Proof without certainty is infinitely preferable to certainty without proof. Though of course, "proof" is not the correct word. All science ever has is evidence, and any scientist who talks about "proof" or something being "proved" actually means evidence.

This is not a mountain that science needs to climb. It is the hill atop which science has built its castle.

And it's a damn sturdy hill.

So you are clear that these things do play a role in the formation of a theory.

First, you're talking about a hypothesis. The formation of a theory actually includes all of the testing and evidence. And it doesn't matter where a hypothesis comes from. Formation really doesn't affect whether a hypothesis is scientific or not. Hell, a hypothesis could from a particular religious view provided it stood up to rigorous testing.


I snipped all the stuff about testing a theory, as that only applies after the theory was formed, and I'm not really discussing that.

Then you're not discussing anything. All apples taste like poop is a valid hypothesis. However, no one is going to accept it without rigorous testing.

You gotta love when someone who doesn't know what they're talking about wants to prove it on the internet. You weren't talking about your hypothesis (which is the formation of a theory). You were talking about your conclusion, which doesn't happen until you've got evidence and your hypothesis has either stood up or failed.

So, when we look at the given facts, and we reach conclusions, we not only think, but we also imagine and even show a little bit of faith.

When we reach conclusions it's based on evidence. And a given conclusion is the only valid scientific conclusion or you've not tested it properly and you're theory will not stand up.

You're mixing a bunch of REALLY important stuff together and acting like a theory can include leaps, but it cannot.

I think we all forgot what the OP's question was, as to how the universe came into existence, and wheather or not it concerns our daily lives. I personally beleive in the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theroy. I also beleive in God, and dont see how the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution contradict the existence of God. If you mean that god's existence cannot be falsified and therefore has no place in science, then yes, god and the Big Bang theory contradict one another. However, you can beleive the two theories above and beleive in god at the same time. God could have caused the Big Bang, to create the universe, and used evolution to create man. Maybe god wants all of man to die out one day so that some future being can be created. Who knows? Does it matter? That being said, it doesn't bother me that im unsure of how the universe was created. To the multidude of people on the earth, the orogins of the universe has NO IMPACT on their daily lives. For some people though, scientists, teachers, oil prospectors, etc. it does. However, for an entrepeneur, running a chain of restauaunts, it doesnt.
All of that being said, why is it that anyone who beleves in God, or acknowledges creationism as true, is unanimously hated and trashed by everyone on these NSG forums? WTF is up with that?

And name me one thing science has proved. Something totally undefeatable, and something that rings true no matter what? Science cannot ever climb over the block of the variable. Watch the sun rise 1000 times and its reasonable to say the sun will rise tomorrow, but there will always be that chance it wont... climb that science

Fair enough. I apply the same burden of proof to God. Oh, wait, God has no proof. No nothing. So you can't even say you've seen the sun rise 1000 times. You've only got complete and utter speculation.

And, yes, there is a huge chasm between complete and utter speculation, and the fact that every bit of evidence ever gathered by anyone supports a theory that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I think we all forgot what the OP's question was, as to how the universe came into existence, and wheather or not it concerns our daily lives. I personally beleive in the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theroy. I also beleive in God, and dont see how the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution contradict the existence of God. If you mean that god's existence cannot be falsified and therefore has no place in science, then yes, god and the Big Bang theory contradict one another. However, you can beleive the two theories above and beleive in god at the same time. God could have caused the Big Bang, to create the universe, and used evolution to create man. Maybe god wants all of man to die out one day so that some future being can be created. Who knows? Does it matter? That being said, it doesn't bother me that im unsure of how the universe was created. To the multidude of people on the earth, the orogins of the universe has NO IMPACT on their daily lives. For some people though, scientists, teachers, oil prospectors, etc. it does. However, for an entrepeneur, running a chain of restauaunts, it doesnt.
All of that being said, why is it that anyone who beleves in God, or acknowledges creationism as true, is unanimously hated and trashed by everyone on these NSG forums? WTF is up with that?

First, you're entirely wrong. Ever taken medication? Ever eaten corn? Bought an orchid?

Second, they aren't "trashed". There ideas are attacked for being contrary to all evidence because they are.

All of that being said, why is it that anyone who beleves in God, or acknowledges creationism as true, is unanimously hated and trashed by everyone on these NSG forums? WTF is up with that?



Because we prefer independent thought and adherance to the facts rather than sticking your head in the sand and ignoring evidence.

Because we prefer independent thought and adherance to the facts rather than sticking your head in the sand and ignoring evidence.

fine thats cool, but did my entire post sound like I was sticking my head in the sand? But really, from the sound of things, it seams to bother you that someone has faith in something that YOU dont beleive in. Someone elses belef, especialy concerning something so personal as a beleif in God, shouldnt bother you.

If they want to stick their heads in the sand, then let them. It shouldnt bother you.

And if it does, then you are just as intolerant as someone who thinks being Gay is wrong.

First, you're entirely wrong. Ever taken medication? Ever eaten corn? Bought an orchid?

Second, they aren't "trashed". There ideas are attacked for being contrary to all evidence because they are.

could you tell me which part of my post you thought was completely wrong? Not to try play dumb or anything, but all you said was "First, you're entirely wrong. Ever taken medication? Ever eaten corn? Bought an orchid?"

Science does purport to deal with absolute truth, in other words what is necessarily and absolutely true. For example, it could be absolutely true that we are operating in The Matrix. However, science doesn't bother with such things. Absolute truth can't actually be explored. All we can go on is what can be observed directly or indirectly. As such, Science is emperical.

Philosophy on the other hand, as well as religion, can speculate on anything with or without the observable data to back it up. Philosophy is only different form religion in that it has to be logical. Otherwise, it does not experience the limits of science.

well that's just because science is a particular type of philosophy in application. we invented it. and we have to keep stepping in as it uncovers more and more questions it can't answer within its own methods.

could you tell me which part of my post you thought was completely wrong? Not to try play dumb or anything, but all you said was "First, you're entirely wrong. Ever taken medication? Ever eaten corn? Bought an orchid?"

The part where you claim it doesn't effect people's daily lives. It's utterly untrue. Almost everyone uses the fruit of evolution in their daily lives.

Enter serious mode:

Shit, I'm honestly sorry, I actually liked a lot of what you said on the other thread, but the thread was dying and I didn't want to bump it.

In all honesty, I rank your posts as truly attention worthy equal only to Cat Tribes, Straugn, Neo Art, and maybe 2 or three others, and if I missed something from you, I actually do consider it a loss.

End Serious mode.

Did you see the link I gave. It was the stuff that I promised you that fully explains how I got to my beliefs (or at least how I got to be a Christian).

well that's just because science is a particular type of philosophy in application. we invented it. and we have to keep stepping in as it uncovers more and more questions it can't answer within its own methods.

No, not exactly. I mean you can make everything that broad if you like. Philosophy is just a particular kind of religion. Depending on how I define religion and philosophy. Hell, liking food is just a particular kind of philosophy. The limitations of science existed before philosophy did.

Hey, what the hell. I took all that time finding that info for you and you never replied. After I'd said such nice things, too.

Enter serious mode:

Shit, I'm honestly sorry, I actually liked a lot of what you said on the other thread, but the thread was dying and I didn't want to bump it.

In all honesty, I rank your posts as truly attention worthy equal only to Cat Tribes, Straugn, Neo Art, and maybe 2 or three others, and if I missed something from you, I actually do consider it a loss.

End Serious mode.

No, not exactly. I mean you can make everything that broad if you like. Philosophy is just a particular kind of religion. Depending on how I define religion and philosophy. Hell, liking food is just a particular kind of philosophy. The limitations of science existed before philosophy did.

science was invented by philosophy, its practice is the application of a certain set of philosophical theories and ideas. this is just a matter of historical fact. so is your claim that the limitations of science preexisted science itself? is there some eternal unchanging form 'science', in some sort of platonic sense that had those limitations?

Did you see the link I gave. It was the stuff that I promised you that fully explains how I got to my beliefs (or at least how I got to be a Christian).

That a was on that recent "proof of God" thread where the guy regurgitated Aquinas stuff and was roundly refuted up on side and down the other?

I will go check it when I've got time to really give it attention.

I promise no slight was intended.

(This post was also serious. But that's the last one).

science was invented by philosophy, its practice is the application of a certain set of philosophical theories and ideas. this is just a matter of historical fact. so is your claim that the limitations of science preexisted science itself? is there some eternal unchanging form 'science', in some sort of platonic sense that had those limitations?

Oh, bullshit. The main foundation of science is practiced by animals. It's not historical fact. We've been practicing science since before we could talk. We simply codified it. Philosophy may have helped us to codify it and to derive and establish certain methods but science is core to our ability to interact with the world. That's why people who claime we "worship" science are full of shit. It's not our overwhelming philosophy, it's how we understand the world. If you didn't practice the principles of science in interacting with the world, it would be because your brain doesn't operate properly.

Don't confuse describing something with inventing it. We no more invented science than we invented gravity.

The part where you claim it doesn't effect people's daily lives. It's utterly untrue. Almost everyone uses the fruit of evolution in their daily lives.

Okay, Jocabia, I'm sorry, but I've had it with your bullshit.

Evolutionary Biology has NOTHING to do with any contemporary application.

The study of the developmental iterations and adaptations of everything from microbial pathogens to high primates has yielded precisely JACK SHIT, notwithstanding trivialities like antibiotics, screening of congental disorders, and perpetually extrapolating range of medical science.

Game over, bitch. Wake up and apologize.

The cogito is pretty sound, it's the attempt to move on from that to an Ontological proof of God that falls apart at the seams, as does the attempt to prove mind-body duality. Descartes problem is that once he got to "I can prove that I, a thinking thing, exist" he really has nowhere to go once it's admitted that all a priori proofs of God fail.

See, this is why Descartes became a horse soldier. Frustration with crap like this.

First of all, a priori is no place to do proofs, its a place for monks and nuns to live and do jesus oriented things.

Second, it clearly says in the bible that the soul is actually represented PHYSICALLY in the body, the very tissue throbbing with the 0eternal and ephemeral. Its in the appendix, in fact. The appendix of your body, not the bible. My bible's appendix is mostly a study guide written by Ted Haggard.

Who knows? Does it matter? That being said, it doesn't bother me that im unsure of how the universe was created. To the multidude of people on the earth, the orogins of the universe has NO IMPACT on their daily lives. For some people though, scientists, teachers, oil prospectors, etc. it does. However, for an entrepeneur, running a chain of restauaunts, it doesnt.
All of that being said, why is it that anyone who beleves in God, or acknowledges creationism as true, is unanimously hated and trashed by everyone on these NSG forums? WTF is up with that?

Nix makes a poignant observation.

Why should an entrepreneur concern themselves with challenging considerations?

That just enriches life. Fried chicken enriches shareholders.

Goddamn it, now I have to go into serious mode again.

Are we talking about the way rodents will test and learn a set of electrified panels, develop a solution algorithm or model, and then use that to get more feed pellets?

Its thin, but it does touch on some of the core ideas of science...

I dunno, man...I'm on board with saying we codified science, and that some of us practice it more consistently and rigorously (not me, but some).

End serious mode.

Well, considering that we allow for many things about science to change but it's that particularly methodology that ALWAYS and CONSISTENTLY must exist in order for it be considered science. We can argue about Occam's razor or the exacts of the scientific method, but observe, hypothesize and test, then form conclusion has been practiced since before there was philosophy, language or even humans.

It's actually philosophy and religion that made codifying it necessary. Without such things, animals simply don't ignore evidence in the formation of their understanding of the world. In creatures capable of learning, it's a constant. I taste something. Oh, it tastes good. Hmmmm... all things like that probably taste good. Try another one. Oh, that tastes good, too. This one too. Oh, this one tastes bad. Hmmmm... they don't always taste good, but there are probably more that taste good. And so on.

Only in humans where you find someone constantly find something that "tastes bad" that they'll claim is going to "taste good" the next time they try it.

There is evidence of some form of science being practiced in Greece, in China, in Central America, Egypt, etc. All over. Some of that could have come out of philosophical centers, but given that so many civilizations got there, it's pretty obvious that it's core to us. We currently require science to be handled a bit more strictly for practical reasons (mostly to prevent religion and philosophy from creeping in), but the basis for science has always been practical, and it's been so, because it's how we function.

Oh, bullshit. The main foundation of science is practiced by animals. It's not historical fact. We've been practicing science since before we could talk. We simply codified it. Philosophy may have helped us to codify it and to derive and establish certain methods but science is core to our ability to interact with the world. That's why people who claime we "worship" science are full of shit. It's not our overwhelming philosophy, it's how we understand the world. If you didn't practice the principles of science in interacting with the world, it would be because your brain doesn't operate properly.

Don't confuse describing something with inventing it. We no more invented science than we invented gravity.

Goddamn it, now I have to go into serious mode again.

Are we talking about the way rodents will test and learn a set of electrified panels, develop a solution algorithm or model, and then use that to get more feed pellets?

Its thin, but it does touch on some of the core ideas of science...

I dunno, man...I'm on board with saying we codified science, and that some of us practice it more consistently and rigorously (not me, but some).

End serious mode.

Oh, bullshit. The main foundation of science is practiced by animals. It's not historical fact. We've been practicing science since before we could talk. We simply codified it. Philosophy may have helped us to codify it and to derive and establish certain methods but science is core to our ability to interact with the world. That's why people who claime we "worship" science are full of shit. It's not our overwhelming philosophy, it's how we understand the world. If you didn't practice the principles of science in interacting with the world, it would be because your brain doesn't operate properly.

Don't confuse describing something with inventing it. We no more invented science than we invented gravity.

are you really claiming that science is identical to induction? really?

Well, considering that we allow for many things about science to change but it's that particularly methodology that ALWAYS and CONSISTENTLY must exist in order for it be considered science. We can argue about Occam's razor or the exacts of the scientific method, but observe, hypothesize and test, then form conclusion has been practiced since before there was philosophy, language or even humans.

Hrmm...I guess in its most intrinsic practice, but we're kind of thus reducing it to little more than the receipt of sense data, followed by analysis and response to such in order to achieve a predictive model that benefits.

I'll buy it, but without the added trappings of more abstract cognition (up to and including mathematical manipulation beyond mere subitation) I think its still a little primitive for me to call "Science" with the big S.

But then, that's my bias, I used to work in solid state physics, and I, for a time, allowed science (or at least a particular practice of it) to become a kind of culture, its own sub-civilization with its own rites, heroes, and language.

Heehee...I have this image...a T-Rex is bearing down on some small herbivores, and one herbivore says to the other "The data indicates we should run like fuck". The other says "What data?" and the first one says "Remember what happened to Lenny?" and the other one says "What does the peer-reviewed literature say?" ....CHOMP

are you really claiming that science is identical to induction? really?

Not identical. I'm really saying that the modern way of defining science doesn't mean science hasn't been practiced for pretty much all of time. The only reason for the codification was to solidly seperate it from general philosophy and religion.

But given some of the nonsense I've seen you spout, I can totally understand why you wouldn't want to consider induction the core of science.

Should we be focusing on answering this question, or is it time we moved on with our lives and look to the present day/future?

Neither! You should be KNEELING BEFORE ZOD!

Does anyone really give a flying toss how we got here?

What are these "flying tosses" you speak of? What matters is not how you humans got to planet Houston; what matters is that you KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

Absolute occurrence is irrelevant.

Not identical. I'm really saying that the modern way of defining science doesn't mean science hasn't been practiced for pretty much all of time. The only reason for the codification was to solidly seperate it from general philosophy and religion.

But given some of the nonsense I've seen you spout, I can totally understand why you wouldn't want to consider induction the core of science.

something being the core of a thing does not mean that it is the thing. what, exactly, do you think constitutes science?

Here's what is obvious. Whether realizing it or not, it is entirely possible for a person to follow the scientific method without ever hearing of it or realizing why it should be required.

Certainly, people observe, hypothesize, predict and test those predictions without anyone telling them that it's science.

Various types of astronomy, geology, and other types of understanding, predicting and forming conclusions has been going on for thousands of years. There are links back to ancient astronomy that 6 thousand years old.

something being the core of a thing does not mean that it is the thing. what, exactly, do you think constitutes science?

Hmmm... gosh. I'm not entirely sure. Could it be the acquisition of knowledge based on the scientific method? But, gosh, you better explain it to me. I'm not entirely sure if what the scientific method is. I mean I've never described before. Certainly not in this thread. You're mixing up codification with invention. You might as well claim Christianity was invented in 325 AD.

Hrmm...I guess in its most intrinsic practice, but we're kind of thus reducing it to little more than the receipt of sense data, followed by analysis and response to such in order to achieve a predictive model that benefits.

I'll buy it, but without the added trappings of more abstract cognition (up to and including mathematical manipulation beyond mere subitation) I think its still a little primitive for me to call "Science" with the big S.

exactly. as far as i can tell, J's just talking about induction - and not even in a formal or abstract 'higher' sense. If that's 'science', then 'science' is kinda trivial. there is a much more substantive thing that most people mean when they say 'science'; in deference to J let's call it 'melvin'. now melvin was invented by philosophers, and is the application of a particular set of philosophical theories and ideas about the nature of reality and knowledge. fascinating stuff, that melvin.

exactly. as far as i can tell, J's just talking about induction - and not even in a formal or abstract 'higher' sense. If that's 'science', then 'science' is kinda trivial. there is a much more substantive thing that most people mean when they say 'science'; in deference to J let's call it 'melvin'. now melvin was invented by philosophers, and is the application of a particular set of philosophical theories and ideas about the nature of reality and knowledge. fascinating stuff, that melvin.

It's not trivial at all. See, absent the application of non-practical values, values emerging from philosophy and religion, the scientific method needn't be codified. We had no reason to ignore evidence. Now, obviously, this allowed for more complex understanding of value and organizing more complex data, but the point is that science has been practiced since there were people.

Is astronomy not a science? There is evidence for it's practice 6000 years ago.

Neither! You should be KNEELING BEFORE ZOD!

What are these "flying tosses" you speak of? What matters is not how you humans got to planet Houston; what matters is that you KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

Again, you're ignoring the deciding substance of this discussion, which is, of course, scripture.

And I quote:

"And he was the son of Man, of God, and of Jor-El,

yet he heedeth not the sperm of Jor-El, for Jor-El was a scientist,

And so sucked."

Deutoronians, 96:6

It's not trivial at all.

is it possible to not do 'science' under your conception? can a chimp survive without using 'science' on a frequent basis?

Well, honestly, I think, again, we're just clubbing at language now.

In Nunez and Lakoff's work "Where Mathematics Comes From", they make a decent case that babies instinctively apply some kinds of mathematics at well under a year's age.

So, if we're saying the pragmatic aspects of the way we try to "solve" reality are the gestation of science, there's data for that.

But I think there are some things about the codification phase of science that are critical to what it is in the current sense.

I'm so tired of trying to be serious.

No, the codification certainly had value. It demonstrated a commitment to that process that humans have violated before and since. It's where science emerged among people who were often confusing superstition with practical knowledge. We assigned non-practical value to things, and eventually had to address that. However, claiming we invented a method we were just describing really is just nonsense. The scientific method can be found in use for pretty much as long as we can look at history.

First, you're talking about a hypothesis. The formation of a theory actually includes all of the testing and evidence. And it doesn't matter where a hypothesis comes from. Formation really doesn't affect whether a hypothesis is scientific or not. Hell, a hypothesis could from a particular religious view provided it stood up to rigorous testing.

If I had meant hypothesis, I would have said, hypothesis. Creativity is interwoven through the entire process. How do we come up with experiments that refute a hypothesis, and make it into a theory? How do we test for congruence with other theories except through models that exist only in the imagination? Why are we even worrying about congruence with other theories if we don't have some faith that they are correct? Unless you're claiming that every time a theory is formed, scientists actually prove all the other underlying theories.

Then you're not discussing anything. All apples taste like poop is a valid hypothesis. However, no one is going to accept it without rigorous testing.

I wonder why you assume that I am ignorant of the scientific method.

See, now we get to the nitty-gritty. When is a theory formed? When it is untlimately proven? But it can't be. Science doesn't do that. All theories are tentatively held until something better comes along, right? And we have the scientific method to decide what is a better theory. It weeds out the subjectivity and intuition that is part of the scientific process, yet it also provides a mechanism for adapting scientific knowledge when necessary. And this is often necessary because of these creative leaps.

You gotta love when someone who doesn't know what they're talking about wants to prove it on the internet. You weren't talking about your hypothesis (which is the formation of a theory). You were talking about your conclusion, which doesn't happen until you've got evidence and your hypothesis has either stood up or failed.

So, up there I was talking about my hypothesis, but now I'm discussing my conclusion?

That's odd. Tell me when you have that all cleared up.

When we reach conclusions it's based on evidence.

Yes, but it would be foolish to claim that we base these conclusions solely on the evidence. That would be ignoring various other factors.

And a given conclusion is the only valid scientific conclusion or you've not tested it properly and you're theory will not stand up.

No, it is not the only valid scientific conclusion. If that were true, then we would never have a case where later scientists come up with better theories. Unless you are arguing that Newton did not have valid scientific conclusions, since Einstein had a better valid scientific conclusion later. According to you, there can be only one valid scientific conclusion.

You're mixing a bunch of REALLY important stuff together and acting like a theory can include leaps, but it cannot.

Then please explain to me exactly how one forms a theory without any of these leaps. I asked you this before and you replied with an analogy. Your VW bug analogy fails miserably as you seem to ignore the fact that creative leaps were part of the process for finding solutions to the initial problems.

Neither! You should be KNEELING BEFORE ZOD!



What are these "flying tosses" you speak of? What matters is not how you humans got to planet Houston; what matters is that you KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

I've never been a religious man. but if you're up there, SAVE ME SUPERMAN!

Here's what is obvious. Whether realizing it or not, it is entirely possible for a person to follow the scientific method without ever hearing of it or realizing why it should be required.

Certainly, people observe, hypothesize, predict and test those predictions without anyone telling them that it's science.

Various types of astronomy, geology, and other types of understanding, predicting and forming conclusions has been going on for thousands of years. There are links back to ancient astronomy that 6 thousand years old.

Well, honestly, I think, again, we're just clubbing at language now.

In Nunez and Lakoff's work "Where Mathematics Comes From", they make a decent case that babies instinctively apply some kinds of mathematics at well under a year's age.

So, if we're saying the pragmatic aspects of the way we try to "solve" reality are the gestation of science, there's data for that.

But I think there are some things about the codification phase of science that are critical to what it is in the current sense.

I'm so tired of trying to be serious.

With so many theories of how we came to be from the Big Bang to Creationism to even he Chaos Theory, my question as a firm believer in God and Jesus Christ is this...

Does anyone really give a flying toss how we got here? I mean, is it really that important whether it was a single reaction that caused a cosmic chain reaction or whether it was some cosmic entity that placed everything in perfect place?

I suppose my main question is this:

Should we be focusing on answering this question, or is it time we moved on with our lives and look to the present day/future?

Are you just a firm believer that God and Jesus Christ exist, or are you also a firm believer in the Bible and the Catholic Church or a Protestant Church?

My principal at one of the schools I went to was very Christian. She, however, did not take the Bible absolutely literally. When she taught us Christian Education, she gave possible scientific explanations for the parting of the sea etc. As an intelligent woman, a free thinker, a feminist and a devout Christian, she saw it important to care about how we got here. While she did not neccisarily believe in Genisis as a literal story, she believed in the moral story and also thought it was an explanatory tale (much like the Australian Aboriginal stories of the "Dreamtime"). She certainly did not disbelieve in evolution, but she took the two as one. She never once saw evolution as challenging God's word.

is it possible to not do 'science' under your conception? can a chimp survive without using 'science' on a frequent basis?

Survive? Probably. But they certainly wouldn't be using tools if they didn't observe a need, hypothesize a solution, predict how that solution would work, and test it.

I think its the extent to which it is done in an organized way that might be some of the difference.

What I do like about your view is that its fairly egalitarian. It does not limit Science to the boundaries of the formally educated, the white coats, the published big boys/girls. Your perspective renders it as more the natural tendency, a fundamentally rational tendency, of all life to want to understand as part of the act of living.

I think that is a very hopeful view.


Okay, fuck you people, I WILL NOT BE SERIOUS ON THIS BOARD.

No, fuck you!

I think its the extent to which it is done in an organized way that might be some of the difference.

What I do like about your view is that its fairly egalitarian. It does not limit Science to the boundaries of the formally educated, the white coats, the published big boys/girls. Your perspective renders it as more the natural tendency, a fundamentally rational tendency, of all life to want to understand as part of the act of living.

I think that is a very hopeful view.


Okay, fuck you people, I WILL NOT BE SERIOUS ON THIS BOARD.

Not hopeful. Practical. If we claim science hasn't been conducted till we codified, then we could accept some of the testing and the conclusions found from civilizations that we definitely. Some of what we've learned from ancient astronomers has proven immeasurably valuable.

Certainly, people observe, hypothesize, predict and test those predictions without anyone telling them that it's science.


I think its the extent to which it is done in an organized way that might be some of the difference.

What I do like about your view is that its fairly egalitarian. It does not limit Science to the boundaries of the formally educated, the white coats, the published big boys/girls. Your perspective renders it as more the natural tendency, a fundamentally rational tendency, of all life to want to understand as part of the act of living.

I think that is a very hopeful view.


Okay, fuck you people, I WILL NOT BE SERIOUS ON THIS BOARD.

I think, at least sometimes, people do have reasons to ignore evidence. Fear of its implications, it runs counter to previous indoctrination or cherished assumption.

One question is, in science, most of the people I've worked with try mightily not to make declarative statement beyond the observable.

As it was practiced primitively, I would suspect (but cannot prove) that many many statements were made (that Star is the home of Xisisisiiis or whatever) that were not scientific, yet were held equal or perhaps greater than those things that were arrived at in a manner more consistent with what we now call science.

I guess I'm suggesting that the proto-science may have been more polluted, or at least differently polluted, then the current.

Sure. But it wouldn't have been without philosophical and religious tendencies. If philosophy birthed science it was by forming a need to protect the scientific method from the discipline that didn't require evidence or the observable.

Survive? Probably. But they certainly wouldn't be using tools if they didn't observe a need, hypothesize a solution, predict how that solution would work, and test it.

in what way are you limiting that to tool use? how does it not apply to, for example, hunger? i mean, suppose chimpan A observes a need ("i'm hungry"), hypothesizes that eating this banana will fulfill that need, and tests the hypothesis by actually eating the banana. success! a scientific breakthrough!

It's not trivial at all. See, absent the application of non-practical values, values emerging from philosophy and religion, the scientific method needn't be codified. We had no reason to ignore evidence. Now, obviously, this allowed for more complex understanding of value and organizing more complex data, but the point is that science has been practiced since there were people.

Is astronomy not a science? There is evidence for it's practice 6000 years ago.

I think, at least sometimes, people do have reasons to ignore evidence. Fear of its implications, it runs counter to previous indoctrination or cherished assumption.

One question is, in science, most of the people I've worked with try mightily not to make declarative statement beyond the observable.

As it was practiced primitively, I would suspect (but cannot prove) that many many statements were made (that Star is the home of Xisisisiiis or whatever) that were not scientific, yet were held equal or perhaps greater than those things that were arrived at in a manner more consistent with what we now call science.

I guess I'm suggesting that the proto-science may have been more polluted, or at least differently polluted, then the current.

Okay, be nice. That was my dissertation.

whether bananas satisfy hunger? awesome! what were the results?

No, the codification certainly had value. It demonstrated a commitment to that process that humans have violated before and since. It's where science emerged among people who were often confusing superstition with practical knowledge. We assigned non-practical value to things, and eventually had to address that. However, claiming we invented a method we were just describing really is just nonsense. The scientific method can be found in use for pretty much as long as we can look at history.

Again, I like the premise of science being a natural and inherent impetus of living organisms.

Your use of the term is broad, but when discussing science with you in future threads, I can accept your use and will take it as you intend it.

But I hope it doesn't offend you if I do the same for Free Soviets

No, fuck you!

Oh yeah? Oh yeah?

Well, I hope your offspring demonstrate a hyper-viable trate rendering them vastly more effective then their peers, and you have to accept that you were PERSONALLY responsible for the subsuming of all humanity.

Pee rag.

in what way are you limiting that to tool use? how does it not apply to, for example, hunger? i mean, suppose chimpan A observes a need ("i'm hungry"), hypothesizes that eating this banana will fulfill that need, and tests the hypothesis by actually eating the banana. success! a scientific breakthrough!

Okay, be nice. That was my dissertation.

whether bananas satisfy hunger? awesome! what were the results?

Well, I had a bad advisor and did a poor job picking my committee, let me preface by saying that.

Long story short, more research is necessary.

That depends on the asnwers to the following questions.

If you are religous are you prepared to see that some people are not and will never be, and in addition are you prepeared to leave them alone, and stop telling them how evil they are?

If you are not religious are you prepared to see that some people are religous and will always be so, and in addition are you prepeard to leave them alone and stop telling them how stupid they are?

No! Not really. Anyone who is stupid enough to believe in a deity is also dangerous enough to attempt to impose his 'values' on others. We have seen it happen and we are STILL seeing it happen. :mp5:

If I had meant hypothesis, I would have said, hypothesis. Creativity is interwoven through the entire process. How do we come up with experiments that refute a hypothesis, and make it into a theory? How do we test for congruence with other theories except through models that exist only in the imagination? Why are we even worrying about congruence with other theories if we don't have some faith that they are correct? Unless you're claiming that every time a theory is formed, scientists actually prove all the other underlying theories.

We predict based on the hypothesis and observations. They aren't leaps. Creativity, of course, but you're claiming leaps are being made and there are multiple potential conclusions.

Like I said, you're trying to mix a lot of things together. I'm going to assume it's just ignorance and not you being intentionally obtuse.

I didn't deny the existence of creativity and imagination involved, but you're talking about making leaps and faith. At the point where we make a conclusion, or form a theory, there is no longer faith or any leaps. If there are, your theory will be firmly and soundly rejected.

Again, you're equivocating. Faith that they're correct? We believe they're correct based on solid evidence for accepting them.

Scientists don't accept the work of other scientists that have stood up to peer review because of faith. They do it because they have evidence that it is a reliable and practical to perform science.



I wonder why you assume that I am ignorant of the scientific method.

Well, because I base my assumptions on evidence.


See, now we get to the nitty-gritty. When is a theory formed? When it is untlimately proven? But it can't be. Science doesn't do that. All theories are tentatively held until something better comes along, right? And we have the scientific method to decide what is a better theory. It weeds out the subjectivity and intuition that is part of the scientific process, yet it also provides a mechanism for adapting scientific knowledge when necessary. And this is often necessary because of these creative leaps.

When is it treated as true. When it has enough data to support EVERY part of that theory. That's the reason for Occam's razor. I can't insert a leap. No "God did its" are allowed. Not because it's God. Because it's a leap.

Oh, see and once again you're changing your claim. You claimed that there are multiple conclusions, theories, and they we treat them all as true.

You're killing me. You're trying to slip in a bunch of terms that have alternate meanings used the way you're using them. Faith. Leaps. Etc. Nope.

When a theory is formed, if there are leaps, it's rejected as being unscientific.


So, up there I was talking about my hypothesis, but now I'm discussing my conclusion?

That's odd. Tell me when you have that all cleared up.

No, I recognize that you're mixing a lot of things together. The parts of the process that allow for leaps and faith is the formation of the hypothesis. However the process of prediction and testing is meant to test those leaps and either find evidence that supports them or evidence that falsifies them.




Yes, but it would be foolish to claim that we base these conclusions solely on the evidence. That would be ignoring various other factors.

Only if you don't understand science. If we form it on anything other than the evidence, it's not science, no matter how popular it might be.


No, it is not the only valid scientific conclusion. If that were true, then we would never have a case where later scientists come up with better theories. Unless you are arguing that Newton did not have valid scientific conclusions, since Einstein had a better valid scientific conclusion later. According to you, there can be only one valid scientific conclusion.

Uh, what? They come up with better answers because they have more evidence. Theories are a best fit for the data. When the data changes so does the best fit. It's not complicated.

I'll give you an example, going back to the apples. I pick up an apple and bite into it. Yum. I pick up another. Yum. Observation, apples in this orchard are tasty (for simplicity, let's assume tasty is measurable). No leaps. Now there is some leap here, because currently I don't really have enough data to make such a broad prediction.

So I look around. There are 500 trees in this orchard. I predict that if my hypothesis is correct, that I can pick apples from every tree in this orchard at any spot in the tree and it will be tasty. Again, based on my hypothesis and my evidence, this would be necessarily be true if my claim is true and likely be false if my claim were false. So I perform the experiment. Yum. Yum. Yum. No matter what tree or where on the tree, I get tasty apples. My hypothesis is now a theory. Evidenced.

Tell me my leap and alternate conclusions I could make. And if you say some nonsense like "the 500 apples I tried were tasty" then you truly don't understand science.




Then please explain to me exactly how one forms a theory without any of these leaps. I asked you this before and you replied with an analogy. Your VW bug analogy fails miserably as you seem to ignore the fact that creative leaps were part of the process for finding solutions to the initial problems.

The theory doesn't have those leaps. The hypothesis may, but that's not the point. The hypothesis isn't the conclusion which is what you commented on. The hypothesis isn't what we hold to be true. We hold theories to be true because they've been tested and verified.

I'll give you credit. You've definitely improved. I could see how some of this nonsense might confuse someone into buying in. However, you're trying to take parts of the process of forming a hypothesis and mix them into the acceptance of a theory. They are two seperate steps, seperated by mountains of data. By the time the theory is formed, it may not have "creative leaps" and "faith".

Again, I like the premise of science being a natural and inherent impetus of living organisms.

Your use of the term is broad, but when discussing science with you in future threads, I can accept your use and will take it as you intend it.

But I hope it doesn't offend you if I do the same for Free Soviets

Well, I'd say it's reasonable to discount instinct, which is what FS is missing. However, science is simply acquiring knowledge via the scientific method. One needn't understand the scientific method in order to gather knowledge via the scientific method.

I think its the extent to which it is done in an organized way that might be some of the difference.

What I do like about your view is that its fairly egalitarian. It does not limit Science to the boundaries of the formally educated, the white coats, the published big boys/girls. Your perspective renders it as more the natural tendency, a fundamentally rational tendency, of all life to want to understand as part of the act of living.

I think that is a very hopeful view.


Okay, fuck you people, I WILL NOT BE SERIOUS ON THIS BOARD.

No, fuck you!

Oh yeah? Oh yeah?

Well, I hope your offspring demonstrate a hyper-viable trate rendering them vastly more effective then their peers, and you have to accept that you were PERSONALLY responsible for the subsuming of all humanity.

Pee rag.

Bahahahahahaha.

Do you honestly think anyone is going to take what you say seriously?

in what way are you limiting that to tool use? how does it not apply to, for example, hunger? i mean, suppose chimpan A observes a need ("i'm hungry"), hypothesizes that eating this banana will fulfill that need, and tests the hypothesis by actually eating the banana. success! a scientific breakthrough!

So instinct and knowledge are the same thing now? Don't get confused just because I simplified it to apply to food in order to make it comprehensible.

The acquisition of KNOWLEDGE via the scientific method is what science is. Unless you can show how intelligent beings do not use the scientific method naturally nor learn, then I'm gonna have to keep on laughing at you.

How do you propose this "invention" popped up as a result of philosophy when astronomy is proposed to have existed for 6000 years?

Well, I had a bad advisor and did a poor job picking my committee, let me preface by saying that.

Long story short, more research is necessary.

good thing there is so much grant money around for that.

Dude, totally, its already happened.

On a thread a ways back, Corneliu 2 went on for like 5 pages totally buying a clearly satirical position as genuine, even when half a dozen other posters had already openly applauded the satire and sarcasm.

I even had Knights of Liberty for a post or two.

People just don't read the whole post, and I think that's what makes it easy.

I'm sorry. I try to keep the swearing to a minimum, but this warrants it. That was FUCKING hilarious.

Bahahahahahaha.

Do you honestly think anyone is going to take what you say seriously?

Dude, totally, its already happened.

On a thread a ways back, Corneliu 2 went on for like 5 pages totally buying a clearly satirical position as genuine, even when half a dozen other posters had already openly applauded the satire and sarcasm.

I even had Knights of Liberty for a post or two.

People just don't read the whole post, and I think that's what makes it easy.

good thing there is so much grant money around for that.

Actually, I'm riding on my advisor's grant for studying phase changes in single crystal explosives in DAC cells at 250 Trillion Bajillion GigaPascals of pressure. Thats an estimate.

Okay, that's a lie, I'm working out of my mother's basement, using my developmentally disabled neighbor, who technically is a primate. The other 9 subjects don't really exist, I'm just sort of filling in what I think an ape would do.

I rented that movie with whatsername, the chick from Alien, where she plays the ape doctor lady. I'm citing it.

I'm sorry. I try to keep the swearing to a minimum, but this warrants it. That was FUCKING hilarious.

Yeah, I would've been proud if I hadn't been using Straughn's brain to pull it off.

Even Cat-Tribes gave me kudos, I was quite pleased.

I wonder how many people will want to sig Jocabia dropping the F bomb...

Sigh...this thread will go nowhere. In reality, it is impossible to prove anything. Sure, scientists may say one thing, but how do we know? How are we sure they are credible? That is a matter of opinion, as is everything. It does not truly matter how we got here, but it is simply a question whose answer is unknown and humans naturally strive to achieve the unknown. This will only bash atheists, Christians, and anything else that can be thought of.

Sigh...this thread will go nowhere. In reality, it is impossible to prove anything. Sure, scientists may say one thing, but how do we know? How are we sure they are credible? That is a matter of opinion, as is everything. It does not truly matter how we got here, but it is simply a question whose answer is unknown and humans naturally strive to achieve the unknown. This will only bash atheists, Christians, and anything else that can be though of.

Absolutely. Grappling with these kinds of fundamental, insurmountable questions is hardly the kind of thing that would enrich one's intellectual life.

Why risk difficult discourse for such a paltry goal?

No, really, why, though?

I've seen this question asked so many times and discussed by people who aren't qualified to answer it. This is clearly a question of what religion you follow, or don't. You can give an informed or uninformed opinion on the subject, but that's about it.

No one here is a qualified theologian or physicist and so, no one here is capable of giving a truly informed opinion.

Personally, I believe in science and logic alone, because I wouldn't trust a religion run and probably created by men with no conclusive proof of divine intervention in its creation. Religious explanations of the creation of the universe usually rely on religious beliefs alone and try to distort the available data to fit their ideals, whereas science attempts to interpret the data gathered to mould a new idea to explain the results, but does admittedly often make assumptions. The difference being, however, that science is willing to admit its mistakes.

Except we do tend have a methodology and mindset to discern what's true or not. These conclusions aren't just thrown out there as an opinion; they are rigorously tested according certain criteria. If you want to throw around that "oh we can't know 100% evar" bs, then we might as well start rejecting our perception of reality and start living in crazyland.

good thing there is so much grant money around for that.

Yes, because grant money definitely decides whether or not something is science. Frankly, I'd like to see you show why a hypothesis that bananas satisfy hunger that predicts that if different people in different states of hunger eat enough bananas they will no longer be hungry and intends to test that is unscientific.

Just because it's already accepted as true, taken for granted any, doesn't mean that the process changes.

Aye, but how can one define "certified"? Again, it is a matter of opinion. For all we know, the inside of an atom could be a deck of playing cards. Same with creation theories. None of us were there. Everything is opinionated; nothing is true, but rather generally accepted.

Aye, but how can one define "certified"? Again, it is a matter of opinion. For all we know, the inside of an atom could be a deck of playing cards. Same with creation theories. None of us were there. Everything is opinionated; nothing is true, but rather generally accepted.

Then the atom would need to start to exhibit properties that indicate that its center is a deck of playing cards instead of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Scientists have spent the last century researching these particles. We can test and verify their existence as well as certain properties about them.

Like I said before, unless you want to start rejecting reality itself, the scientific method certainly suffices in explaining our physical surroundings.

So instinct and knowledge are the same thing now? Don't get confused just because I simplified it to apply to food in order to make it comprehensible.

The acquisition of KNOWLEDGE via the scientific method is what science is.

it is not instinctual for a chimp to eat a banana or to act as though ne would be delicious. this is an object of knowledge if anything is for chimps.

Unless you can show how intelligent beings do not use the scientific method naturally nor learn, then I'm gonna have to keep on laughing at you.

intelligent beings do not use science naturally. science is hard. it conflicts with a number of our natural inclinations. as francis bacon put it while explicating the idea of science, we have a number of 'idols' we must be aware of and take active steps to avoid. in the more modern context, psychology tells us exactly the same. our brains just aren't wired to do science consistently. we fall back on magical thinking, attributing agency where none exists. we ignore evidence. we make hasty generalizations. we do not systematize our beliefs. etc.

of course we learn through the use of induction. but we do not naturally engage in science (or melvin, if we are still calling induction itself 'science').

How do you propose this "invention" popped up as a result of philosophy when astronomy is proposed to have existed for 6000 years?

looking at the stars ≠ astronomy. keeping track of their movements for religious reasons ≠ astronomy.

True, we have a perception of reality, I believe to be true. Newton's laws, the Bohr model, I believe all of them. However, I am saying it will always be impossible to know everything, but we can get damn close.

And why does that have any significant relevance to how our lives and surroundings operate?

No one here is a qualified theologian or physicist and so, no one here is capable of giving a truly informed opinion.

There are a few working scientists here, and I believe several of them have a background that could be termed "qualified".

They all could be lying, of course, but I don't know if you can necessarily assume that nobody here is a physicist.

I'm the co-author of a paper in solid state physics, but would not posture myself as a physicist, more of a technician at best.

Except we do tend have a methodology and mindset to discern what's true or not. These conclusions aren't just thrown out there as an opinion; they are rigorously tested according certain criteria. If you want to throw around that "oh we can't know 100% evar" bs, then we might as well start rejecting our perception of reality and start living in crazyland.

True, we have a perception of reality, I believe to be true. Newton's laws, the Bohr model, I believe all of them. However, I am saying it will always be impossible to know everything, but we can get damn close.

Yes, because grant money definitely decides whether or not something is science. Frankly, I'd like to see you show why a hypothesis that bananas satisfy hunger that predicts that if different people in different states of hunger eat enough bananas they will no longer be hungry and intends to test that is unscientific.

Just because it's already accepted as true, taken for granted any, doesn't mean that the process changes.

Right. Just because it doesn't sound fancy and sciency doesn't mean the process isn't scientific. Even if the information that could be gleaned from a "proper" analysis of it is something that's readily observable.

Hell, that's almost the point. Our ability to naturally figure things out about relatively simple objects is a simplified version of the scientific process. It may take a three credit course to teach you how to properly calibrate a laser (including several weeks of swearing like a sailor as the damn thing refuses to lase), but it only takes a few minutes to figure out that staring into a laser is bad for your eyes, something you can test rather easily (well...something you can test rather easily twice.)

True, we have a perception of reality, I believe to be true. Newton's laws, the Bohr model, I believe all of them. However, I am saying it will always be impossible to know everything, but we can get damn close.

You shouldn't. Both Newton's Laws and the Bohr Model have been shown to be inaccurate by virtue of Quantum Mechanics.

it is not instinctual for a chimp to eat a banana or to act as though ne would be delicious. this is an object of knowledge if anything is for chimps.

It is? Link?

If it is knowledge, however, then yes, I would venture to say it's a form of science.


intelligent beings do not use science naturally. science is hard. it conflicts with a number of our natural inclinations. as francis bacon put it while explicating the idea of science, we have a number of 'idols' we must be aware of and take active steps to avoid. in the more modern context, psychology tells us exactly the same. our brains just aren't wired to do science consistently. we fall back on magical thinking, attributing agency where none exists. we ignore evidence. we make hasty generalizations. we do not systematize our beliefs. etc.

of course we learn through the use of induction. but we do not naturally engage in science (or melvin, if we are still calling induction itself 'science').

Amusing. So you contest that science is the system of acquiring knowledge through the scientific method? Since that's the definition I gave, there, Melvin.

Science CAN be hard. It can also be very easy. It depends on what you're studying.


looking at the stars ≠ astronomy. keeping track of their movements for religious reasons ≠ astronomy.

Really? Thanks. But looking at the stars, making observations, forming a hypothesis, making predictions and testing those predictions is astronomy, my friend.

There are a few working scientists here, and I believe several of them have a background that could be termed "qualified".

They all could be lying, of course, but I don't know if you can necessarily assume that nobody here is a physicist.

I'm the co-author of a paper in solid state physics, but would not posture myself as a physicist, more of a technician at best.

I'm sort of in the same boat, at the moment. I'm doing research in physics, but mostly as a code monkey rather than as a real, hardcore physicist. Though I'm also a physics major, so I also do understand a lot of the underlying science (aside from anything involving the Navir-Stokes equations, them being an important part of our research and me not having taken a Fluid Dynamics course yet.)

looking at the stars ≠ astronomy. keeping track of their movements for religious reasons ≠ astronomy.

The plethora of amateur astronomers who are integral in modern astronomical research would beg to differ rather vocally.

No one here is a qualified theologian or physicist and so, no one here is capable of giving a truly informed opinion.

You sure? What exactly makes one qualified? It's not a degree. Almost any theologian and any scientist would contest that an idea is truly a measure of one's qualifications.

So what test would you like us to take? This should be wild and wacky fun.

You sure? What exactly makes one qualified? It's not a degree. Almost any theologian and any scientist would contest that an idea is truly a measure of one's qualifications.

So what test would you like us to take? This should be wild and wacky fun.

Not really. Often a good idea will filter its way to a qualified individual from people who aren't so qualified. People with the proper qualifications are given added clout by virtue of the fact that they theoretically have a better grasp of it, but it's not a guarantee.

Hell, my own department is cluttered with "qualified" dead-weight physicists who are pretty much just sitting there refusing to retire, and a few "young-punk" physicists who are doing some fucking amazing research and pulling in massive funding.

Your experience and your credentials are a way to get a foot in the door. Whether or not anyone listens to you rests largely in how good your idea is in the first place.

Yes, because grant money definitely decides whether or not something is science.

humor. you may have encountered it in your studies at one point.

Frankly, I'd like to see you show why a hypothesis that bananas satisfy hunger that predicts that if different people in different states of hunger eat enough bananas they will no longer be hungry and intends to test that is unscientific.

it might be. if it was done scientifically, as some sort of experimental process aimed at building general theoretical constructs and offered up for publication and addition to the general body of knowledge, etc. this does not include just being hungry and eating a banana, or even someone trying a banana for the first time.

God bless the coders. I got a buddy does the code for our x-ray spectroscopy rig...I honestly believe he could be making better cash anywhere else with his chops, but he likes the work.

He's a freak.

People say that a lot about code junkies and people looking to go to physics grad school.

...I'm not entirely sure they're wrong. :(

OK. My last post on this stupid thread. It. Does. Not. Matter.

This is the worst kind of argument online. Everyone has their own opinion. If this really does not affect us, why bother with this stupid thread? It'll just end up being "GaH yuo iz teh stewpid die rihgt now u stupid :upyours::headbang::mp5:"

Um, what does not matter? Whether we consider scientific theory to be a necessary part of our lives? I'm pretty sure it does. If you're unsure, let me visit your home and remove everything you've got that is a result of modern science.

I'm sort of in the same boat, at the moment. I'm doing research in physics, but mostly as a code monkey rather than as a real, hardcore physicist. Though I'm also a physics major, so I also do understand a lot of the underlying science (aside from anything involving the Navir-Stokes equations, them being an important part of our research and me not having taken a Fluid Dynamics course yet.)

God bless the coders. I got a buddy does the code for our x-ray spectroscopy rig...I honestly believe he could be making better cash anywhere else with his chops, but he likes the work.

He's a freak.

The plethora of amateur astronomers who are integral in modern astronomical research would beg to differ rather vocally.

you have to be doing more than looking up and doing other than attributing the significance of stellar activities to the gods to be doing astronomy.

is astrology astronomy?

OK. My last post on this stupid thread. It. Does. Not. Matter.

This is the worst kind of argument online. Everyone has their own opinion. If this really does not affect us, why bother with this stupid thread? It'll just end up being "GaH yuo iz teh stewpid die rihgt now u stupid :upyours::headbang::mp5:"

it might be. if it was done scientifically, as some sort of experimental process aimed at building general theoretical constructs, etc. this does not include just being hungry and eating a banana, or even someone trying a banana for the first time.

You've got it all wrong. The aim to build a theoretical construct isn't the inevitable end-all of scientific research. You're neglecting the practical applications side of things.

Discovering that consumption of a banana makes one less hungry is an observation. That observation can lead to the hypothesis "Hey, I wonder if that happens every time I eat a banana," leading to repeated banana consumption and confirmation of expectations. Thus satisfied, the banana-eater doesn't need to publish a paper about it. He can continue exploring the practical application of banana-consumption for himself, and possibly market bananas as capable of satisfying hunger.

Though this is all assuming no one else has already done so.

And I suddenly realize the horrifying comparison one could draw between this little anecdote and materials science :eek:

humor. you may have encountered it in your studies at one point.



it might be. if it was done scientifically, as some sort of experimental process aimed at building general theoretical constructs and offered up for publication and addition to the general body of knowledge, etc. this does not include just being hungry and eating a banana, or even someone trying a banana for the first time.

So science requires publication? Addition to the general body of knowledge?

Ah, so it is not about the scientific process at all, but whether or not your intention is to someone benefit the world (yes, here, I'm assuming adding to the general body of knowledge is a benefit).

What general body of knowledge? Whose? Who must publish it?

Let's say, that I'm part of a society cut off from this one. I make observations. I hypothesize. I predict. I record my predictions. And I draw conclusions based on the evidence I have. I give my results to others in my society and they use it to continue to do the same. After a few generations, we've built up a considerably body of knowledge all through applying those same methods. Is that science?

OK. My last post on this stupid thread. It. Does. Not. Matter.

This is the worst kind of argument online. Everyone has their own opinion. If this really does not affect us, why bother with this stupid thread? It'll just end up being "GaH yuo iz teh stewpid die rihgt now u stupid :upyours::headbang::mp5:"

1. I've actually enjoyed the reasonably fecund exchange between some posters exploring the nature of science itself, which while off topic, is in many ways a natural product of the OP's question.

2. Your own post is the one that seems to resemble the mentality you deride in your post itself.

you have to be doing more than looking up and doing other than attributing the significance of stellar activities to the gods to be doing astronomy.

is astrology astronomy?

Absolute horseshit.

The act of looking up and recording data is the act of making observations about the stars. Whatever the underlying intent behind it, those observations are made in a systematic manner conforming to scientific data acquisition, even if they do so with the naked eye and a few sheets of vellum rather than a sophisticated CCD rig.

As an intelligent woman, a free thinker, a feminist and a devout Christian


I dont see how you can combine those things.

you have to be doing more than looking up and doing other than attributing the significance of stellar activities to the gods to be doing astronomy.

is astrology astronomy?

No, because your conclusions are not based on observation and are not tested. You ignore evidence and make up evidence.

However, astrology wasn't all that was practiced. Unless you are talking about modern astronomy (the reason for the term is because there is astronomy that isn't modern), I challenge you to find a remotely reliable source that has the birth of astronomy in the last 3000 years.

I dont see how you can combine those things.

I can. I know her quite well.

Dude, totally, its already happened.

On a thread a ways back, Corneliu 2 went on for like 5 pages totally buying a clearly satirical position as genuine, even when half a dozen other posters had already openly applauded the satire and sarcasm.

I even had Knights of Liberty for a post or two.

People just don't read the whole post, and I think that's what makes it easy.

Personally, I would never bother to read one of your posts. I generally just take the piss out of losers whose posts include the term "fuck you".

Absolute horseshit.

The act of looking up and recording data is the act of making observations about the stars. Whatever the underlying intent behind it, those observations are made in a systematic manner conforming to scientific data acquisition, even if they do so with the naked eye and a few sheets of vellum rather than a sophisticated CCD rig.

since you yourself admit that not just any data collection is scientific, this must mean that you agree that someone must be doing more than just looking up or just looking for signs from the gods to be doing astronomy. such non-scientific observations may be useful to someone actually doing science, but they are not themselves science.

since you yourself admit that not just any data collection is scientific, this must mean that you agree that someone must be doing more than just looking up or just looking for signs from the gods to be doing astronomy. such non-scientific observations may be useful to someone actually doing science, but they are not themselves science.

But that's just what you're messing up.

The act of looking at the sky and making observations expecting to divine the intend of the gods necessitates a systematic approach to observation and data recording. You CAN'T just look at the sky, jot down a few things, and call it a day. While astrology may not be science, the underlying astronomical observations that went into it (and thus the observations of those ancient folks looking for signs from the gods) ARE.

What you don't seem to realize is that individual parts of the scientific method can themselves be scientific.

Observations can be scientific even if they aren't useful in forming a hypothesis.

A hypothesis can be scientific even if its founded on shady observations.

It is? Link?

bananas and chimps don't come from the same place.

So you contest that science is the system of acquiring knowledge through the scientific method?

i deny that we naturally use a scientific method. certainly not all the time.

i also deny that science is merely the personal use of a scientific method.

i also also deny that me discovering that a hot stove is hot and extrapolating from that to thinking that all hot stoves are hot and i should be careful around stoves is an example of me engaging in science (or rather, 'melvin', as i'm pretty sure this is the entire hub of our disagreement).

What you don't seem to realize is that individual parts of the scientific method can themselves be scientific.

Observations can be scientific even if they aren't useful in forming a hypothesis.

the observations may be scientific, but they are not science™.

science is entire the collection of the parts.

btw, i'm not sure what the rest of your disagreement with me on the nature of astronomy actually is. you have agreed with me that there is more than mere looking up; that there must be systematic observation and recording, for example.

But that's just what you're messing up.

The act of looking at the sky and making observations expecting to divine the intend of the gods necessitates a systematic approach to observation and data recording. You CAN'T just look at the sky, jot down a few things, and call it a day. While astrology may not be science, the underlying astronomical observations that went into it (and thus the observations of those ancient folks looking for signs from the gods) ARE.

What you don't seem to realize is that individual parts of the scientific method can themselves be scientific.

Observations can be scientific even if they aren't useful in forming a hypothesis.

A hypothesis can be scientific even if its founded on shady observations.


To be fair, being scientific and being science are two different things. Science is systematic. He's correct about that. It's a system for acquiring knowledge. That said knowledge be somehow useful to "the general body of knowledge" or that being useful is ever the intent has nothing to do with it, however. What's important is that you are making observations and making hypothesis and predictions based on those observations, and then testing them. Ancient Mesopotamians most certainly did that.

Mayans observed the Venus cycle, made records of these observations, made predictions about it's future positions and tested those predictions, proving them correct. They were extremely accurate in their ability to predict the cycles and they recorded a lot of data about it. Accurate reliable data. Certainly they ascribed importance to this science that wasn't there, but they definitely conducted science in their observation, hypothesis, predictions and testing. They used for forms of astrology, but it's not really a matter of debate whether or not what they were doing was astronomy.

If science was invented by the Greeks, one wonders how the Mayans learned it and did it for centuries long before we'd ever encountered them.

the observations may be scientific, but they are not science™.

science is entire the collection of the parts.

btw, i'm not sure what the rest of your disagreement with me on the nature of astronomy actually is. you have agreed with me that there is more than mere looking up; that there must be systematic observation and recording, for example.

To be fair, being scientific and being science are two different things. Science is systematic. He's correct about that. It's a system for acquiring knowledge. That said knowledge be somehow useful to "the general body of knowledge" or that being useful is ever the intent has nothing to do with it, however. What's important is that you are making observations and making hypothesis and predictions based on those observations, and then testing them. Ancient Mesopotamians most certainly did that.

Mayans observed the Venus cycle, made records of these observations, made predictions about it's future positions and tested those predictions, proving them correct. They were extremely accurate in their ability to predict the cycles and they recorded a lot of data about it. Accurate reliable data. Certainly they ascribed importance to this science that wasn't there, but they definitely conducted science in their observation, hypothesis, predictions and testing. They used for forms of astrology, but it's not really a matter of debate whether or not what they were doing was astronomy.

If science was invented by the Greeks, one wonders how the Mayans learned it and did it for centuries long before we'd ever encountered them.

I think this is mainly an issue of not fully understanding what was being discussed when I jumped in. I thought we were going over what was and wasn't scientific, when it seems you two were debating what is and isn't science.

bananas and chimps don't come from the same place.

So you don't think Chimps can develop instincts in 1000 years (not that it's really the point).



i deny that we naturally use a scientific method. certainly not all the time.

When I say all the time, I mean frequently, as the colloquiel(sp? I'm lazy) expression. Nobody uses science all the time, not even scientists. I'm not denying that because of the existence of philosophy and science we often violate scientific method.


i also deny that science is merely the personal use of a scientific method.

Based on what? Cuz you want it to be?

I notice you've not offered the first bit of support for this claim. So by definition, science must be for some universal database of knowledge?

I asked you specify who this knowledge must be for or how big a group it must be. Unsurprisingly, you avoided answering.


i also also deny that me discovering that a hot stove is hot and extrapolating from that to thinking that all hot stoves are hot and i should be careful around stoves is an example of me engaging in science (or rather, 'melvin', as i'm pretty sure this is the entire hub of our disagreement).

If you form a hypothesis, that stove was hot because that's what stoves do, and predict that other stoves would be hot, and then test it. You certainly would be. However, you'll probably choose a different method of testing than touching it the next time.

I can. I know her quite well.



Personally, I would never bother to read one of your posts. I generally just take the piss out of losers whose posts include the term "fuck you".

I know, lots of people feel the same way, they only see the "fuck you", even when it comes at the end. Thats often how I get as far as I do and even Jocabia and Cat Tribes consider it worth the effect.

So you don't think Chimps can develop instincts in 1000 years (not that it's really the point).

yup. instinct doesn't work like that. also, eating bananas is a learned behavior.

Based on what? Cuz you want it to be?

I notice you've not offered the first bit of support for this claim. So by definition, science must be for some universal database of knowledge?

I asked you specify who this knowledge must be for or how big a group it must be. Unsurprisingly, you avoided answering.

don't recall seeing the question. science requires both the empirical methodology for forming testable explanatory schemes, etc., and the public/social body of scientists. it is by its nature a social enterprise and science cannot be done outside of the existence of a scientific community. i mean, surely you don't deny the importance of peer review to a thing's being science, for example. i've seen you bludgeon creationists with it often enough.

GoG's hypothesis: My tongue makes apples tasty.

I go and eat apples from each tree. Tasty. My hypothesis is now a theory. Evidenced.

Perfect. Thank you for proving yourself wrong. Hey, Deus, want to suggest what might be wrong with her test?

yup. instinct doesn't work like that. also, eating bananas is a learned behavior.

I've still not seen you demonstrate this with evidence.

How does instinct work, my friend?


don't recall seeing the question. science requires both the empirical methodology for forming testable explanatory schemes, etc., and the public/social body of scientists. it is by its nature a social enterprise and science cannot be done outside of the existence of a scientific community. i mean, surely you don't deny the importance of peer review to a thing's being science, for example. i've seen you bludgeon creationists with it often enough.

Which community? What happens if the "scientific" community is seeking to surpress science? Of course, you can think of a number of times when conducting science couldn't be social if you wanted it to really be science, can you not?

Peer review is important, sure. But those peers can exist across centuries and don't require that your intention was ever to be used or seen by that peer. Accepted theories require peer review. The reasons are obvious.

Meanwhile, you've still not demonstrated for me why that community can't have existed 5000 years ago and reviewed your data. What makes current scientists special? It's proven that in the past the "scientific" community was wildly unreliable.

...At the point where we make a conclusion, or form a theory, there is no longer faith or any leaps.....

Not quite. Every single theory rests on several unproven assumptions, one of which is the following: all the factors affecting the phenomena being observed can be rationally comprehended. Just in case you missed the irony: you take it on faith that you don't have to take anything on faith.

....We believe (the other theories are) correct based on solid evidence for accepting them.....

But we also know that some of them must be wrong. It is extremely unlikely that every single theory currently held by science is correct, even though they seem to work. So when we accept a theory based on how well it fits into all our other theories, there is an element of faith.

Now, if we define faith as inherently irrational, then my previous sentence is wrong. The scientist is acting in a rational manner, so the word 'faith' is not the best fit. But English has a lack of words for what I am trying to convey, so I am using religious terms in an effort to get my point across. I just can't think of a better word to describe the idea that the scientist is partially basing his or her worldview on something that is not in accord with reality.

Mind you, this is a bit of a side tangent because it's more of an example of how judgement of theories is influenced by the paradigm of the observer.

...When is it treated as true. When it has enough data to support EVERY part of that theory......

So then the Catholic Church was right in silencing Galileo, as he did not have any data to support the part of his heliocentric theory that predicted that all the other stars were much farther away than the objects in our solar system.

But of course we know that the Church was wrong and Galileo was right. And this is not some historical anomaly, either. Scientists often accept theories that are incompletely proven. Especially when a theory makes predictions that could theoretically be proven but current technology does not allow for it.

No, I recognize that you're mixing a lot of things together. The parts of the process that allow for leaps and faith is the formation of the hypothesis. However the process of prediction and testing is meant to test those leaps and either find evidence that supports them or evidence that falsifies them.

I see where the confusion lies.

I agree with the bolded part here. The scientific method is the manner in which we test all these theories to make sure that they have the absolute minimum of leaps and faith and creativity and irrationality and assumptions. That's what it's there for.

We agree on that right?

Now, onto the next part. I can show you examples of how leaps and faith worm their way into the scientific world view, and you will inevitably reply by explaining the scientific method to me yet again. And you will be quite correct in pointing out that the scientific method is there to get rid of all that.

But here's the point: the reason we have the scientific method is because of the inherent subjectivity and creativity of the processes involved in interpreting data, devising models, and constructing analogies. Not to mention the fact that these elements of creativity and subjectivity also come into play when we do things like devise experiments to test our hypotheses.

So, I think we're actually agreeing. Both of us have elaborated a model of science where people create hypotheses using intuitive and creative leaps which are then tested against the scientific method in order to find out what holds true and what doesn't.

Only if you don't understand science. If we form it on anything other than the evidence, it's not science, no matter how popular it might be.

I shall be clearer: in the process of coming up with analogies or models, or when interpreting data, scientists will do so through their own paradigm. This paradigm is in turned influenced by their cultural and social contexts, as well as their philosophical outlook. Example: an empiricist may be less willing to overlook outlying data as anomalous, while the rationalist will be thrilled with an apparent lack of internal dissonance in the theory.

There are 500 trees in this orchard. I predict that if my hypothesis is correct, that I can pick apples from every tree in this orchard at any spot in the tree and it will be tasty. Again, based on my hypothesis and my evidence, this would be necessarily be true if my claim is true and likely be false if my claim were false. So I perform the experiment. Yum. Yum. Yum. No matter what tree or where on the tree, I get tasty apples. My hypothesis is now a theory. Evidenced.

I assume that your hypothesis is: the apples have the quality of being tasty.

You make the assumption that the quality of tastiness is in the apple, rather than in your tongue. I will make the opposite assumption.

GoG's hypothesis: My tongue makes apples tasty.

I go and eat apples from each tree. Tasty. My hypothesis is now a theory. Evidenced.

You see how you can take the same data and by making different leaps and interpreting the data differently, you can arrive at two different theories. Now we could use the scientific method to make better and better tests until one of these theories fails.

The combination of coming up with theories and then having them tested by the scientific method is Science, as far as I'm concerned, and this process has elements of subjectivity and creativity as I outlined above.

The theory doesn't have those leaps. The hypothesis may, but that's not the point. The hypothesis isn't the conclusion which is what you commented on. The hypothesis isn't what we hold to be true. We hold theories to be true because they've been tested and verified.

You are almost correct. It would be more correct to say that the theory contains the absolute minimum of assumptions, and that the inherent assumptions lie outside the scope of science, e.g. we assume that the FSM did not touch the experiment with His noodly appendage while we observing the experiment.

I would also venture that the hypothesis should also have these minimum number of assumptions, but that's simply Occam's razor, and we already discussed that, didn't we?

To get to my point: you are correct that the theory itself should not have leaps. It is fortunate that I never claimed that it should. What I claimed was that the process by which we arrive at the the theory is full of leaps.

I'll give you credit. You've definitely improved. I could see how some of this nonsense might confuse someone into buying in.

Can you cool it with the arrogance? I'm worried that people will think you're condescending.

And we're finally getting to the interesting part of the debate: how subjectivity and creativity are present in the application of the scientific method.

Perfect. Thank you for proving yourself wrong. Hey, Deus, want to suggest what might be wrong with her test?

Well, what's the standard deviation for a sample size of 1?

Let's see...http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/5/3/853c79575bd7e5a9fdbc480844b76337.png

Well, what's 1/(N-1) for N = 1? Oh, fuck.

Looks like your sample size is a bit too small, G-o-G. Why don't you try the same thing again giving pieces of the apple to multiple people?

Well, what's the standard deviation for a sample size of 1?

Let's see...http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/8/5/3/853c79575bd7e5a9fdbc480844b76337.png

Well, what's 1/(N-1) for N = 1? Oh, fuck.

Looks like your sample size is a bit too small, G-o-G. Why don't you try the same thing again giving pieces of the apple to multiple people?

Ding, ding, ding. Give the man a prize. It's, it's, it's almost like you have to conduct *gasp* science so that you can come to a single conclusion rather than several.

Perhaps you think faith is involved in science, GoG, because you're not quite sure how to test a hypothesis.

By the wah, GoG, you commented on testing supposed to get it to the minimum number of leaps. Question: What's the minimum number of leaps? I'd say zero, but that's just too easy and true.

Why don't you try the same thing again giving pieces of the apple to multiple people?

Why not? Let's say they all say it's tasty.

Explanations that would fit the data:
1. Apples are tasty.
2. Apples are tasty this month.
3. Food in scientific experiments always tastes good.
4. In years divisible by four, apples always taste good when used in scientific experiments.
And so forth.

Could you invalidate some of those with further testing? Sure. The problem is that you can remove an infinite number, but you always still have an infinite number to deal with. Explanation is a very flexible thing. We end up having to resort to questionable, epistemologically "soft" standards like a rough judgment of "plausibility" or a preference for explaining more with less.

Why not? Let's say they all say it's tasty.

Explanations that would fit the data:
1. Apples are tasty.
2. Apples are tasty this month.
3. Food in scientific experiments always tastes good.
4. In years divisible by four, apples always taste good when used in scientific experiments.
And so forth.

Could you invalidate some of those with further testing? Sure. The problem is that you can remove an infinite number, but you always still have an infinite number to deal with. Explanation is a very flexible thing. We end up having to resort to questionable, epistemologically "soft" standards like a rough judgment of "plausibility" or a preference for explaining more with less.

Don't think like that. Godel did when he developed his Incompleteness Theorem, and people kept chidingly asking him if it was done yet, and he got so sick of it he died a madman.

That's not true, I'm sorry.

I've still not seen you demonstrate this with evidence.

How does instinct work, my friend?

which part do you need evidence for? the fact that bananas and chimps live on different continents, the fact that an instinct is an unlearned inherited set of relatively fixed patterns of responses to particular stimuli that holds across a species, or the fact that combining these two ideas means that eating bananas cannot be an instinct among chimps?

Which community?

the scientific community. the community of those engaged in the process of empirical observation, hypothesizing, experimenting, result sharing, theory construction, looking over each others' shoulders to attempt to approach objectivity, etc.

have you ever uttered the phrase "science is self-correcting"?

What happens if the "scientific" community is seeking to surpress science?

then the scientific community has ceased to exist (or at least, those involved in the suppression have ceased to be a part of it).

Meanwhile, you've still not demonstrated for me why that community can't have existed 5000 years ago and reviewed your data. What makes current scientists special? It's proven that in the past the "scientific" community was wildly unreliable.

its not a matter of can't. it is a matter of didn't. even where good observations were being made, scientific explanatory frameworks were not being created, scientific experiments were not being conducted and repeated by others, etc.

what makes 'current scientists' special is the development of science (/melvin), which is unprecedented in the history of humanity. i mean, clearly something different has happened since the melvin revolution, right? what makes that difference under your conception?

Why not? Let's say they all say it's tasty.

Explanations that would fit the data:
1. Apples are tasty.
2. Apples are tasty this month.
3. Food in scientific experiments always tastes good.
4. In years divisible by four, apples always taste good when used in scientific experiments.
And so forth.

Could you invalidate some of those with further testing? Sure. The problem is that you can remove an infinite number, but you always still have an infinite number to deal with. Explanation is a very flexible thing. We end up having to resort to questionable, epistemologically "soft" standards like a rough judgment of "plausibility" or a preference for explaining more with less.

Which is science does not allow you to add anything in you don't have evidence for, in a theory that is. You can do that in a hypothesis. You put a bunch of hypotheses, but not conclusions.

which part do you need evidence for? the fact that bananas and chimps live on different continents, the fact that an instinct is an unlearned inherited set of relatively fixed patterns of responses to particular stimuli that holds across a species, or the fact that combining these two ideas means that eating bananas cannot be an instinct among chimps?

They do? Are you seriously saying there are no bananas in East Africa. Have you opened an Almanac in like 1000 years?



the scientific community. the community of those engaged in the process of empirical observation, hypothesizing, experimenting, result sharing, theory construction, looking over each others' shoulders to attempt to approach objectivity, etc.

have you ever uttered the phrase "science is self-correcting"?

Probably. But I was talking about, as are you, science for public consumption. We don't treat things as true in the community without peer-review. However, even after passing peer-review, it's possible for something to not be science, and vice versa. And what is peer-review checking for, or supposed to check for? Hmmm.. methodology. Now, why would it do that? Oh, dear, to check and see if it's science. See how that works?


then the scientific community has ceased to exist (or at least, those involved in the suppression have ceased to be a part of it).

Hmmm... who decides this?


its not a matter of can't. it is a matter of didn't. even where good observations were being made, scientific explanatory frameworks were not being created, scientific experiments were not being conducted and repeated by others, etc.

They weren't? Are you claiming that other people weren't engaged in testing the orbits of Venus over hundreds of years? The measurements were continually verified for hundreds of years by ONE person? Hmmm... that seems impossible, but since you've made such a strong case.


what makes 'current scientists' special is the development of science (/melvin), which is unprecedented in the history of humanity. i mean, clearly something different has happened since the melvin revolution, right? what makes that difference under your conception?

You usually answer questions by repeating them back to me? I asked you what makes them special?

Okay, so I've defined science. You ignored it.

Science - the system of acquisition of knowledge using the scientific method.

You're definition? Oh, right, you've not given one. In fact, you've just changed it pretty much the entire time. Now, it's got to be reviewed, for public consumption and it's got to be by "REAL" scientists. When asked what a real scientist is, you've avoided the question. Yeah, you're making a great argument. Oh, wait, only one of us is making a great argument and it ain't you.

Your turn. Define science. Define a real scientist. Explain whether or not science can be performed by men and women existing in a time when the community refuses to accept your work due to prejudice. Just start there.

Which is science does not allow you to add anything in you don't have evidence for, in a theory that is.

The whole point was that a given set of data can be "evidence" for a wide variety of different theories.

Which do you trust for predictive value? You have to go by some other standard.

Well I obviously disagree. Let my try it this way.

What would you say was the meaning of life?

I would say that's a rather pointless question.
Your life will have whatever meaning you want it to have.

Um, it's not that simple.

There is no single logical conclusion that follows from given facts. There are a vast range of conclusions that can be determined from a set of given facts. How do we choose one over the other? How do we formualte a theory from some observed facts? The short answer is we make a creative leap. I'm not saying that it is a totally irrational and intuitive leap. All I am saying is that it has elements of intuition and subjectivity to it. Also, we tend to assume that other theories that could affect the data are true.

So, when we look at the given facts, and we reach conclusions, we not only think, but we also imagine and even show a little bit of faith.

You're reaching for straws there.
Yes, we do think creatively in that we abstract observed facts and look for the common traits. From these common traits we extrapoltate the underlying patterns.
Faith doesn't come into it.

That is the beauty and strength of science: no idea is above being challenge, everything can be disproved if the evidence that would do so was ever found. Proof without certainty is infinitely preferable to certainty without proof. Though of course, "proof" is not the correct word. All science ever has is evidence, and any scientist who talks about "proof" or something being "proved" actually means evidence.

This is not a mountain that science needs to climb. It is the hill atop which science has built its castle.
Beautifully put. :D

Beautifully put. :D

Seconded. Siggin' dis.

I know, lots of people feel the same way, they only see the "fuck you", even when it comes at the end. Thats often how I get as far as I do and even Jocabia and Cat Tribes consider it worth the effect.

Then maybe you shouldn't put the "fuck you" in.

Well, try thinking about it this way: "Do I trust that I am seeing what I'm seeing?" I could only say this meaningfully if there were some other way of seeing with which to compare - but there is not.


So basicaly because you cannot concive any methoed at all whereby another way of seeing may exist, you proclaim asking if cwe can trust this sense to be meaningless.

Colour blindness,
Halutionary drugs,
Synthaesia.

Note to self - I am an idiot. Never EVER start a thread which may involve religion in any way, shape or form.

*goes off to smash head of wall repeatedly*

Heh welcome to NSG, I hope you enjoy your flight, please consider flying with us again.

Heh, can't remember the source my biochemistry professor mentioned, but we were talking about brain chemistry and how brain's required for our contrived sense of self, and he used this quote to illustrate the matter:

I think I think, therefore I think I am.

Heh that's fuckin' great yep I can get behind that one.

Not creationism.

Just because I don't get what caused a creator.

Heh I find that quite funny. Before the positing of Brane theory, and multi universes, and strings, super strings etc.. Science had little trouble in what created the big bang, what was there before it etc..

Think of it like this if it helps.

Before anything existed, any particle, any element, anything, God existed as spirit, or thought, or intelegence.

God said let there be.... and Lo there was, matter created from spirit.

Now you may choose not to belive, and really that's fine by me, I only say this to give you some conception, of something created out of no-thing(or everything dependant on your spirtual bent!)

I would also add "Are you prepared to do this for people who are religious but of a DIFFERENT religion than yours?"

Ahhhh many thanks, yes I guess I left that one out.

I'll give you better than English, I'll give you King James English.

"He that increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow." -Deuteronians, 26:3

What I'm saying is this:

Why think for its own sake? It hurts.

And similarly why not? We all find our own meaning to life(even if we don't all relaise that) Why not let just thought be your meaning?

Before anything existed, any particle, any element, anything, God existed as spirit, or thought, or intelligence.What caused God to exist?

Um, it's not that simple.

There is no single logical conclusion that follows from given facts. There are a vast range of conclusions that can be determined from a set of given facts. How do we choose one over the other? How do we formualte a theory from some observed facts? The short answer is we make a creative leap. I'm not saying that it is a totally irrational and intuitive leap. All I am saying is that it has elements of intuition and subjectivity to it. Also, we tend to assume that other theories that could affect the data are true.

So, when we look at the given facts, and we reach conclusions, we not only think, but we also imagine and even show a little bit of faith.

Exactly lets, just try to work out what IS the best form of governace, and we'll get all sorts of conclusions, from the same empircal facts. Humanity is pig headed, subjective and warmongering towards those who don't share our ideas.

Of course it matters. We have to look in our past to see all the crap we have screwed up. Then we can look to the present/future so we can repair what the idiots before us have done.

All of that being said, why is it that anyone who beleves in God, or acknowledges creationism as true, is unanimously hated and trashed by everyone on these NSG forums? WTF is up with that?

I don't think they are. I belive in God, I am certianly not in the creationist camp though, but I don't feel hated by everyone on this forum.

And if it does, then you are just as intolerant as someone who thinks being Gay is wrong.


Heheh that is certianly true, but shit we are all intolerant of somethings, and it is right that we should be so. Labeling somebody intolerant serves no perpose.

I would say that's a rather pointless question.
Your life will have whatever meaning you want it to have.

Bear with me Cabra.

So what would you say your personal meaning of life is? Or do you even have one, is life meaningless to you?

One of my major problems I find is that the minute I say that I believe in God, I get an army of angry people DEMANDING to know why I dare have a faith in something other than science.

Hell, I'm not saying that God said a word and BOOM the Earth suddenly appeared, but I do believe in a God - but even so, why should I or anybody else be expected to defend their faith.

I've never once bitched at someone because they believe in another faith or some aspect of science which I don't agree with (I'm referring to theories yet to be proven).

What caused God to exist?

Nothing.

Nothing.How so?

One of my major problems I find is that the minute I say that I believe in God, I get an army of angry people DEMANDING to know why I dare have a faith in something other than science.

Hell, I'm not saying that God said a word and BOOM the Earth suddenly appeared, but I do believe in a God - but even so, why should I or anybody else be expected to defend their faith.

I've never once bitched at someone because they believe in another faith or some aspect of science which I don't agree with (I'm referring to theories yet to be proven).

1) People who have faith have an annoying tendency to want to put it into law. Therefore, they must be able to defend their faith as to why it should apply to everyone. This argument does not apply to those who practice faith in the privacy of their own homes.

2) Creationist have the stupid tendency of thinking that what they believe is true, because it must be... that's not science and never should be. This argument does not apply to creationist.

3) Theories yet to be proven are not called theories. Here comes in point two, where the creationists have suitably muddled the discussion to the point where it is meaningless. There is no such thing as a theory yet to be proven. There is such a thing as a hypothesis.

For these reasons, it is entirely possible to be religious, but the moment you bring it up in public, nr 1 kicks in. The moment you bring up something as stupid and dimwitted as creationism, nr 2 and 3 kick in.

How so?

Let me feild that by asking you for the difinative answer to what caused the big bang?

Let me feild that by asking you for the difinative answer to what caused the big bang?
Nope.
What is the basis for your claim that God's existence was not caused. Asking for the Big Bang is only an evasion.

Nope.
What is the basis for your claim that God's existence was not caused. Asking for the Big Bang is only an evasion.

Heh faith! Now your turn.

The whole point was that a given set of data can be "evidence" for a wide variety of different theories.

Which do you trust for predictive value? You have to go by some other standard.

It can be evidence for a variety of potential theories, but that's why you predict outcomes using each hypothesis and test until all of them fail save one.

You don't know Occam's razor? I'll apply it to just one of your claims.

1. Apples are tasty.

Okay, this means that you'd have to test a variety of apples for tastiness. We've already done that.

2. Apples are tasty this month.

Now you added, "this month." So you have to test a variety of months or you cannot include this in your theory. Is it possible it's true? Certainly. Which is why it's a valid HYPOTHESIS. However, your evidence doesn't support it. Not until you've tested multiple months.

3. Food in scientific experiments always tastes good.

Okay, in adding in scientific experiments, and making it food, this could be tested several ways. Ask people who tasted apples outside of experimentation. Try other foods. Etc. Your current evidence doesn't support this either. Because Occam's razor requires you to leave out parts you have no evidence for.


4. In years divisible by four, apples always taste good when used in scientific experiments.

Same requirements as three but you'd also have to test again next year.


See, there aren't multiple conclusions. And they aren't equally valid. By that reckoning, this is equally valid.

5. Apples are tasty because fairies piss in them.

I mean, we can just add in stuff we don't have evidence for, correct?

Faith is not a substantial basis. Faith is only a thing in your mind that has nothing to do with reality. What is the cause for your faith?

It has nothing to do with reality? Prove it.

Heh faith! Now your turn.Faith is not a substantial basis. Faith is only a thing in your mind that has nothing to do with reality. What is the cause for your faith?

I don't believe in god or any kind of spirituality since I was 10 years old. My position on asking ourselves about the origin of all is:
It's important to be curious, it's an amazing thing about the human condition, and we should, yes, consider the options and do a selection (although there are some theories that are just dumb, I didn't want to get this personal but women coming from the guys's rib is too stupid, since we're more evolved in some aspects than men, coming from a rib sounds like we're just a tool made to procriate... Also wtf is that magic trick in seven days thing? omg...). We should not just think life is short and enjoy it, but it's kind of small-minded to say "stop thinking about that and mind of the future" etc... It's all relative, if you find out things about the past you can find out things about the present, understand why they are like this, and see easier solution for future problems. Also, it's not just because we think about the past that we won't think about the future.
Anyway, my point is, it's important to think about the origin just as much as it's important to consider the destination ^_^
Let me put it this way: if you drive a car and don't know how it works, you'll never stop to put more gas and eventually will stop in the road. And then you will spend time thinking about what's wrong until you see that gas is what's missing. See what I mean? It's better to wonder about that now, than wait until we stop in the road. Of course we know a lot already about ourselves, but it's still not enough. Also, don't you think it would be a huge accomplishment if we solved that riddle? It's been over our heads since... ever.
I want to understand the human mind, that's why I'm going to study psychology.

Sorry about any english errors, I never took english classes, and oh well I'm just a teenager x_x

Faith is not a substantial basis. Faith is only a thing in your mind that has nothing to do with reality. What is the cause for your faith?

The causes of my faith are many, vaired, and have been building for the last 30 or so years, so forgive me if I don't go into them here and now.

It is all irrelevant anyway, as I'm only responding to your question about not knowing what created a creator. As I have already outlined a theory for you to enable you to consive of an un-created creator, I just don't get why you are asking me these questions?

For my arguments on why faith does have bearing on reality see the other thread.

The causes of my faith are many, vaired, and have been building for the last 30 or so years, so forgive me if I don't go into them here and now.of course not. as all believers, you have nothing to show. :rolleyes:

It is all irrelevant anyway, as I'm only responding to your question about not knowing what created a creator. As I have already outlined a theory for you to enable you to consive of an un-created creator, I just don't get why you are asking me these questions?

For my arguments on why faith does have bearing on reality see the other thread.faith has no bearing on reality whatsoever. believing in things will not create them.
and if you can't name who or what created the creator there is no reason so assume the creator's existence.

I agree with you, and I already knew no one would read what I wrote.
ha-ha
but i think my car >>>COMPARISON<<< was so good
xD

;):p:rolleyes: