| |
This is too long so I'm snipping at will. I have taken great pains to make
sure nothing is responded too out of context.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> My *only* point is that this is not *everything*. If you cut to the chase,
> logic dictates that a finite universe can only have finite understanding.
> What then?
What when? Accepting for the moment, that the universe is actually finite, so
what? So if we manage to hang on until we learn everything, then it's
theoretically possible for us to actually do so. Great! Knowing everything
would rock. I don't get all empty inside thinking that we don't have more to
discover.
But I don't think that will happen. When you place a point right between 1 and
2, you find 1.5. When you place a point between 1 and 1.5 you find 1.25. You
can do that forever. And I think that's how science will go. At least for
longer than we have a reason to expect our spiecies to exist.
> Worry about that when we get to it? That's like the quote
> earlier--we'll leave the afterlife until we get there. Yeah, makes perfect
> sense to just sit back and wait until we're at an impasse before we even
> start to consider the issue.
Exactly! It makes great sense to plan for that which can be planned. But the
afterlife, if such turns out to exist, is fundamentally unknowable and thus
unplannable. What if you're all wrong about how to prepare for the afterlife
and you wasted opportunity (even though you don't look at it this way) here in
this life?
> "Deciphering reality" with science, as in anything else is *not* reality.
Well...isn't that true? There is reality. Right? And anything else that we
can discuss is fiction. Science is mostly about exploring reality. I think
this might be the main point where you and I are failing to communicate. I
feel like you're saying something that I'm just not getting.
> I love scientists. I love reading scientific
> journals and papers--most of which do not belittle things that are outside
> the scientific institutions, unlike some posts in these threads.
Just for the record; you keep saying stuff like this and commenting
disgruntledly about phrases like "Whacko Xtians." You aren't asserting that
_I_ have been a problem in this regard, are you? I haven't been tempted to
deride you, I haven't typed Xtian, and I agree that Christmas deserves the
place of proper noun in our language. (But we celibrate Newtonmass :-)
> (My first personal attack in this thread(I think))
Well, it's not much of a personal attack. I don't really think of it that way
anyhow.
> You, on the other hand,
> won't even begin to accept the very notion that there could be a God,
Well, I pointed out to John some of what I'd look for as far as evidence goes.
Doesn't that mean that I'm at least willing to toy with the notion. Merely
becaue I don't expect to decide that God exists (and I don't) doesn't mean that
if compelling evidence presented itself, that I couldn't change my mind.
> not
> only because those that do beleive you have no respect for, and not only
> because you find no scientific evidence that He does exist, but it would
> mean, even the effort of considering that there *may* be a god, that you
> would have to change your worldview, and you're the one that seems unwilling
> to do that.
How do I seem so? I'm not willing to change my worldview for no reason. I'm
not even capable of that. But I'm not being willfully ignorant. I just have a
different opinion than you.
> > > When you cut to the end of the page and get before, 'Well,
> > > this preceeded that, and that preceeded this...' you are left with what?
> >
> > More questions. So?
>
> But science answered all that there is to know. The entire physicla
> universe is mapped out, and reduced to a 'Grande Unification Theory'. What
> else is there? What else indeed, but the stuff that exists outside science.
Are you saying that this has happened, or that it will? Even a GUT isn't going
to explain everything about the universe. It won't explain why some people
prefer purple shorts to red trousers. There will be lots to explore further.
I'm still trying to map what exactly you think is ourside science. In fact, I
would appreciate it if you could just tell me rather than was poetic about fish
and fiction.
> Does schooling make you intelligent.
Maybe. But it seems off-topic for this thread. Why?
> Does having a whole whack of letters
> after your name automatically imbue you with the right to debate, to speak
> your opinion?
Nope, everyone has that.
> If I mentioned that I went to both college and university (college for
> computer systems tech, university for english major, poli sci and religion
> minor) would what I wrote mean more to you than if I left high school after
> grade 12 and have been pumping gas for the last 20 years?
Not in the way that you mean. But it is useful to know where a discussant is
coming from.
> And we're back to a point I was admonished on a while back--science explains
> what is observable--it's part of the scientific method. We build better and
> better systems for observing and measuring, and I want to continue to do so.
> My issue comes with that 'wall' which says *nothing* has existed, nothing
> exists today, and nothing will exist that cannot be explained by science.
I won't say that, and I never have. What I would say instead is, "*nothing*
has existed, nothing exists today, and nothing will exist that cannot be
explored by science."
> No, I think you read it right--the very first scientific experiment that I
> remember doing is 'Observer this candle and document what you see' We
> discussed the melting of wax, the flame flickering in the breeze, the
> shadows on the wall, all observable phenomenon. What science cannot discuss
> is why you will find a prevalence of scented candles in the dorm rooms of
> 19-22 year old women, or why most of us feel comforted or amorous when
> there's a few candles about.
But clearly, it can! I'm not a physicist. I'm a social scientist (well, by
training, anyway). And I feel strongly that you can apply the scientific
method to preferential choice making as well as any other human phenomena that
you can describe. What makes you think that the effects of candles on our
psychology, or the preferences of humans is outside the domain of science?
> And with proof, there is no need of faith. If a god is provable, therefore
> reducing to what we know and/or understand, he wouldn't be worth following.
First, why not? Second, just because something is demonstrated to exist,
doesn't mean you fully grasp it.
> > > Credible evidence? Prove to the fish that water exists.
> >
> > Well, see, fish aren't exactly rocket scientists. While I'm pretty sure they
> > feel pain, I don't think they have thoughts. So I don't think such a proof • is
> > possible.
>
> K, in scientific pursuit, one of the first things to go is literature, and
> the concepts therein--like allusions, metaphors, and concepts framed in a
> way that we may understand them better instead of a straight scientific
> explanation--'It's like...' is a foreign concept, so it seems...
So, how should I respond when you make an assertion that is plainly false or
meaningless? I'm not interested in trying to second guess what you might mean
based on the cutesy references you use. Why don't you just say what you mean?
> > > It can't see it, it can't feel it, it can't taste it,
> >
> > Uh...sure it can. I can see, feel, and taste water (and air, for that • matter)
> > so why couldn't the fish? Actually, I'm rusty on my ichthyology, can they
> > taste or just smell?
>
>
> Again, allusion. The actual issue gets sidetracked and lost due to the
> allusionary concept being either ignored or too far above to understand.
WRONG! The issue isn't being ignored or missed by the dolt with whom you are
conversing. The issue simply doesn't make sense. You're asserting that an
analogy exists to a thing in order to make it easier to understand. But you
are requiring that we belive patently false things in order for it to work.
Don't you see that this means your analogy is shot in the head? It's dumb to
compare to the fish that can't sense water when the fish _can_ sense water. In
fact, if you think the analogy holds, it _means_ that the thing to which you
are comparing the fish-water relationship is also wrong.
> No, natural explainable phenomenon are based in the tenants of the
> scientific framework which have, as their funamental base tenants concepts
> of chaos and the loss of energy, two completely contrary points to order and
> intelligence. If you want a house, you build it. If you want chaos, dump a
> whole bunch of stuff in the middle of a field and say, 'there you go'.
We've been over this. It's just not so. Chaos and Entropy do not invalidate
the natural and spontaneous origin of life. If you don't trust me, do the
reading.
> No, what I say doesn't make it so, nor what you say makes it so. But I will
> reiterate some points:
>
> The universe is finite.
Show me.
> We are finite creatures.
What does that mean?
> Our brains are finite.
See above.
> We can understand and test finite concepts of the universe.
Agreed. Usually.
> Sooner or later, in our continual quest to understand the finite universe
> with our finite minds, we will come to the point where there is nothing left
> to understand, for we know it all. Logic dictates this is so, not me.
If your premises are all true, then I think I think you're right.
> Then what?
Then we play!
> Really really really I understand that science does not 'prove' anything.
Then what am I to take from the constant insistance to the contrary? Are you
being sloppy or disingenuous when you keep making those claims.
> But open your mind to the idea that not everything can be found
> out thru science.
I'm listening. Please provide examples.
> > > Again, I can read the last chapter in a book and know whats going to happen.
> > > The characters in the book don't have a clue. Does that deny their free
> > > will to do as they please in the book?
> >
> > Do you hear yourself? I mean really! You just asserted that characters in
> > books have free will. That was some kind of a slip up right? I'll give you • a
> > do-over on that one if you'll (please) take it. I'm going to assume that you
> > know that a human being decides what all the characters in a book are going • to
> > do and then writes about it, and those characters don't have any kind of will
> > at all because they're pretend.
>
> Allusion. Get over it.
So you don't actually mean what you said? If not, then what did you mean? Is
God like an author who wrote a book and we are the characters, or not?
>>>God is *timeless*. He is outside
> > > our timeline. He knows where we're going to end up 'cause He's been there.
> >
> > Then we have no free will, because it has already been determined what we'll
> > do. Just like the book example above.
>
> No, again you're not quite grasping the point. You can't see but I just
> raised my hand spontaneously--My free will to do so. Just 'cause God knew I
> was going to do that did not negate my free will for doing so. He does not
> determine what we are going to do, He just knows.
How can you say that? If he knew ahead of time that it was going to happen,
then you had no choice -- It simple _had_ to happen. That's not free will.
I'm grasping this concept just fine. You're the one presenting a paradox as if
it were perfectly logical.
> And you could _see_ God as I have come to see Him
If what? Why don't I?
> Well, if we have free will that He gave us, it would be an apparent
> contradiction for God to force an unwanted 'rightness' on us when it's
> obvious we don't want it.
I want it, even if you don't. Why do I have to be dragged down by you?
> I'm leaning towards 'It's part of the bed we made and now we must sleep in
> it' POV.
Who's this "we?"
> > > Where does the concept of Justice and
> > > Responsibility and right and wrong come from?
> These concepts fall outside the purview of scientific explanation, and yet
> we have them, and justice is not a sham just because we have some poorly
> instituted and implemented legal systems. I know there's Justice for I see
> injustices done and I wish to right the wrongs.
How and why do these fall outside scientific inquiry? I could design
experiments about morality.
> And doctors supposedly have performed just such surgeries and have removed
> the 'human' element--now isn't that interesting... a little hunk of meat
> that contains all that there is to be human. Well, there's a thought. As a
> science appreciator I would lump this into the same category as the
> Enquirer, 'My dog gave birth to human triplets!!'.
Wait, so you're disbelieving serious learning based on...what?
> Inherently, across cultures and civilizations, we know
> when we smile, it's understood across the board,
Is that so? I remember reading something about smiling being an agressive
action, but I can't remember if it was fiction.
> and we all know that guilty feeling when we do wrong.
How do you know we all feel that?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) The quest for knowledge will just dissipate when we get there? A fundamental human significance--the pursuit of learning--will promptly poof when all that science can teach us is known? Yes it is a Good Thing (tm). I have said so before, and I (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) Again, a finite concept--Every hair on your head is numbered, every grain of sand, every molecule, He knows--do you get the idea that He is infinite yet? If it were *our* universe, and as finite beings, sure we would have to script it, but, (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
