| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > > > So no, [Xtian is] not an insult.
> >
> > You can believe that nigger, or mankind, or squarehead, is an insult--that
> > don't make it so. Context is everything.
>
> Then take it as established that I imply no insult by my use of the shortened
> form.
Then no problem.
>
> > > > Your point about purple and red [preferences] is outside the realm of
> > > > science
> > >
> > > Is it? Is it really? How about this as a hypothetical explanation:
> > >
> > > Due to a microscopic neurological structure in your brain, certain neurons
> > > respond to the chemicals released when your visual center process the color
> > > purple. The response of those neurons leads to a more relaxed (or happy, or
> > > aroused, or generally pleasant) state of mental activity, even at the deeply
> > > subconscious level, and that response in turn leads you to favor the color
> > > purple in preference to red or puce or indigo.
> > > Granted, that's an off-the-rack and arbitrary summation, but do you see
> > > how in principal the topic can be addressed by science?
> >
> > Yeah, or I could just like it--I frefer Occams Razor thanks.
>
> Then you're accepting that color preference is NOT outside the realm of
> scientific inquiry?
I'm saying that many aspects of colour preference is quite inside the realm
of scientific inquiry, just as stydying a candle and it's many psychological
and physiological impacts on a human can, and *should* be studied with
scientific principles.
But it's not me, but others here, who continue to assert that *everything*
is within the grasp os science, that when using the scientific method,
*nothing* can be outside the scope of its domain.
And *I* find that view reductionistic, for, well, it is. We are saying, in
fact, that *everything* can be reduced to a scientific concept.
> In addition, you have yet to apply that Razor in any post I've read by you,
> and you certainly didn't do it there. You're saying, in effect, "I believe
> that there is some para-physical, unknowable, and non-verifiable force guiding
> my color preference" rather than "as evolved biochemical beings, I accept that
> neurochemical interaction likely explains my preference for one color over
> another." The ability to summarize by excluding necessary detail is not
> Occam's Razor; it's simple omission.
> You are assuming, time and again, the existence of a supernatural (and frankly infinite) power overarching everything in the universe. You're ASSUMING its existence, when you haven't yet demonstrated that it's possible, much less necessary.
I'm not assuming the existance of a supernatural, infinite power. I have
*faith* that there's an infinite power, and I call Him God. Assumptions and
faith are not the same thing. Assumptions can be either proven or disproven
over time--I assume that when I let go of this hammer, it will fall--and if
it can be demonstrated time and time again, I can evolve the assumption into
a theory for gravity.
Faith, on the other hand--how does *anyone* demonstrate faith? Further, you
can go thru your life and be good to your fellow human without any faith in
God, as can I. That does not negate His existance, anymore than saying
"Well, a concept of God just doesn't fall into the domain of science,
threfore he *must not exist*"
It's not a limited, 'I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning', or
'If I pinch myself I will feel pain'. We have to learn to separate the
stuff from the Stuff. Faith is a word that gets tossed around quite a
bit--faith in my spouse isn't cheating on me (faithful), faith that my
friends will do me no wrong... However, *my* faith in God is that He is. He
said it Himself in one of the most succinct lines in the bible (hopefully
taken in context), 'I am'.
We can 'prove' that we exist (I think, therefore I am) or we can have faith
that we exist. Occams razor points me to the first point, that, rationally,
with lots of study and understanding, 'I think therefore I am' (with all the
philosophical and scientific studies that follow) is the simplest rational
explanation. I don't need faith to know I exist, I don't need faith to know
the sun will rise, I don't need faith to know that the world existed before
1967. Where faith enters the picture is when something *may* e outside
science, where my faith in God enters the picture.
> Therefore you are absolutely not using Occam's Razor.
> And every time someone asks for an example of something other than the
> physical universe, you parrot "God" over and over again, somehow failing to
> recognize that this, too, is the crux of the argument. So again you are
> assuming your conclusion.
And you are assuming, sir, that science can deal away with anything that,
today, doesn't seem to fit into it. Science is assuming its own
conclusion--science can know everything--we don't know everything yet,
therefore we keep studying to increase our scientific understanding until we
know everything.
I want to continue scientific inquiry, I think it's almost a mandate, a part
of just being human--whether an evolutionary trait (those who know more have
a better chance of survival) or 'blessed from above', or a little from
column A and a little from column B--to glean mor knowledge about the world
in which we live.
>
> > Again, like the busy little beavers who want to go down and chop down all
> > the trees 'cause they can, scientists want to find answers to
> > *everything*--as such, the premise exists that *everything* can be found out
> > with science--now isn't that a nifty little circle, which is circular
> > reasoning and fails to take in account that *something* may exist outside
> > the scientific framework, which is the actual issue.
>
> And luddites who oppose science--which in this debate you have consistently
> done, while somehow maintaining a misunderstanding of its nature--squawk that
> science can't prove what it can't prove, which is equally circular.
I have not once opposed science. I think you are trying to understand
something using logic, rationality, and the scientific method and coming up
blank. How can faith be 'logical' in a scientific sense? Or rational?
Scientifically, I cannot demonstrate that God exists. But my *faith* says
He does. Even the word faith tells me that He cannot be wholely understood
thru the looking glass of science. And if someone believes in something
that is not scientifically logical, or scientifically rational, then, the
folks, well at least some folks in this particular thread, think that the
very concept is wrong--proving my point, sir, that you have just *elevated*
your institution above God.
>
> > > "Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated a misunderstanding of
> > > even the most basic and fundamental aspects of science, I am inclined to
> > > question what has been your level of formal exposure to scientific thinking."
> >
> > And my repeated answers is I grasp the basic concepts of science just fine
> > thank you.
>
> Well, you've demonstrated a fatal misunderstanding about the nature of
> predictability, and you certainly aren't clear on what it means to be
> falsifiable or verifiable, so I'd say it's reasonable to conclude that your
> familiarity of basic scientific principals is not extensive. Further, every
> single time you say "you're making science your god" you are shouting from the
> rooftops that you don't understand what science is nor what logical thinkers
> recognize it not to be!
My familiarity with scientific principles, once again--2nd year university.
That said, it has nothing to do with me walking up to someone who just said,
'nothing can exist outside the scientific domain for we will eventually
understand all that there is to know using scientific principles.' and
saying 'horsefeathers!'
I'm not shouting. I'm not the one that made science king of the sandbox.
And if you are not as well, then we're both on the same page.
So here is *my* logical thinking:
If something *may* exist outside the purview of science, then my God *could*
exist.
If *nothing* exists outside the purview of science, then science is 'all
knowing'
I know which way I'm leaning.
>
> > I think that your fallacy was to paint me with the same brush as 'any other
> > Christian'.
>
> If I over-generalized unfairly, I apologize, but my conclusion was based on
> your repeated invocation of dreadfully misunderstood scientific principals in
> exactly the way they are invoked by pretty much "any other Creationist." But
> if I'm wrong on that point, then I apologize for that as well.
>
> > My *belief* is there's a God. Since you cannot disprove the existence of God,
> > my belief cannot be false--it doesn't make my belief true, but since it's *my*
> > belief, I can hold it without having a 'false' principle.
>
> Nonexistence can indeed be proven in several ways. One of them is to
> demonstrate an inherent contradiction in the fundamental nature of the entity >in
> question, such as an infinitely loving and just and good entity that can allow
> infinite, eternal damnation for a finite, temporal infraction. I know that >the
> orthodoxy claims a number of double-talk excuses for this contradiction, but
> I've never heard one that convinced me that I'm wrong about it.
And yet I have--where does that get us? Sure there are those padres who I
would like to tell 'Go blow it out your ear' when they say 'Well, if you
don't do this or you don't do that, you're going to h-e doulble hochkey
sticks in a handbasket'. But Chrisian ethics and entwining their morals and
views into the culture of the time is a topic for somewhere else.
I have no problem accepting a 'first' sin. How do I know it happened?
Well, God ain't here walking with us like He did with Adam and Eve, and, oh
looky that--we're all sinners. But that works in *my* world, and I would
never tell others that 'Hey you good-for-nothing sinner! Get to Church on
Sunday to redeem your soul!' That don't work for me. My idea is also is
combined with the evolution of, well, everything, where, as we say, we're
only human when we do wrong things, it's in the genetic coding to do so.
"The inherent contradiction in the fundamental nature" as we *humans*
understand it. "How can you have both this *and* that?" It makes no
logical, rational sense. And yet, it's still there. Therefore *I* conclude
(and no one else has to) that there are things, ideas, concepts, that we, as
finite, rationally logical creatures, *may* not comprehend *ever*. The
lowly court jester gets that before the Nobel Laureate.
>
> > Some logical points for you to try to deal with--
> >
> > if the universe is infinite, then it cannot be understood by us because we
> > are finite (ideas I went into greater depth somewhere else)
>
> If the universe is infinite but is governed by standardized physical laws, and
> if we can in principal comprehend those laws, then I'd say the universe can be
> sufficiently understood even if it's infinite. You're acting as though Man
> needs to itemize every quark in spacetime with uber-Heisenberg precision in
> order to claim understanding, but that's simply not the case.
Physical laws which belong to a physical universe--I wholeheartedly concur.
I never said that we had to itemize everything to understand things,
concepts, and theories. Far from it--What I am, indeed saying, is that we
*may* not understand everything because there are things that *may* exist
outside scientific understanding. This is my entire point. The ideas about
the universe was a tangent, showing that theories and ideas in a logical
construct cannot actually be implememented in the physical universe, for
there are "standardized physical laws" which dictate the 'finite' existence
of the physical universe.
>
> > -the universe cannot be infinite for we already have the theory of the big
> > bang which started this mess in the forst place, and we're developing
> > theories as to the end of the universe.
>
> The 3-D universe can be infinite in that it has no boundary in space, and one
> can theoretically travel for an infinite time in any direction without "running
> out" of universe, just as one can endlessly trace the rim of a glass. This
> contradicts Lucretius, but they way.
>
> > If the universe is finite, then we have no problem grasping all that there
> > is to know with our finite minds.
>
> Untrue as written. Modify it this way: "If the universe is finite AND the
> number of possible interactions within the universe is finite, then it is in
> principal possible to know the universe with our finite minds" and then you
> might be onto something.
K, I like your way better.
>
> > If there's an infinite God, well, as above, our own finite limitation cannot
> > understand the infinite.
>
> Then I would point out that its wholly unjust of God to require us to make a
> determination without allowing us the capacity for truly informed decision
> making. How about if the only physical contact you ever had with another >human
> was a person biting your nose off? Would it be just or fair to ask you for >your
> evaluation of the whole spectrum of human physical interaction based solely on
> that single anecdotal episode? How much more unjust when one's immortal soul
> is at stake?
God does not require us to believe in Him, I can see that just by this
thread alone. And a truly informed decision based on what? Scientifically
based principles and ideals? A human construct to understand something that
is "beyond human"? Logically, that can't happen.
If that was the *only* experience you ever had with a fellow human being,
emotionally you would probably hate *all* humans, but you wouldn't have a
concept about *all* humans 'cause you only interacted with *one* human. All
humans, to you, are nose biters--your experience shows that to be.
Logically you may say, 'Well *if* there are other humans about, they *may*
not bite my nose, but I'm still probably going to put my hand over my nose
the next time I meet *another* human.
That brings me back to my Opa's point about Germans--He *hated* them. It
was emotional, to be sure, and I will never fault him for feeling that way
(who am I...?), but he liked Mr. Stan, his neighbour, who just *happened* to
be German. So where does that get us?
Lastly, I think that it is wholly unjust for you to deny faith. It's thru
faith that I 'know' my God. Asking for a truly informed (scientific) reason
to believe *denies* faith, as such, in the logic of God, denying faith
denies God.
So don't have faith, therefore don't have God. All the power to you--you
not having God has no bearing on my life, as me having God should have no
impact on your life.
> > QED.
>
> Quantum electro-dynamics?!? Just kidding...
;)
> > Again I say unto you (Dave the preacher--whatever) that putting an arrowhead
> > at hte end of the line and saying 'Well, that ray goes off into infinity' is
> > great, in theory. Mathematical constructs can deal with the mathematical
> > idea of infinity just fine--the idea that numbers will go from 0 off into
> > infinity is great, on paper. But let's write them all out now. Oops, we
> > can't for there is only a finite amount of space in the universe to write
> > on, and therefore we cannot actually, in the physical world, have concepts
> > of infinity--it can't happen. In principle I throw a ball at a tree, and I
> > should be able to divide the distance between the ball and the tree in half
> > from now to eternity, 'casue there should always be half left over--but
> > guess what--in the physical world, the ball hits the tree.
>
> Good grief, man! That's just Xeno's Arrow, and it's been known to be false
> since before the invention of limits! I barely recall my calculus from
> freshman year, but even I remember that application!
But on paper, in theory, it works just fine because a pure math professor
told me so, and he proved it with a bunch of numbers that I cannot remember
at this time, but, mathematically, it makes logical sense. My point is, and
you just attested to, is that constructs on paper, constructs in the
theoretical realm, sometimes cannot be applied to real life situations.
There are 'no' limits in the theoretical realm. However, the physical
universe *has* limits. Thank you for, again, making my point.
>
> > > In this post in particular you have lapsed from logical reasoning into
> > > emotion-based witnessing, and that sort of testimonialism simply flees the
> > > argument, rather than advancing it. You repeatedly assert your fondness for
> > > science, or at least the ramifications of it, and I accept that to a point.
> > > But it seems that the moment you approach a topic from which you cannot
> > > divorce your emotions, you fall back on "science isn't everything," but you
> > > don't really give a good explanation or a sound alternative.
> >
> > God.
>
> You've really raised the bar on the number of times a debater can assume his
> conclusion. Are you sure you like Occam's Razor?
I like Occams razor, just fine, as the other theories put forward by man.
None of these theories *disprove* the existence of God, for these theories
are human-made constructs that fit the known facts (and future known facts).
I, however, also *believe* that *something* has the *potential* to be
*outside* our man made constructs. That's what I am, indeed, saying.
> > You should focus on the *concept* that science cannot be our universal
> > saviour for *everything*. That's all I've been trying to say.
>
> But you've been constantly evangelizing that we pro-science folks are
> worshipping the strange god of science before God, and that's simply not the
> case. I've never claimed science as a savior of anything, and your conscious
> choice of caricature speaks volumes about your underlying need to identify
> logical, rational, scientific inquiry as a form of idolatry, and that too is
> simply not the case.
>
> Dave!
No, again, I work against the idea that science can *know* everything. If
you don't believe that science *can* know everything, then you and I are on
the same page.
Further, if science may not know all, then *my* God potentially *can* exist.
Dave K.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Then take it as established that I imply no insult by my use of the shortened form. (...) Then you're accepting that color preference is NOT outside the realm of scientific inquiry? In addition, you have yet to apply that Razor in any post (...) (22 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
