|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
 Posted - 03/08/2003 : 17:56:24 [Permalink]
|
| All I know is, that if against all logic, there actually is some suckass god hiding away from us, I want a chance to kick it in the balls(or divine equivalent.) |
Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
|
 |
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2003 : 18:07:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by walt fristoe
Aw shucks! I was hoping for pistols at dawn. 
I'm more of a "rubber chickens in the early afternoon" kind of guy. |
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 03:01:28 [Permalink]
|
Anyone that wants to default on "God" because they don't know the answer would find better use of their time, energy and mind trying to find the answers. When you say "Could God have done it?" is just another way of saying "Shucks, this is all so complicated I don't get it so let me grab an easy answer grandma can understand" but really doesn't mean anything. You'll get lots of nods of approval down at the church on Sunday morning with a post like this but if the likes of Socrates, Galileo and Darwin had indulged in this "I'm too lazy to try and figure out the real reason" philosophy we'd all be living like peasants and dying by age 30 of trivial diseases. No thanks. I'd rather try to find real answers.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Ultramundane
New Member
16 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 10:59:42 [Permalink]
|
Chainsaw, I don't discount that there could be other 'intelligent' life within the universe. I'm not stating that this is the only universe. Other universes, also with everything just right to produce similar outcomes may exist, but that is simply supposition.
I can concede that an animal can find and successfully adapt to a niche...however, perhaps you could answer this question for me.
How does evolution explain the behaviour of the "Spider Fighting" Jewel Wasp (which lays its eggs in its chosen victim & its offspring therefore have a food supply when they hatch 3 days later by eating the victim from inside).
What prompted the wasp to (experiment???) with laying eggs inside its victim (how was is it able to grasp the concept that its young could not only survive inside the victim but also eat their way out - foresight!?) - is this genetic or learnt behaviour? If so how?
Finally, does every possibile mutation already exists in 'theory'? Have all possible permutations been programmed, from when life first appeared, within an organism?(some have occurred & some might still yet occur) If so, would this then imply that this 'theory' (which encompasses all possible genetic mutations) requires a source, an originator of these chemical & biological concepts?
If so, who/what is the originator of these ideas/concepts?
Ok Badger...I'm not going to stoop to your childish level of name calling. I am here to discuss, share my observations & learn. I never claimed to have concrete evidence to support the notion of a 'sky fairy' as you so eloquently put. I'm simply stating that a human being, such as Slater, with a limited and finite mind, cannot make absolute negative statement such as, "God is a fictional character" because one would have to have absolute knowledge of the entire Universe in order to know that. I'm not referring to the God of organised religion (I subscribe to none) but a creative force. What created this god I speak of? I do not know. I also do not know how the 'big bang' came into being...do you?
Dave, you stated that the, 'The deep "whys" behind the universe aren't questions which science can answer'
Philosopher Feyerabend argued that science could not provide us with the absolute truth. He sighted the case of Newtonian mechanics which many took to be the absolute truth, yet it in turn was supplanted by quantum mechanics. Since science, he claimed, could not provide the absolute truth, he suggested that it was no more valid than any of the myths it replaced. What would be your reponse to this argument?
Furthermore, do you believe:
1. There are no absolutes. Everything is relative.
2. There are absolutes set by an authority.
Tomic, I wouldn't necessarily say that those who default to God are lazy, but science does have it's limitations. As David stated earlier, 'The deep "whys" behind the universe aren't questions which science can answer'
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 11:52:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Tomic, I wouldn't necessarily say that those who default to God are lazy, but science does have it's limitations. As David stated earlier, 'The deep "whys" behind the universe aren't questions which science can answer'
Maybe there is no "why" and even if there is a "why" there is no reason to toss God in there.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 12:16:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ultramundane
Philosopher Feyerabend argued that science could not provide us with the absolute truth. He sighted the case of Newtonian mechanics which many took to be the absolute truth, yet it in turn was supplanted by quantum mechanics. Since science, he claimed, could not provide the absolute truth, he suggested that it was no more valid than any of the myths it replaced. What would be your reponse to this argument?
I think this is folly. Man has assigned the unexplainables to god(s) for years now. There have been gods to explain storms, volcanoes, reproduction, our sun, stars, our moon, fire, water, oceans, horses, and etc. Reproducible science has explained many of these things, and the gods no longer "exist".
I don't think because science hasn't offered the "absolute truth" about everything in the universe, that what we have learned about the nature of storms is not valid and equivalent to myth.
Religions at one time were very fond of the universe revolving around our earth. Many heathens were burned alive for disagreeing with that viewpoint(religion is great!) Science has proven otherwise, but you want me to give the same weight to the earth-centric myth, just because science hasn't provided the "absolute truth"?
Addressing the example your philospher gave, Newtonian Mechanics is still valid as a teaching tool and a macroview of what has been observed. Quantum mechanics hasn't changed Newton's observations of inertia. To learn Quantum Mechanics you will always start with Newton, then Special Relativity, then General Relativity, and then start on the Quantum stuff. To say Quantum Mechanics has supplanted Newtonian Mechanics is inaccurate. |
Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
|
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 15:14:50 [Permalink]
|
| Just because the scientific method hasn't yet yielded answers to some of the "deep mysteries" of existence, doesn't mean that in can't, eventually, do so. Who knows what the future may hold? |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 15:16:20 [Permalink]
|
Ok Badger...I'm not going to stoop to your childish level of name calling. I am here to discuss, share my observations & learn. I never claimed to have concrete evidence to support the notion of a 'sky fairy' as you so eloquently put. I'm simply stating that a human being, such as Slater, with a limited and finite mind, cannot make absolute negative statement such as, "God is a fictional character" because one would have to have absolute knowledge of the entire Universe in order to know that. I'm not referring to the God of organised religion (I subscribe to none) but a creative force. What created this god I speak of? I do not know. I also do not know how the 'big bang' came into being...do you?
You're the one who picked your user name, not me. To me, your choice seems quite appropriate.
Re: Slater's comment about god being a fictional character, I disagree. Only now do you define what sort of god you refer to. Previously, it was reasonable to assume, from your capitalization of the name, and grammatical usage, that you referred to the fictional one. There is no evidence for your creative force that supplants a god, either. Of course,I'm presuming things of Slater here, and stand ready to be corrected by him about them.
No, I do not know what caused the big bang. It's not my area of study or expertise. I could venture a guess, but it'd be of little value.
I'll take the liberty here of replying to other topics in your post.
The wasp thing...... With the billions of queen wasps born every year for the millions of years that wasps have existed, the chances of one of them being attacked by something, stinging it, and implanting eggs which survived and hatched seems like pretty good odds to me. I see no need for wasp consciousness, or foresight to account for something that probability can cover.
No, every possible mutation hasn't existed yet. No theory to explain any supposed pre-programming is necessary.
LordOfEntropy already covered your invoking of Feyerabend.
I personally believe that most things are relative. Not a choice offered by you, though. Why only those particular two choices? |
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 16:49:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How does evolution explain the behaviour of the "Spider Fighting" Jewel Wasp (which lays its eggs in its chosen victim & its offspring therefore have a food supply when they hatch 3 days later by eating the victim from inside).
Or the cheetah and gazelle. The grand sky daddy is into blood spectator sports |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 17:20:30 [Permalink]
|
Ultramundane wrote:quote:
Philosopher Feyerabend argued that science could not provide us with the absolute truth. He sighted the case of Newtonian mechanics which many took to be the absolute truth, yet it in turn was supplanted by quantum mechanics. Since science, he claimed, could not provide the absolute truth, he suggested that it was no more valid than any of the myths it replaced. What would be your reponse to this argument?
My initial response is that Feyerabend doesn't understand science.
In religion, new-age mumbo-jumbo, alternative medicine and lots of other places, there are often people making the argument that because science can't "prove" anything 100% true or false, non-scientific explanations for phenomena should be acceptable, too. But this would mean, were it to be applied fairly, that every possible explanation for something would be equally likely. Given that there are an infinite number of potential explanations for any occurence, the "quest for truth" gets impassably bogged-down at step one. For example, if a person sees a lightning bolt, they have to entertain the possibilities that
A) God did it,
B) it was a static discharge from a cloud,
C) Martians did it,
D) Klingons did it,
E) Walt Disney's disembodied zombie head did it,
F) it was a hallucination,
G) it was a hallucination brought on by a Man in Black slipping LSD into the tap water,
H) it was the crash of an orbital mind-control laser,
I) etc.,
all equally. With no "likelihood" filter, nothing will ever come of such a mess.
Aside from the fact that quantum mechanics did not supplant Newtonian mechanics (and neither did relativity), anybody who thought that Newtonian mechanics was "the absolute truth" was simply naive. There were, apparently, quite a few people back around 1900 who thought that every aspect of physics would be worked out within 25 years or so, and physics research would simply end. They were idealistic, to say the least.
But what all this comes down to is that people like Feyerabend, who use this "science can't provide us with the absolute truth" argument to argue against the validity or usefulness of science, have simply created a strawman to tear down, since real scientists would never say that what they can provide is the "absolute truth."
What science provides is likely explanations of what's going on in the world and the universe. What's more, science provides these explanations in such a way that anybody can test them, to make sure they're correct. Science doesn't rely on revealed knowledge like religions do, or on secret or ancient "knowledge" like so many alternative medical therapies do. (That last use of knowledge is in quotes because much of that ancient stuff is known to be false, and secret knowledge which has been exposed is mostly bunk, too.)
There is always a chance, however small, that science is "wrong" about something. There could very well be some sort of god, but the fact of the matter is that the possibility we're all in a big virtual reality program (like the Matrix) is just about as likely, and equally untestable.
quote:
Furthermore, do you believe:
1. There are no absolutes. Everything is relative.
2. There are absolutes set by an authority.
Neither. There are a few absolutes. How they got that way, we'll probably never know, but "an authority" doesn't seem likely. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ultramundane
New Member
16 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 18:18:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
There are a few absolutes. How they got that way, we'll probably never know, but "an authority" doesn't seem likely.
Ok, but some may argue that in order for there to be absolute truth, there must be a force that establishes that truth. You cannot have a law without a lawgiver. Why doesn't "an authority" seem likely? |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 18:50:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
I argue that there are no absolutes. Absolute truth is silly.
LOL! As well as an absolute lack of absolutes, eh? This has degraded into silliness. Ultramundane, is it necessary for a Creator to make something absolute? Any conscious human can notice that all things change, do we need a superior being to enforce this, or does it just happen? |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 18:53:13 [Permalink]
|
Even the interpretation of the Bible has changed as the words themselves have. Morality...evolves. Truth...evolves. Evolution seems the be the absolute here. All bow before it!
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Ultramundane
New Member
16 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 19:00:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
I argue that there are no absolutes. Absolute truth is silly.
@tomic
The idea that there are no absolutes, has some serious problems in logic. Those who would insist that there are NO absolutes are believing in an absolute. They are absolutely sure that there is nothing that is absolute. Such a philosophy is self-defeating and self-contradictory. A human being, with a limited and finite mind, cannot make absolute negative statements. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
