|
|
|
geni
New Member
21 Posts |
 Posted - 01/13/2005 : 12:37:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Claiming what exactly, ghosts as pilots? even the missle/pentagon Conspiracy-theory wouldnt qualify.
A paranormal hat shaped object. Basicaly he claimed that a UFo flew through one of the towers. Closer analysis of the vidions suggests it was a bird that flew in frount of the towers and was out of focus. |
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2005 : 12:49:46 [Permalink]
|
I haven't read most of the thread (hey, that rhymes) so this may have already been, ah, said.  Anyway . . .
Science can never explain what happened at or before the big bang. Assuming there was a big bang and not some other odd thing that resulted in an expanding universe. But of course I don't think we'll ever know for sure, since there's no way to investigate it. But then again, that's not to say that a way won't be found based on some heretofore unknown properties of the Cosmos. And don't say it won't happen - the universe is a strange and, we find again and again, an ever more complex thing. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 20:51:55 [Permalink]
|
| Science can not explain some "miracles". |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2005 : 21:43:01 [Permalink]
|
Scientists don't even try to explain the actions of an alleged god.
Science is the examination and description of the natural world. Gods, and therefore "miracles" (if they happen), are by definition supernatural, and thus lie outside of the purview of science.
Similarly, there is quite a lot that "science cannot explain," but it "knows" better than to even try. What lies "outside" the universe? What is an individual's "purpose" in life? Why do any of the physical constants we know have the values they do, and not other values?
Some people can't get along without having answers to some of these questions (especially my second example), and fault "science" for not being able to give them what they want to hear. But the fault lies not with science, but instead with those demanding science be capable of learning these things. Their expectations are simply too high. They think science should be able to answer all questions - an attitude known as 'scientism' - while in reality those who understand what science is also understand what it is not: able to answer all questions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2005 : 14:49:03 [Permalink]
|
The OP question needs clarification. Are we talking about the things science cannot explain or the things science cannot yet explain? There is a big difference.
Science at this point appears to be unable to explain what happened before the BB and what is outside our Universe. I won't say science will never be able to but for the moment, it appears that way.
Some people have this detailed argument that science cannot explain god because it is outside of the realm of science. I understand their point of view but totally disagree. I think of such a position as a copout in not wanting to confront the scientific evidence that gods are strictly a human brain manifestation.
We, (the science community) seem to be able to say the beliefs held by the ancients or the tribal beliefs of the Hutus or whoever are myths that probably originated from a desire to control destiny or the weather or to explain disasters and so on. We seen to be able to say Egyptians believed in an afterlife and that led them to mummify the dead. But then we do not take the next step which is to say current religion is a continuation of the same mechanisms which led/leads humans to believe in magic, in rituals, in superstitions and so on.
Apparently, there is new research being undertaken to see how religion affects things like pain perception. According to the news article, they do no intend to look at genetic predisposition to believe in religion, but rather to look at how believing affects the brain. It's a start. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2005 : 21:02:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Some people have this detailed argument that science cannot explain god because it is outside of the realm of science. I understand their point of view but totally disagree. I think of such a position as a copout in not wanting to confront the scientific evidence that gods are strictly a human brain manifestation.
Since I've been one of those with whom you've disagreed, I must say that you completely missed my point back then. I can say that you do not understand my point of view. I will try again, below:quote:
We, (the science community) seem to be able to say the beliefs held by the ancients or the tribal beliefs of the Hutus or whoever are myths that probably originated from a desire to control destiny or the weather or to explain disasters and so on. We seen to be able to say Egyptians believed in an afterlife and that led them to mummify the dead. But then we do not take the next step which is to say current religion is a continuation of the same mechanisms which led/leads humans to believe in magic, in rituals, in superstitions and so on.
No, we often do take that next step.
You're still conflating two distinct arguments. One is that human religions are inventions of humans. This is not in dispute.
The second is that if a true 'god' existed, it would, by its very nature, be able to both do things 'impossible' by physical laws, and it should be able to also hide itself from investigation. The origin of this argument - a human - should have no bearing on its validity.
I am not aware that any gods exist, whether invented by human minds or not. But if one does exist, it should very easily be able to change the "objective world" in such a way as to make science worthless (much like the studies of intercessory prayer do today).
So, you can apply all the science you like to human religions, and determine that none of those gods exist, but by definition, you cannot test the untestable. Yes, positing such unknowable gods is a worthless exercise, as they are not amenable to any examination whatsoever and may as well not exist, but that's the point: that there are, indeed, things beyond scientific investigation. And no scientist worth the vellum of his diploma would bother investigating such gods. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2005 : 23:18:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Some people have this detailed argument that science cannot explain god because it is outside of the realm of science. I understand their point of view but totally disagree. I think of such a position as a copout in not wanting to confront the scientific evidence that gods are strictly a human brain manifestation.
Since I've been one of those with whom you've disagreed, I must say that you completely missed my point back then. I can say that you do not understand my point of view. I will try again, below:quote:
We, (the science community) seem to be able to say the beliefs held by the ancients or the tribal beliefs of the Hutus or whoever are myths that probably originated from a desire to control destiny or the weather or to explain disasters and so on. We seen to be able to say Egyptians believed in an afterlife and that led them to mummify the dead. But then we do not take the next step which is to say current religion is a continuation of the same mechanisms which led/leads humans to believe in magic, in rituals, in superstitions and so on.
No, we often do take that next step.
You're still conflating two distinct arguments. One is that human religions are inventions of humans. This is not in dispute.
The second is that if a true 'god' existed, it would, by its very nature, be able to both do things 'impossible' by physical laws, and it should be able to also hide itself from investigation. The origin of this argument - a human - should have no bearing on its validity.
I am not aware that any gods exist, whether invented by human minds or not. But if one does exist, it should very easily be able to change the "objective world" in such a way as to make science worthless (much like the studies of intercessory prayer do today).
So, you can apply all the science you like to human religions, and determine that none of those gods exist, but by definition, you cannot test the untestable. Yes, positing such unknowable gods is a worthless exercise, as they are not amenable to any examination whatsoever and may as well not exist, but that's the point: that there are, indeed, things beyond scientific investigation. And no scientist worth the vellum of his diploma would bother investigating such gods.
Gee Dave, I thought we sort of left that one as agreeing to disagree. I did leave out your opinion and perhaps I should have made note of it to save you added stress. But that doesn't mean I didn't understand your 'god that can't be investigated' definition.
I intended to speak to the more commonly intended definition 'god can't be investigated by science' which is used to say you can't disprove the god of the Bible. Not everyone thinks on your level.
You've made your point very succinctly in this post and so all will know, I do not disagree. The definition of god you are using is similar to mine of 'before the BB' and 'outside the Universe'. They are all concepts of imagination not available to scientific investigation. When you use the above definition of the god concept or however you would label it, then it is outside the realm of science.
But we just see the world differently. My perception of the god in the 'can't be investigated by science' definition is one of pure fantasy, with no basis in the real world. I have chosen not to have such a purist god concept in my Universe. Where as, the BB and Universe are there and the concept of something(s) before or outside of the Universe follows naturally. The concept of a god does not follow the scientifically understandable beliefs in god the human population has.
That is the only place we really disagreed. If you recall I equated the 'god that can't be investigated' with any and every other thing one could imagine from dragons in the sky to fairies. For each there may or may not be a real world trigger that the imaginary thing emerged from. The real world trigger could be investigated scientifically but the fantasy derived concept could not.
Your definition of the god that could choose to be undetectable and all the other god attributes may make the concept different from dragons in the sky and fairies and in that situation it becomes a purely philosophical argument and your god definition does indeed differ.
However, in my Universe, the fact one can find roots for god concepts in human imagination rather than in a description of the known Universe makes the the god 'beyond scientific investigation' nonexistent. There is no reason to contemplate in the same way one contemplates such concepts as other universes, something which only exists within human imagination.
We don't disagree, or at least I don't disagree with you. Perhaps I should add purely philosophical subjects are beyond science. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/15/2005 23:21:10 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 00:54:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Gee Dave, I thought we sort of left that one as agreeing to disagree. I did leave out your opinion and perhaps I should have made note of it to save you added stress.
While I'm sure I should take offense at your above condescension (or was it sarcasm?), I will, instead, apologize. The part of your post which set me off was the "some people" remark, and I'll admit to a sensitivity towards anonymous accusations, as I've been the (specific) target of them many, many times. I'm sorry for reading into your post things you did not intend.quote:
But we just see the world differently. My perception of the god in the 'can't be investigated by science' definition is one of pure fantasy, with no basis in the real world. I have chosen not to have such a purist god concept in my Universe. Where as, the BB and Universe are there and the concept of something(s) before or outside of the Universe follows naturally. The concept of a god does not follow the scientifically understandable beliefs in god the human population has.
The concept of a Christian god (or any other particular god) may not, but there are many, many nonspecific god concepts out there. I'm not suggesting anything new.
Besides which, the concepts of "before the Big Bang" and "outside the universe" are simply attempts at applying common sense to situations for which common sense does not apply. I submit to you that the "argument from causes" for the existence of at least one god is also an attempt at applying common sense to a situation for which common sense does not apply. And as such, it "follows" just as well as "before the Big Bang" or "outside the universe."quote:
We don't disagree, or at least I don't disagree with you. Perhaps I should add purely philosophical subjects are beyond science.
Indeed. Even the basics tenets of the philosophy of science are not amenable to scientific investigation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 02:55:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Gee Dave, I thought we sort of left that one as agreeing to disagree. I did leave out your opinion and perhaps I should have made note of it to save you added stress.
While I'm sure I should take offense at your above condescension (or was it sarcasm?), I will, instead, apologize. The part of your post which set me off was the "some people" remark, and I'll admit to a sensitivity towards anonymous accusations, as I've been the (specific) target of them many, many times. I'm sorry for reading into your post things you did not intend......
Boy, you are definitely over sensitive. I wasn't even posting to your post though that's my bad. I posted after reading the first post and it was a bad coincidence that your post was so related and ended up just above mine. I should have read the last post before answering the first.
But as to whether I was being sarcastic or condescending, that's just silly. I wasn't being either one. I was serious. I felt bad and was just saying sorry.
I respect your opinions, Dave. I figured you knew that by now. I accept your apology. I'm a nice person almost all of the time. I have strong opinions that can be misconstrued as a tad bossy, but I really don't like to insult people, on purpose anyway. (Unless they start it.) |
|
|
|
Mathew
New Member
Sweden
25 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 19:01:56 [Permalink]
|
Science can't explain: Why Humanity keep building a cage of Laws to protect him from herself and still calling it FREEDOM, LOL! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2005 : 00:44:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why Humanity keep building a cage of Laws to protect him from herself and still calling it FREEDOM, LOL!
Sure we can.
It's simplicity itself.
It's because it's been proven, in literally millions of instances, that without laws (and enforcable consequences) to prevent it people actively seek to harm others.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Mathew
New Member
Sweden
25 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2005 : 01:28:59 [Permalink]
|
Jesus gave us one law "Love each other as you love yourself".
Duh! And USA is a Harbour of Peace
Keep sending those Worldcops to teach US Progress! |
Angry Child tells Lucifer: Let's Dance!
GOD Almighty asks Angry Child not to Hurry, rest and play with the other children at SFN for awhile.
Angry Child respond, slightly annoyed, but they are boring! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2005 : 03:09:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mathew
Jesus gave us one law "Love each other as you love yourself".
Well, he did say that, but he wasn't the first to. Plenty of other philosphers, including the Greeks, extolled the virtues of selfless love.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
