I don't know how semantics got such a bad name. It's important in this case.Damn True said:
Now we are back to solipsism, because you can't prove to me that you exist.
Unbelievable!
- Thread starter Changleen
- Start date
Now we are back to solipsism, because you can't prove to me that you exist.
String is way out there, and not widely accepted. I have only read a bit about it. If you have been basing a lot of your comments on it I would have to agree that there is a good chance that it is a bunch of malarky.Damn True said:
Yes, it's your last fragile straw. But a straw none the less and not proof.Silver said:
I read a bit about it the other day. One of the complaints is that string theory lets you predict anything if you monkey around with it enough.Westy said:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/14/MNGRMBOURE1.DTL
Does that sound like a familiar complaint?
neaky:
I think we scared off Changleen with our polite respectful discussion.
Silver said:I read a bit about it the other day. One of the complaints is that string theory lets you predict anything if you monkey around with it enough.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/14/MNGRMBOURE1.DTL
Does that sound like a familiar complaint?
Like gallup polls?
are you talking about a "proof" in a mathematical kinda way???Damn True said:
i dont think those exists outside the realm of math...
to equate irrational beliefs to those derived from science on the grounds of both not being "provable" in mathematical-like terms...
is not enough to make to put them at the same level...
its not the same to say "there is a pink unicorne behind you all the time" than to say "acceleration results from force", even though i have no way of being absolute about that in the future....
plus, several of those irrational beliefs have been proven wrong (within reasonable doubt), thus rendering those beliefs useless... thats it, until somebody´s rebutal of the proof is right within reasonable doubt..
You're the one playing with words while protesting that you in fact aren't.Damn True said:
but, all that is crap if you believe absolute truths exists (which would be circular reasoning, or an axiom on its own to say the least).. of course..
This has been covered.ALEXIS_DH said:
Changleens point is that faith is stupid because there is no scientific fact to prove that god exists.Silver said:
So......by that logic......
Stupid is a value judgment (one that happen to lean towards, admittedly, although I'd call it irrational more than stupid. Like I said above, there are some sound reasons why people believe in religions.)Damn True said:
You aren't using the same definition of faith.Damn True said:
Which is where semantics plays an important role.
Silver said:
I absolutely am but the similarity is uncomfortable. Do we both not believe in something that neither of us can prove?
...and this is the point at which the discussion becomes circular.
The thing is that two things can be equally true, or untrue.
"A" may in fact exist. But the existance of "A" does not necessarily disprove "B".
but that is not enough to put both at the same level...Damn True said:
ALEXIS_DH said:but that is not enough to put both at the same level...
Because to do so would be really uncomfortable for you huh?
I hate the term, but you guys have been OWN3D.
It was a fun discussion though wasn't it?
....and we got through it w/o getting nasty which is cool.
I'm pretty much on par with what Changleen has to say. As is always the case. I do think anyone who believes in creation over evolution is a complete twat. I extremly anti-Catholic but for the most part religion is ok imo. Being religious or not has nothing to do with believing in science. My dad is a scientist yet has more faith than anyone in my family. I'm extremly scientific in the way I think yet I still have a degree of faith.
To go back to the beginning though, that people have to have religion to have morals it's toatlly wrong. I find religious people to have less morals than non-religious people.
To go back to the beginning though, that people have to have religion to have morals it's toatlly wrong. I find religious people to have less morals than non-religious people.
I've got some bad news for. Philosophically, you're on very thin ice. I wouldn't jump up and down for joy, because I might not come to get you if it breaks...Damn True said:
In other words...I don't think I can explain it any clearer than I have. Re-read the thread again...because you aren't going to like the corner you painted yourself into once you realize what you've done. (Alexis pointed that out on this page, incidentally...)
Nope, not gonna do it.
Jesus loves you.
Jesus loves you.
Silver said:
Alexis pointed out nothing.
"but that is not enough to put both at the same level..."
It absolutely is enough, in fact its a lot more than you have to disprove a faith in God.
What I have done is pointed out that two things can be equally true, or in fact untrue. Like I said the existance of "A" does not necessarily disprove "B".
Know what?Damn True said:
I shouldn't have said that. The point was not to prove anyone right or wrong but to have an intelligent thoughtfull discussion.
Sorry, my bad.
Fill in you A and B there so I know exactly what you're talking about.Damn True said:
You have to go up higher to Alexis's point. Let me make it again: You've sorta proved that relativism is valid. Which has startling consequences for your own beliefs...
I don't follow, but Im intrigued. Explain further.
If nothing can be proven, and it's all taken on faith (IGNORING the predictive power of a scientific outlook) then there is no valid reason for believing any specific thing. (Which is where I was going with the solipsism thing...)Damn True said:
Now, that's not the victory that you think it is, because in order to do that, you have to ignore the outcomes of countless testable (that's important too, see the string theory thing) experiments and the theories that are predictive of said results.
That's if we choose to look at all of science and all of religion in absolutes.
Is gravity provable? Yes. Is lift proveable? Yes. They are not theroy they are fact.
Did Jesus exist? Yes. Was he a Rabbi and a smart and cool guy? Yes. They are not theroy they are fact.
But....both science and religion are full of things that might be true, but we can't prove them. So, if two things can be equally true, and two things can be equally untrue then we must conclude that the potential for both exists.
Is gravity provable? Yes. Is lift proveable? Yes. They are not theroy they are fact.
Did Jesus exist? Yes. Was he a Rabbi and a smart and cool guy? Yes. They are not theroy they are fact.
But....both science and religion are full of things that might be true, but we can't prove them. So, if two things can be equally true, and two things can be equally untrue then we must conclude that the potential for both exists.
Gravity is a theory. You need to stop undermining your own argumentDamn True said:
A rabbi named Jesus existed...looks like it.
Jesus was the product of a virgin birth? Not unless IVF is 2000 years older than we thought.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Now, if you'll excuse me, the dragon in my garage and I are going to throw some darts.
Damn True said:
lift, gravity and other "scientific theories" CANNOT BE PROVEN, they can only be validated....
(i was paying a lot of atention when my freshman physics prof. said that)..
"to prove" in an absolute or mathematical kinda way requires covering every infinite posibility of th variables, and having the outcome be the same... not just "assuming" the linearity, but actually validating at every point in the infinite line (which is impossible you know).
now, can you validate your god?????
i can validate most of my science...
yet, we both cannot prove ours.... but that didnt mean they are at the same level (in a stretch analogy, 10 is higher than 7 and 10 is higher than 8, yet 7 is not necesarilly equal to 8) since i can validate and i dont think you can.
No joke dude, go back to school. If you think that about science you don;t even know the definition of it. Gravity is a theory, which is much different than cold hard facts of science.Damn True said:
Nothing can and ever will be proven with religion. The point of science is to be able to prove something using experiements. If you can't do that it's not science. So like I said go back to school. :eviltongu
Maybe you should finish up school. I think you tottaly missed DT point.JMAC said:
The salient point remains unanswered.
You must believe that a scientific "truth" exists if it cannot be proven.
I must believe in the existance of God since it cannot be proven.
There is no difference in the required suspension of disbelief therefore you cannot discount my belief anymore than I can discount yours.
Props to silver and alexis for staying on the high ground and engaging in intelligent and polite discourse. It is much appreciated.
You must believe that a scientific "truth" exists if it cannot be proven.
I must believe in the existance of God since it cannot be proven.
There is no difference in the required suspension of disbelief therefore you cannot discount my belief anymore than I can discount yours.
Props to silver and alexis for staying on the high ground and engaging in intelligent and polite discourse. It is much appreciated.
Nope, you're still missing it, and as much as you deny it, you're still playing semantic games with the word. Why don't you define faith first so we know what tees your playing from?Damn True said:
2 claims:
a) I have a garage.
b) I have a garage with an invisible, undetectable dragon in it.
You don't need faith to meet the first claim. The second one...
Actually one of the things about Science is that it doesn't require you to believe in anything. That's sorta the point. You don't need to extrapolate to the infinite in order to have a working theory, as you do with religion. We have a great working theory of quantum mechanics that we follow which allows the processors in our PCs to be designed on such a small scale. Since we are both posting on RM our theory holds as far as it goes. Nobody claims it describes the entire universe, but it describes an awful lot of observed phenomena including this. I think that's the difference - Science does not require tendancies to the infinite.Damn True said:
"to prove" is impossible. out of question for us.Damn True said:
and we both, nor anything, cannot compply with that. so lets figure out, where do with stand with respect to each other, before we can establish our position with respect to "truth".
and whoever stands closer to "absolute proof" in the end, gets the bragging rights to own the other.
the burden of proof for god is on your side. the same as the burden of proof in science in in ours.
i can validate some science, thus am a step ahead towards "truth".
validate your belief in god, and make the step to get even with us again.
then i can question you, for being further from "proof" than me.
whether we both are not in "absolute proof" ground zero, doesnt matter, because we will never be there. if you take such position, any discussion would be rendered useless. we would have no reason not to believe in anything.
just because am not 12ft tall, doesnt mean i cannot call you shorty. as long as am taller than you (even if that means am 5ft and you 4ft), thats all it takes for me to have the bragging rights to call you shorty.
Heh - Great post.ALEXIS_DH said:"to prove" is impossible. out of question for us.
and we both, nor anything, cannot compply with that. so lets figure out, where do with stand with respect to each other, before we can establish our position with respect to "truth".
and whoever stands closer to "absolute proof" in the end, gets the bragging rights to own the other.
the burden of proof for god is on your side. the same as the burden of proof in science in in ours.
i can validate some science, thus am a step ahead towards "truth".
validate your belief in god, and make the step to get even with us again.
then i can question you, for being further from "proof" than me.
whether we both are not in "absolute proof" ground zero, doesnt matter, because we will never be there. if you take such position, any discussion would be rendered useless. we would have no reason not to believe in anything.
just because am not 12ft tall, doesnt mean i cannot call you shorty. as long as am taller than you (even if that means am 5ft and you 4ft), thats all it takes for me to have the bragging rights to call you shorty.
The Big Bang is today's dominant scientific conjecture about the origin of the universe. According to the theory, the universe was created between 13 and 20 billion years ago from the random, cosmic explosion of a subatomic ball that hurled matter and energy in all directions. Over a period of approximately 10 billion years, this newly created matter and energy evolved into stars, galaxies and planets, including our earth. Evolutionary Theory then teaches that organic life sprung from non-organic matter exclusively through a natural mechanistic process on a pre-biotic earth. That original life form then evolved into more complex life forms through a natural process of random mutations and natural selection. In a nutshell, the basic premise of today's "scientific" worldview is that everything we see is the result of a cosmic accident. The precise mathematical formula: Matter randomly acting on matter for a sufficient period of time can create anything.
But wait, how can nothing explode? How can simplicity become complexity? Where did all that matter and energy come from? What caused its release? How did this explosion of everything (from nothing) order itself? Where did the chemical elements come from? Where did the mathematical laws and physical properties come from? Where did the information code in DNA come from? Where did the language convention that interprets DNA come from? How do we explain the design, complexity and fine-tuning inherent in spiral galaxies, solar systems and stars? How did life come from a rock? How did a bird come from a lizard? Why don't we see birds come from lizards today? Why are there no transitional fossils at all? Why have we never observed beneficial mutations? Explain the random development of the human eye, reproductive system, digestive tract and brain? What about the subconscious mind? What about love, morality, ethics and emotions?
Or an intelligent designer.
Both boggle the mind and defy understanding.
But wait, how can nothing explode? How can simplicity become complexity? Where did all that matter and energy come from? What caused its release? How did this explosion of everything (from nothing) order itself? Where did the chemical elements come from? Where did the mathematical laws and physical properties come from? Where did the information code in DNA come from? Where did the language convention that interprets DNA come from? How do we explain the design, complexity and fine-tuning inherent in spiral galaxies, solar systems and stars? How did life come from a rock? How did a bird come from a lizard? Why don't we see birds come from lizards today? Why are there no transitional fossils at all? Why have we never observed beneficial mutations? Explain the random development of the human eye, reproductive system, digestive tract and brain? What about the subconscious mind? What about love, morality, ethics and emotions?
Or an intelligent designer.
Both boggle the mind and defy understanding.
Damn True said:
but one boggles the mind and past and current experience more than the other
if we are not both perfect, that doesnt mean we are equally flawed. there are degrees of flaw-dom.
That's been done. You need to read a bit more.Damn True said: