Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(3)
Message 136 of 373 (740103)
11-01-2014 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by New Cat's Eye
11-01-2014 9:07 AM


If science isn't uncovering truth, then why is it working so well?
Because reality is part of the conspiracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-01-2014 9:07 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 137 of 373 (740156)
11-02-2014 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Percy
11-01-2014 8:03 AM


Percy writes:
but if you have a method better than science for studying the natural world then let's hear it.
Just to use your response as representing most here,
I don't disagree with the methods used to prove something, but I object to its absence and denial of spiritual or moral laws which are part of reality as well.
Genuine science cannot be amoral without railroading itself.
If science is amoral, then you cannot accuse me of being wrong, because it is a moral term in the first instance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Percy, posted 11-01-2014 8:03 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 11-02-2014 7:13 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 139 by edge, posted 11-02-2014 11:16 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 138 of 373 (740164)
11-02-2014 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Colbard
11-02-2014 1:25 AM


Colbard writes:
I don't disagree with the methods used to prove something, but I object to its absence and denial of spiritual or moral laws which are part of reality as well.
Science doesn't deny "spiritual or moral laws." As Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." If science has no evidence of "spiritual or moral laws," then there's nothing it can say about them.
Perhaps you could describe for us how a science informed by "spiritual and moral laws" would work. Imagine yourself at the Leaning Tower of Pisa repeating Galileo's experiment dropping the two balls of equal size but different weight. How would your performance of this experiment differ from Galileo's by taking "spiritual and moral laws" into account?
If science is amoral, then you cannot accuse me of being wrong, because it is a moral term in the first instance.
"Wrong" has more than one definition, and I used it earlier in the sense of "incorrect". Many of the things you've been saying are "wrong" in the sense that they are incorrect, not in the sense of not being in accordance with what is morally right or good.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Colbard, posted 11-02-2014 1:25 AM Colbard has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 139 of 373 (740174)
11-02-2014 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Colbard
11-02-2014 1:25 AM


Genuine science cannot be amoral without railroading itself.
So rock mechanics theories are 'railroaded' by being amoral?
Wow! Who knew?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Colbard, posted 11-02-2014 1:25 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 140 of 373 (740217)
11-03-2014 3:43 AM


Spiritual and natural laws are harmonious, and nature is based and operated on spiritual principles.
So in regards to the thread topic, we can only make a sound comment on the universe, its beginnings, structures etc, if we have an understanding of what those spiritual principles are.
But if you want to go down the dry road of science which has conveniently dismissed spirituality then what you end up with is a forum that is short of numbers and boring as hell, because people are spiritual whether they know it or not.

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 11-03-2014 1:35 PM Colbard has not replied
 Message 142 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-03-2014 2:04 PM Colbard has not replied
 Message 143 by Astrophile, posted 11-03-2014 3:12 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 159 by zaius137, posted 11-05-2014 11:49 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 141 of 373 (740275)
11-03-2014 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Colbard
11-03-2014 3:43 AM


Colbard writes:
Spiritual and natural laws are harmonious, and nature is based and operated on spiritual principles.
You're stating your religious beliefs as facts again.
But if you want to go down the dry road of science which has conveniently dismissed spirituality...
Science has not dismissed spirituality. Again, as Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." If science has no evidence of "spiritual or moral laws," then there's nothing it can say about them.
...because people are spiritual whether they know it or not.
No one said people aren't spiritual.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Colbard, posted 11-03-2014 3:43 AM Colbard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by marc9000, posted 11-03-2014 10:42 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 373 (740279)
11-03-2014 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Colbard
11-03-2014 3:43 AM


But if you want to go down the dry road of science which has conveniently dismissed spirituality then what you end up with is a forum that is short of numbers and boring as hell,
Science has not dismissed spirituality.
Too, there are plenty of science forums that have tons of members and discuss all kinds of exciting things.
You are just plain old wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Colbard, posted 11-03-2014 3:43 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Astrophile
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 92
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 143 of 373 (740284)
11-03-2014 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Colbard
11-03-2014 3:43 AM


Spiritual and natural laws are harmonious, and nature is based and operated on spiritual principles.
How do you know this?
we can only make a sound comment on the universe, its beginnings, structures etc, if we have an understanding of what those spiritual principles are.
First, how do you know this? Second, do you personally have an understanding of what these spiritual principles are? If so, what comment can you make on 'the universe, its beginnings, structures etc.' on the basis of these spiritual principles, and can you show how this comment follows from these principles?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Colbard, posted 11-03-2014 3:43 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Colbard, posted 11-05-2014 6:01 AM Astrophile has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 144 of 373 (740322)
11-03-2014 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Percy
11-03-2014 1:35 PM


Hello Percy, I'm baaaak!
Science has not dismissed spirituality.
But atheists dismiss spirituality. If science doesn't dismiss it, then it's only logical there would be some things, however few, that science would study, or would not study , that would be upsetting to atheists. Can you name any? I can't. If they don't exist, wouldn't that be evidence that the scientific community really has dismissed spirituality?
I know the standard answer, "if science can't study it, it doesn't automatically mean it dismisses it". That could be true, but if it doesn't dismiss it, it would be respectful of it enough to not drive by it and try to find naturalistic replacements for it. Naturalistic replacements that are sometimes not testable, and not falsifiable.
As one example, I'd expect the "spiritually neutral" scientific community to react differently than atheists do when archaeological evidences are discovered that correspond exactly with some of the historical events recorded in the Bible. With maybe at least some interest in taking the Bible much more seriously than atheists would to maybe help guide them to more scientific discoveries.
Doesn't seem to be happening at all - a lack of evidence for your assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 11-03-2014 1:35 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2014 11:47 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 146 by nwr, posted 11-03-2014 11:56 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 147 by Pressie, posted 11-04-2014 12:21 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 148 by Tangle, posted 11-04-2014 2:28 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 149 by Theodoric, posted 11-04-2014 8:40 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 151 by Coragyps, posted 11-04-2014 8:57 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 158 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-05-2014 11:45 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 373 (740324)
11-03-2014 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by marc9000
11-03-2014 10:42 PM


I'd expect the "spiritually neutral" scientific community to react differently than atheists do when archaeological evidences are discovered that correspond exactly with some of the historical events recorded in the Bible.
What would be an example of an archaeological evidence that you think ought to get a reaction of a "neutral scientist." ?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by marc9000, posted 11-03-2014 10:42 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 146 of 373 (740325)
11-03-2014 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by marc9000
11-03-2014 10:42 PM


But atheists dismiss spirituality.
Some do; some don't.
If science doesn't dismiss it, then it's only logical there would be some things, however few, that science would study, or would not study , that would be upsetting to atheists.
If that's "only logical", can you provide the logic. Because I don't think that follows, unless you only mean "some atheists."

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by marc9000, posted 11-03-2014 10:42 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 147 of 373 (740326)
11-04-2014 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by marc9000
11-03-2014 10:42 PM


Marc9000 writes:
But atheists dismiss spirituality...
Not true at all.
I'm an atheist and I don't dismiss spirituality. Maybe you should check with the people you are talking about first before making sweeping statements about what you believe other people dismiss or don't dismiss. In this case your beliefs about other people don't reflect reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by marc9000, posted 11-03-2014 10:42 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 148 of 373 (740328)
11-04-2014 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by marc9000
11-03-2014 10:42 PM


marc writes:
But atheists dismiss spirituality.
No I don't. Neither do those atheist devils Dawkins and Harris. In fact Harris is always banging on about buddist meditation.
You need to re-position.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by marc9000, posted 11-03-2014 10:42 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 149 of 373 (740340)
11-04-2014 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by marc9000
11-03-2014 10:42 PM


But atheists dismiss spirituality.
How about you define atheist and spirituality so that we understand what you mean by those terms. You have penchant for defining and using words differently than most of the people on this board.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by marc9000, posted 11-03-2014 10:42 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 150 of 373 (740426)
11-04-2014 8:26 PM


(Theodoric) That is probably true, I have no way of knowing how people on this board would define terms - I've spent most all of my 60 years interacting with the mainstream general public, a far cry from just about everyone on this board.
We'll do atheist first, from dictionary.com
quote:
a person who does not believe in God or gods
now for spirituality
quote:
the state or quality of being dedicated to God, religion, or spiritual things or values, esp as contrasted with material or temporal ones
AS CONTRASTED. So if a person doesn't believe in God, I just went straight to a conclusion that he/she wouldn't have any state or quality of being dedicated to God. I didn't consider any of the more secondary definitions - "spiritual things", like maybe some sort of trance that connects them to Darwin or anything like that, because that sort of spirituality wasn't what was being discussed in this thread between Percy and Colbard. (messages 137 & 138) They were discussing "studying the natural world", and the "absence and denial of spiritual or moral laws." In message 138, Percy said;
quote:
Science doesn't deny "spiritual or moral laws." As Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." If science has no evidence of "spiritual or moral laws," then there's nothing it can say about them.
If (those who control) science didn't deny them, it would respect them. By not ignoring them, and pushing beyond them, to try to find naturalistic theories about reality that conflict with them. That was my main point of entering this particular fray.
nwr writes:
If that's "only logical", can you provide the logic. Because I don't think that follows, unless you only mean "some atheists."
To go further than I already have, I'd have to have you provide me with some examples of just how atheists get spiritual. Does their spirituality get anywhere near the study of how the natural world works, in a way that conflicts with the purposeless, happenstances of naturalism?
Pressie writes:
I'm an atheist and I don't dismiss spirituality. Maybe you should check with the people you are talking about first before making sweeping statements about what you believe other people dismiss or don't dismiss. In this case your beliefs about other people don't reflect reality.
I've gotten them from reading at forums like this for years, and from a pretty thorough look at the opinions of scientific/atheist leaders, like Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, Provine, many others. All I see from all of it is nothing but naturalism, when it comes to the study of the natural world, and how societies should behave. No spirituality whatsoever.
Tangle writes:
marc9000 writes:
But atheists dismiss spirituality.
No I don't. Neither do those atheist devils Dawkins and Harris. In fact Harris is always banging on about buddist meditation.
You need to re-position.
Whatever spirituality they have, the evidence seems clear that it takes a back seat to naturalism in studies of how the natural world works. In other words, their spirituality is secondary. And largely meaningless.

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by nwr, posted 11-04-2014 11:49 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 11-05-2014 2:16 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 154 by Tangle, posted 11-05-2014 5:51 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 11-05-2014 7:23 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 157 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2014 10:47 AM marc9000 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024