Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 12:14 AM
28 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
11121314
15
16Next
Author Topic:   What is Supernatural?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 211 of 230 (546198)
02-09-2010 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 5:04 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
First of, sorry for the late reply, I missed this one.

MatterWave writes:

No. Existence is beyond me.


Then why limit yourself to just god? Why not incorporate Xonsong into your claims?

No. Existence is beyond me. And I am not willing to make unwarranted assumptions that i can know what God is or whether God has anything remotely simiular to a physical appearance, and whether it's a spaghetti monster, etc. I leave this excercise to the inhabitants of kindergartens.

But why limit yourself to god then? Your very adamant that we should acknowledge the possibility of god, but when it comes to Xonsong, or Hyper-god, or Super-duper-god, you suddenly are unwilling to commit to that. Why? Notice that all these entitites are ditinct from your god. They are not your god, they could however also be required for existence, couldn't they?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 5:04 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 7:50 PM Huntard has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 230 (546201)
02-09-2010 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Apothecus
02-08-2010 7:37 PM


neener-neener
Instead, idiots like me found themselves sucked in, just to make the point that the discussion was pointless.

I'd write it off as inexperience over idiocy. I've seen this crap here before. Next time, you'll respond differently.

What I still don't get, however, is why the zeal? Why all the concern that we're all just making assumptions when considering existence, but that it's OK "as long as you realize you're making them"?

Those who advocate an anti-science methodology are in such a pickle, that the only thing they have left is to de-ligitimize science in an attempt to bring it down to their level. I think the zeal come from them realizing that if they don't succeed in that, then they don't even have a leg to stand on. This is all they have left and they have to maintain it.

Surely MW can discern the difference between knowledge and belief (or acceptance). When one accepts that the most likely conclusion (assumption) is that everything we see is not supernatural, is that really making a "leap of faith", or is it just that since we really can't know this for certain, beliefs are all we have to go on?

Well, it too takes a "leap of faith" to believe that we're not all brains in jars. One of the reasons the leap is so short, though, is that science works. The technological advancements that have resulted are enough to realize that, even if we don't really understand anything, we understand it enough and we understand it better with a scientific methodology that anything else ever.

And again, one of the most hilarious things to me is when people argue on computers on an internet forum instantly over great distances that science doesn't really get it yeah right go microwave another hot pocket

Yes, I get it that some say we just can't know, but what's the use of not assuming?

How can you argue that his methodology is worse if they're both worthless? His is a 'neener-neener' argument.

Have a good one.

I always do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Apothecus, posted 02-08-2010 7:37 PM Apothecus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 8:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 213 of 230 (546232)
02-09-2010 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
02-05-2010 12:23 AM


Re: Existence
Are you saying positive positrons and negative electrons which are natural can not exist without the thundercloud?

Ignoring the mistaken description of lightning for the moment, this is what you are arguing. You are saying that whatever produces a natural phenomenon has to be supernatural. If lightning is produced by thunderclouds and thunderclouds are outside of lightning then thunderclouds are supernatural. Again, this is the logic of your argument.

Branes can not be a part of the universe if the universe was created by the collision of two of them.

Quite the opposite. Our universe IS the collision of two branes, if the theory is correct.

Therefore they are outside of the universe we live in which is a place we have no knowledge about.

They would be supernatural according to what you said. In Message 89

In that message I argued that, historically, what people described as supernatural was natural phenomenon that they didn't understand.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 12:23 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 214 of 230 (546233)
02-09-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by MatterWave
02-04-2010 7:37 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
Scientists first muse and make a hypothesis over unsolved questions, then they test the hypothesis. Is this news to you?

What separates the scientist from the philosopher is the second part, the testing of a hypothesis. Is this news to you?

Your statement that scientists aren't philosophical(thinking about the big questions) is completely false.

I never said that scientists were not philosophical. What I said is that testing hypotheses is what makes them scientists in addition to be philosophical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 7:37 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


Message 215 of 230 (546285)
02-09-2010 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by DevilsAdvocate
02-04-2010 8:33 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
DA writes:

So basically are you saying that because we can't understand all of reality we should automatically assume there is a supernatural being called 'God' that runs the universe?

Is this really your premise? If so then you are falling into a common logical fallacy called 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' (argument from ignorance).

No. I was saying that you or anyone else for that matter, don't understand anything at all when it comes to the deep questions. You have zero knowledge, which is very evident by the complete and total lack of evidence to support your assertion that existence is natural and does not require a God.
Arguments from ignorance don't go well with 'existence' because ignorance is ALL there is with regards to these questions. You are simply not aware that you are very ignorant, because you've raised a model of the universe that you somehow believe is true. That's really not different to believing in the Bible or the Toorah. Atheists and creationist share the same non-sensical dogma that you somehow understand the Universe. You don't! Claims to the contrary don't do justice to your position and are tremendously hilarious.

Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-04-2010 8:33 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-09-2010 7:52 PM MatterWave has responded
 Message 223 by Coyote, posted 02-09-2010 9:04 PM MatterWave has not yet responded
 Message 226 by Taq, posted 02-10-2010 11:25 AM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


Message 216 of 230 (546287)
02-09-2010 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Apothecus
02-04-2010 9:10 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Which begs the questions, "Does MatterWave argue this fervently because he wishes to take the long road 'round in making a freakin' point? Or does he argue this way because he actually believes we all just may be living in a supernatural realm?" I was beginning to reach the conclusion that the answer is closer to the latter until I read this:

MatterWave writes:
Reality is a plane of existence. I see no better way to express my observations of the outside world.

WTF? So since you didn't address this in my last reply, I'll ask again: are you or are you not employing assumptions when addressing reality and existence, those same assumptions that apparently give you DTs any time you're confronted with any poor soul who's "making the leap of faith?"

If so, you, sir, are a walking contradiction.

Have a good one.

Hey MW. Good job managing the onslaught. I'd not have the luxury of time to maintain it as you have.
So, to be clear: you, in multiple posts in this thread, repeatedly, relentlessly, endlessly say this or something very similar to this:

Then why the leap of faith about what existence in reality is, when you don't know what these both really are?

or this:

You have provided no evidence that our realm is not supernatural.

Which begs the questions, "Does MatterWave argue this fervently because he wishes to take the long road 'round in making a freakin' point? Or does he argue this way because he actually believes we all just may be living in a supernatural realm?" I was beginning to reach the conclusion that the answer is closer to the latter until I read this:

MatterWave writes:

Reality is a plane of existence. I see no better way to express my observations of the outside world.

WTF? So since you didn't address this in my last reply, I'll ask again: are you or are you not employing assumptions when addressing reality and existence, those same assumptions that apparently give you DTs any time you're confronted with any poor soul who's "making the leap of faith?"

If so, you, sir, are a walking contradiction.

Have a good one.

Yes, of course you are right. I made an assumption. Anytime we discuss open questions, we are all making assumptions. I admit that I could be wrong, I am definitely not and will never be an atheist and am aware that i could be wrong now, in the future and possibly always. I have no problem, as opposed to the atheist dogma, to admit that my speculation could be wrong. It is still possible, though i don't see how, that God does not exist. However, asking a question like "What is Supernatural?" on a forum debating the deep questions of existence, reveals a certainty(everything is natural) that lives only in the mind of an atheist. You don't know this, like the rest of humans. You assume and believe it, it's ok to have faith in something as long as you realize you are holding faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Apothecus, posted 02-04-2010 9:10 PM Apothecus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Apothecus, posted 02-10-2010 1:58 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


Message 217 of 230 (546290)
02-09-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by New Cat's Eye
02-06-2010 12:31 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
By bad... you're pushing Solipsism with a splash of cogito ergo sum

Thank God you didn't say i was pushing the Toyota Prius 2010 recall.

How on earth does "There is an I that exists" relate to solipsism? Solipsism is the belief that only the self exists, i stated multiple times in this thread that i believe we all exist.

Right. We can't really KNOW anything. That's Solipsism.

No. That's epistemology. Solipsism is something completely different and doesn't relate to anything i've said so far.

Seriously, dude. This is, like, freshman level philosophy n'stuff.

ZOMG! You're soooooo profound n'junk

It might impress the other little freshman girlies, but we're way smarter than that here, and you're just making yourself look like a moron.

Yep. If not being able to comprehend existence means that I am a moron, so be it. I'll take no part in your dogma and remain a moron.

I would like you to explain how I have been categorical and in what ways the nobel prize winner are different. It looks like you're just making stuff up, now.

This is getting ridiculous, as i've typed it 100 times now. Anyone(including you - Catholic Scientist) asking the question - "What is SUpernatural?" means that the respective individual holds a strong belief in the non-existence of God. Asking such a question is being categorical on open issues. Since you can't back up your claims with evidence, your claims remain a testament of your personal beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-06-2010 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


Message 218 of 230 (546293)
02-09-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Apothecus
02-08-2010 7:37 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Apothecus writes:

This is essentially what I've been trying to tell MW. This was a good, interesting topic before Mr. Threadjacker sunk his claws into it. When his basic arguments were effectively skewered, God unnecessarily entered the equation, thereby muddying the waters substantially. Since then it's become one useless, non-pertinent post after another from him, speaking purely from the standpoint that it just doesn't matter. Freshman level philosophical B.S., indeed.

You still can't provide even a single shred of evidence fopr your beliefs. Wining how i interrupted your nice discussion asking for evidence isn't going to magically elevate your beliefs to facts.

Catholic Scientist writes:

We have a rover on mars, man. We get this shit.

That's the dumbest thing i've ever heard. Sounds like a Bushism, really.

Apothecus writes:

What I still don't get, however, is why the zeal? Why all the concern that we're all just making assumptions when considering existence, but that it's OK "as long as you realize you're making them"? Surely MW can discern the difference between knowledge and belief (or acceptance). When one accepts that the most likely conclusion (assumption) is that everything we see is not supernatural, is that really making a "leap of faith", or is it just that since we really can't know this for certain, beliefs are all we have to go on? I can accept that our universe is "queerer that we can imagine" (hence my signature) but I also accept (or believe, if you wish) that we exist in a natural realm. Call it an assumption if you want, but can we really not assume we exist in something other than the supernatural? Yes, I get it that some say we just can't know, but what's the use of not assuming? The alternative IMO is to end up like MatterWave, hopping around with his undies in a knot, although I'd be surprised if, deep down, he didn't actually make the same assumptions he argues so vehemently against. Anyway, it's useless, pointless trying to argue the position; it's a thought experiment and that's about it. Let's discuss "Last Thursdayism" instead. Same type of argument, except that one's way more fun.

You exist in a natural universe and you made the correct assumption. Rest assured.

Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Apothecus, posted 02-08-2010 7:37 PM Apothecus has not yet responded

    
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


Message 219 of 230 (546295)
02-09-2010 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Huntard
02-09-2010 9:52 AM


Re: A pointless exercise
Huntard writes:

Then why limit yourself to just god? Why not incorporate Xonsong into your claims?

Where did i limit myself to just 1 God? So you want me to make a list of one million names and call that God? I could, but how is that beneficial to your position? Would that be the evidence that existence is natural and does not require God?

MatterWave writes:

No. Existence is beyond me. And I am not willing to make unwarranted assumptions that i can know what God is or whether God has anything remotely simiular to a physical appearance, and whether it's a spaghetti monster, etc. I leave this excercise to the inhabitants of kindergartens.

Huntard writes:

But why limit yourself to god then? Your very adamant that we should acknowledge the possibility of god, but when it comes to Xonsong, or Hyper-god, or Super-duper-god, you suddenly are unwilling to commit to that. Why? Notice that all these entitites are ditinct from your god. They are not your god, they could however also be required for existence, couldn't they?

I can compile a list or copy paste a phone directory for you. Is that going to constitute evidence that existence is natural and does not require God?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Huntard, posted 02-09-2010 9:52 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Huntard, posted 02-10-2010 3:31 AM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1298 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 220 of 230 (546296)
02-09-2010 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by MatterWave
02-09-2010 7:03 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Look Dumbass, I was just asking a question.

No. I was saying that you or anyone else for that matter, don't understand anything at all when it comes to the deep questions.

And let me guess, you have all the answers?

You have zero knowledge, which is very evident by the complete and total lack of evidence to support your assertion that existence is natural and does not require a God.

Give it a fucking break MW. You have not even defined what the terms 'natural' or 'God' even mean much less evidence that your God exists.

Why should I be the one on the defense here? The burden of proof lies with the one who is proposing the existence of something i.e. 'God', not the other way around. Otherwise, why should we not believe in the 9 billion other gods invented throughout human history? i.e. Allah, Yaheweh, Zues, Thor, Wodin, Baha'is, Bramah, Krishna, Vishnu, Rama, Waheguru, Tao, Nirvanah, Ahura Mazda, Ra, Amaterasu, Agdistis, Angdistis, Ah Puch, Alberich, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat
, Jahweh, Thor, Loki, Shango, Elegua, Bumba,Alchera, Rainbow-snake,Wandjina,Quetzacoatl, Chantico, Morrigan, Aonghus,Ares, Cronus,Akuma, Benten, Hathor, Bast Osiris, Apotamken, Raven , and so on and so on and so on and so on ad infinitum (estimates of the number of supernatural entities are in the 2000-3000 range).

Arguments from ignorance don't go well with 'existence' because ignorance is ALL there is with regards to these questions. You are simply not aware that you are very ignorant, because you've raised a model of the universe that you somehow believe is true.

That's really not different to believing in the Bible or the Toorah. Atheists and creationist share the same non-sensical dogma that you somehow understand the Universe. You don't! Claims to the contrary don't do justice to your position and are tremendously hilarious.

How do you know what the fuck I do or do not believe? You know nothing about me or my beliefs.

Why is it every fucking religious person I meet on this board is so pretentious to think they know what the other person does or does not believe without even asking? I have no clue what you believe nor do I pretend to. I only debate what you spew on this forum nothing more. I am getting a little sick and tired of your egotistical, pretentious, self-righteous religiousity. In other words, ASK the other person about what they are trying to say or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Stop pretending to know what you are talking about. You are backed into a corner and to hide your ignorance, all you can spout is fucking idiotic ramblings about nobody knowing what the they are talking about. Then you turn around and say the all the answers to the universe is some mythical unsubstantiated being you call 'God' which you have yet to give one iota of evidence for.

You are the posterboy for illogical and unsubstantiated, unintelligent garbage.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 7:03 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 8:20 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


Message 221 of 230 (546298)
02-09-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by New Cat's Eye
02-09-2010 10:17 AM


Re: neener-neener
CS writes:

Those who advocate an anti-science methodology are in such a pickle, that the only thing they have left is to de-ligitimize science in an attempt to bring it down to their level. I think the zeal come from them realizing that if they don't succeed in that, then they don't even have a leg to stand on. This is all they have left and they have to maintain it.

Science in no way whatsoever says that God exists or does not exist. Science relegates unanswerable questions about reality and existence to philosophy. Keep dreaming that science somehow backs up your wishes.

Well, it too takes a "leap of faith" to believe that we're not all brains in jars. One of the reasons the leap is so short, though, is that science works. The technological advancements that have resulted are enough to realize that, even if we don't really understand anything, we understand it enough and we understand it better with a scientific methodology that anything else ever.

True, but we don't understand our environment. We don't even understand why the human brain understands anything and why there is anything to understand. Your assumptions about reality and existence are a naive model, based on wishful thinking.

CS writes:

And again, one of the most hilarious things to me is when people argue on computers on an internet forum instantly over great distances that science doesn't really get it yeah right go microwave another hot pocket

You have a way with jokes. That could kill any bushism in potency.

I always do.

I absolutely love that Mars rover gem extrapolated to imply you already reached the level where you understand existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2010 10:17 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2010 10:49 AM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


Message 222 of 230 (546302)
02-09-2010 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by DevilsAdvocate
02-09-2010 7:52 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Look Dumbass, I was just asking a question.

Given your intelligence, i'd be really, really worried if we were of the same opinion.

DA writes:

And let me guess, you have all the answers?

You are arguing that existence is natural and there is no God. Yes, it strongly implies you have answers to open questions that nobody has.

DA writes:

Give it a fucking break MW. You have not even defined what the terms 'natural' or 'God' even mean much less evidence that your God exists.

I did several times and this will definitely be the last:

"Natural means not created by a God"

I can't define what God is and i stated this a few times. I also can't define what reality and existence is. If you can, ok, but it's still hilarious.

Why should I be the one on the defense here?

Aha. You don't want to be on the defense, yet you have no problem making unwarranted claims.

DA writes:

The burden of proof lies with the one who is proposing the existence of something i.e. 'God', not the other way around.

Existence is incomprehensible and you have zero evidence that it is natural. It could be supernatural and you can't rule that out.

How do you know what the fuck I do or do not believe? You know nothing about me or my beliefs.

Well, I certainly do. I now know that you like to make assumptions and claim your assmption is more valid - i.e. existence is natural. No matter how loud you shout, it's perfectly clear what you believe. If you insist that it's not simply a belief, it's time for you to present evidence.

Why is it every fucking religious person I meet on this board is so pretentious to think they know what the other person does or does not believe without even asking? I have no clue what you believe nor do I pretend to. I only debate what you spew on this forum nothing more. I am getting a little sick and tired of your egotistical, pretentious, self-righteous religiousity. In other words, ASK the other person about what they are trying to say or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

You are an experienced debater and you know the answers to the big questions so that you can state with certainty that everything is natural and god does not exist.

Stop pretending to know what you are talking about. You are backed into a corner and to hide your ignorance, all you can spout is fucking idiotic ramblings about nobody knowing what the they are talking about. Then you turn around and say the all the answers to the universe is some mythical unsubstantiated being you call 'God' which you have yet to give one iota of evidence for.

I am backed into a corner?? How? Where is your evidence that existence is natural? You have a great sense of humor.

You are the posterboy for illogical and unsubstantiated, unintelligent garbage.

As i said, i'd be deeply concerned if someone of your intelligence agreed with me.

Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-09-2010 7:52 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Taq, posted 02-10-2010 11:32 AM MatterWave has not yet responded
 Message 229 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-13-2010 10:02 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 303 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 223 of 230 (546308)
02-09-2010 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by MatterWave
02-09-2010 7:03 PM


You forgot to say "Amen!"
I was saying that you or anyone else for that matter, don't understand anything at all when it comes to the deep questions. You have zero knowledge, which is very evident by the complete and total lack of evidence to support your assertion that existence is natural and does not require a God.

Lead us, oh enlightened one! (Not another one!)

Arguments from ignorance don't go well with 'existence' because ignorance is ALL there is with regards to these questions. You are simply not aware that you are very ignorant, because you've raised a model of the universe that you somehow believe is true.

(Unlike yourself?)

That's really not different to believing in the Bible or the Toorah. Atheists and creationist share the same non-sensical dogma that you somehow understand the Universe. You don't! Claims to the contrary don't do justice to your position and are tremendously hilarious.

Sorry to have to tell you this, but you are preaching.

You have presented no evidence here, just opinion based on religious belief. Religious belief comes at a dime a dozen, as there are some 4,300 different world religions. There are even some 40,000 different sects, denominations, and flavors of Christianity!

And not one of those can show that it is right and the others are wrong using empirical evidence. Otherwise there would not be so many thousands of different beliefs!

Further, religious belief has a very poor track record against scientific investigation. Those "gaps" are getting few and far between, and narrower.

Now, about those deep questions: What makes you think that you have the TRVTH and everyone else has/is "zero knowledge," "total lack of evidence," "ignorance," "very ignorant," "non-sensical (sic) dogma," and are "tremendously hilarious?"

This brings to mind a line from an article I read many years ago:


Save us, dear Lord, from those who would save us.

Art Hoppe, On the Death of Robert Kennedy
San Francisco Chronicle
, 1968


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 7:03 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 224 of 230 (546327)
02-10-2010 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by MatterWave
02-09-2010 7:50 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
MatterWave writes:

Where did i limit myself to just 1 God?


Well, you keep saying stuff like this:
quote:
Would that be the evidence that existence is natural and does not require God?
I see only one god there.

So you want me to make a list of one million names and call that God?

No, once again, the things I named aren't god. They're different. But somehow you think they're not required for existence. That's special pleading.

I could, but how is that beneficial to your position?

Do you know what my position is? I want you to look good and hard at your own position. You're advocating very adamantly that existence could require your god. However, you don't do the same for Xonsong, or super-duper-god? Why is that?

I can compile a list or copy paste a phone directory for you.

I'm sure you could.

Is that going to constitute evidence that existence is natural and does not require God?

Why limit yourself again? It does not demonstrate god not requiring Xonsong to exist either. Nor that existence does not require Xonsong. Why advocate so adamantly for one, yet not the other? You keep just mentioning your god, why? Xongsong has feelings to you know.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 7:50 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 230 (546346)
02-10-2010 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by MatterWave
02-09-2010 8:01 PM


Re: neener-neener
From Message 217

By bad... you're pushing Solipsism with a splash of cogito ergo sum

Thank God you didn't say i was pushing the Toyota Prius 2010 recall.

How on earth does "There is an I that exists" relate to solipsism? Solipsism is the belief that only the self exists, i stated multiple times in this thread that i believe we all exist.

I'm using Solipsism to describe the philosophy that we can't really know anything. When you throw out phrases like:

quote:
I was saying that you or anyone else for that matter, don't understand anything at all when it comes to the deep questions. You have zero knowledge,...

You come off as a Solipsist, but whatever. Now you're saying that we all exists. And given that, we can understand things.

But not the "deeep questions"... But those are just unanswerable questions so you're position is reduced to tautology:

We can't answer unanswerable questions. Whoopty-freakin-do You're sooooo profound

Right. We can't really KNOW anything. That's Solipsism.

No. That's epistemology. Solipsism is something completely different and doesn't relate to anything i've said so far.

Epistemology is the study of what knowledge is, not a position that we can't really have it.

Yep. If not being able to comprehend existence means that I am a moron, so be it. I'll take no part in your dogma and remain a moron.

But your talking nonsense... 'we can't comprehend existence' is simply mental wankery. It doesn't matter. Scientists will continue to understand what they can and provide you with super-sweet technological advancements all the while not caring that you've got some "deep questions" that they'll never be able to answer.

The only people who care are the religious ones that are threatened by science and have to reduce it to their level by claiming that science isn't really figuring out the "deep" stuff.

This is getting ridiculous, as i've typed it 100 times now. Anyone(including you - Catholic Scientist) asking the question - "What is Supernatural?" means that the respective individual holds a strong belief in the non-existence of God.

No. I'm a theist and I'm asking "What is Supernatural?"

Asking such a question is being categorical on open issues. Since you can't back up your claims with evidence, your claims remain a testament of your personal beliefs.

Ummm, asking a question is not making a claim...

What are you talking about?

From Message 221

CS writes:

Those who advocate an anti-science methodology are in such a pickle, that the only thing they have left is to de-ligitimize science in an attempt to bring it down to their level. I think the zeal come from them realizing that if they don't succeed in that, then they don't even have a leg to stand on. This is all they have left and they have to maintain it.

Science in no way whatsoever says that God exists or does not exist. Science relegates unanswerable questions about reality and existence to philosophy. Keep dreaming that science somehow backs up your wishes.

What I said doesn't have anything to do with science saying whether or not god exists. Everyone knows science can't disprove god.

The point is that people, like creationists for example, have their beliefs that they feel science threatens (by showing that species have arisen by evolution as opposed to creation, for example). And some of those people fight back by trying to de-legitimize science. And this looks to be what you are doing.

Well, it too takes a "leap of faith" to believe that we're not all brains in jars. One of the reasons the leap is so short, though, is that science works. The technological advancements that have resulted are enough to realize that, even if we don't really understand anything, we understand it enough and we understand it better with a scientific methodology that anything else ever.

True, but we don't understand our environment. We don't even understand why the human brain understands anything and why there is anything to understand. Your assumptions about reality and existence are a naive model, based on wishful thinking.

What are you talking about? There's plenty of stuff we DO understand. It doesn't matter that we don't YET understand why the human brain understands. Scientists will continue to find out all kinds of cool stuff about what we do understand.

CS writes:

And again, one of the most hilarious things to me is when people argue on computers on an internet forum instantly over great distances that science doesn't really get it yeah right go microwave another hot pocket

You have a way with jokes. That could kill any bushism in potency.

Huh I guess you don't have a way with jokes.

I absolutely love that Mars rover gem extrapolated to imply you already reached the level where you understand existence.

Another miss. Us having a rover on Mars doesn't mean that we understand existence. It means that regardless of being unable to answer unanswerable questions, science will continue to make great strides and leave those philosophical musings in the dust.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 8:01 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
11121314
15
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019