|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/1 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: What is Supernatural? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Don't get me wrong, I know what the definition of the word is in a fictional sense. I wasn't disputing that. Oh  It was this line:
quote: That had me getting you wrong. Carry on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Seems to basically boild down to Solipsism to me!
No, it boils down to... " I exist". Think about it. Now think more about it. There is an I that exists. If you are not asking - WTF is this, you are not really thinking. By bad... you're pushing Solipsism with a splash of cogito ergo sum 
If you think you understand reality and existence... you don't! You also don't really understand matter, time, free will, consciousness, space, life. Nobody does! Right. We can't really KNOW anything. That's Solipsism. And its totally ghey. 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.
Make as many assumptions about anything, just be aware that you are making them and don't be too categorical. Nobel prize winners aren't categorical when they speak about matter, time, free will, consciousness, space, life, reality and existence. 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.
We don't have the fundamental knowledge that you desire, be more humble and perceptive towards what you experience. The universe is stranger than you can imagine. pfft. We have a rover on mars, man. We get this shit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
(1)