Scientists create artificial life form - another nail in the coffin of religion?

Sam Vimes

King Mob wrote: »

And what do you think works better at explaining reality than rigorous experiment based on falsifiable hypothesises?
Guessing?

I've been through this with him. He thinks that empiricism is circular reasoning because it's all within the same god defined system and that personal experience is just as good. The miracles of technology that empiricism has produced and the millions of different and contradictory ideas that personal experience alone has produced appears to have no effect no his position

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

In what I way?

In that it is such an inaccurate model of the phenomena of biological life and the processes that life operate under that it has no use or value for understanding said phenomena and processes.

Do you understand what science is for?

Zombrex

King Mob wrote: »

So is that a no?

And what do you think works better at explaining reality than rigorous experiment based on falsifiable hypothesises?
Guessing?

Please don't say divine revelation, please don't say divine revelation, please don't say divine revelation, please dont say...
:pac:

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Please don't say divine revelation, please don't say divine revelation, please don't say divine revelation, please dont say...
:pac:

Unfortunately so. He has the reasoning that if god reveals himself to him then he can know it's real but he doesn't seem to consider the fact that if god does not reveal himself to him and he has some kind of hallucination (as must have happened to all those people in the world who claim to have had the same kind of experience of a different god to the one he supposedly experienced) he can still think he knows, which is indistinguishable from actually knowing

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In the way that the theory of evolution describes how life gradually changed from pre-single celled organisms to all the life we see today through a process of mutation and natural selection. Do you accept this version of events as being accurate?

And if not, what do you think happened? Basically I'm asking are you a young (or old) earth creationist?

That this is what happened in reality? Not necessarily.

You see, I factor in God and his plan and once you do that, all scientific bets are off. For example, Scripture suggests that the position of the unbeliever is permitted to be sustained as intellectually, emotionally satisfying. As a living, thinking, reasoning being, there must be a congruency in his position permitted him in order that he can sustain his unbelief. And permitting him to sustain his unbelieving position is part of Gods plan for him.

I don't have a view on when the world was created. I do believe in an actual Adam and Eve, if that's any help.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So is that a no?

And what do you think works better at explaining reality than rigorous experiment based on falsifiable hypothesises?
Guessing?

God explains reality better than science can. You see, science says it only attempts to explain a part of reality. But because it can't take account of the whole, it can't be sure even it's own realm won't be reframed.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Unfortunately so. He has the reasoning that if god reveals himself to him then he can know it's real but he doesn't seem to consider the fact that if god does not reveal himself to him and he has some kind of hallucination (as must have happened to all those people in the world who claim to have had the same kind of experience of a different god to the one he supposedly experienced) he can still think he knows, which is indistinguishable from actually knowing

Which is the same problem faced when wondering whether the objective reality is actually objective. It's not, I take it, something that keeps you up at night.

What's good for the goose..

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

That this is what happened in reality? Not necessarily.

You see, I factor in God and his plan and once you do that, all scientific bets are off. For example, Scripture suggests that the position of the unbeliever is permitted to be sustained as intellectually, emotionally satisfying. As a living, thinking, reasoning being, there must be a congruency in his position permitted him in order that he can sustain his unbelief. And permitting him to sustain his unbelieving position is part of Gods plan for him.

So god tricks people into being atheists by creating misleading evidence that only the saved can bring themselves to ignore?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't have a view on when the world was created. I do believe in an actual Adam and Eve, if that's any help.

Right so, just wanted to what type of believer I was dealing with.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

That this is what happened in reality? Not necessarily.

You see, I factor in God and his plan and once you do that, all scientific bets are off. For example, Scripture suggests that the position of the unbeliever is permitted to be sustained as intellectually, emotionally satisfying. As a living, thinking, reasoning being, there must be a congruency in his position permitted him in order that he can sustain his unbelief. And permitting him to sustain his unbelieving position is part of Gods plan for him.

Expertly dodged.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't have a view on when the world was created. I do believe in an actual Adam and Eve, if that's any help.

Unless you believe they were the first two homo saipens, and that there where no other similar creatures on the earth. (which is both impossible on every level, and demonstrably false), then no you don't believe in the actual Adam and Eve described in the bible.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

God explains reality better than science can. You see, science says it only attempts to explain a part of reality. But because it can't take account of the whole, it can't be sure even it's own realm won't be reframed.

But God isn't an explanation. It doesn't explain anything, leaving aside the issue that you have no way to find out if it is an accurate explanation (ie Did God actually do anything or not)

It is like coming home to find your house has been destroyed and a shopping center build where it was

You ask "What happened" and the answer is "Bob did it". Who would think that was an explanation of what happened?

It isn't an explanation. It isn't an answer. "God did it" is simply a reason to stop asking the question.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is the same problem faced when wondering whether the objective reality is actually objective. It's not, I take it, something that keeps you up at night.

What's good for the goose..

Well no it's not the same problem really because empiricism has produced endless results that prove it to be reliable and personal revelation has produced endless results that prove the exact opposite. Yes we could all be brains in jars but that is the only scenario where empiricism can be considered in the same league as personal experience in terms of reliability

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

God explains reality better than science can.

Really?
Then please provide an example of one advance made by divine revelation.
Can you show a single testable hypothesis made by God?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You see, science says it only attempts to explain a part of reality.

Yea, the bits that actually exist.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But because it can't take account of the whole, it can't be sure even it's own realm won't be reframed.

And?
How do you know this doesn't apply to your guessing?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is the same problem faced when wondering whether the objective reality is actually objective. It's not, I take it, something that keeps you up at night.

What's good for the goose..

So any belief is as valid as any other belief since no beliefs are 100% objective?

Would you accept then the mother who refuses to give her dying son medication that will probably save his life because she believes that the water she had blessed in a Hindu temple will also do the job?

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

So any belief is as valid as any other belief since no beliefs are 100% objective?

Would you accept then the mother who refuses to give her dying son medication that will probably save his life because she believes that the water she had blessed in a Hindu temple will also do the job?

No I don't think he'll agree with that. His belief is correct because he's experienced it. That doesn't mean that everyone else's beliefs are correct, anyone who claims to have had an experience that contradicts his at the very least wrong and most likely a tool of Satan (a term that he has applied to catholicism for example). The existence of other people who appear to be just as sure as him of contradictory things does not seem relevant to him for some reason

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I don't think he'll agree with that. His belief is correct because he's experienced it. That doesn't mean that everyone else's beliefs are correct, anyone who claims to have had an experience that contradicts his at the very least wrong and most likely a tool of Satan (a term that he has applied to catholicism for example). The existence of other people who appear to be just as sure as him of contradictory things does not seem relevant to him for some reason

Ah right

There is a name for that isn't there, people who think only their experience is considered valid (not a nasty name, I mean a school of philosophy)

I could turn the question around and ask him would he himself bet on the life of his child based on what he believes to be true if that contradicted medical knowledge, say for example he thought God told him don't do medicine have faith instead.

monosharp

Wicknight wrote: »

There is a name for that isn't there, people who think only their experience is considered valid (not a nasty name, I mean a school of philosophy).

The 'I'm righters,your wrongers' ? Ancient Roman weren't they ?

PDN

King Mob wrote: »

You started with the arguement that "it is unlikely someone would die for something they know is false."
We provided you with examples of this very thing.
You added the addendum "willingly."
That is be definition, moving the goal posts.

Ah, so you thought that I was initially saying that to die unwillingly for something would be an indication of the truth of one's beliefs? You seriously thought that? Like really?

Dramatic exits don't really work when you do them twice....

I see. So because I said I was out of this discussion you thought you could sling an insult accusing me of 'whingeing' without me responding.

You are a courageous internet warrior aren't you?

Nobody's going to use that old canard about 'no atheists in foxholes' when there's a big brave boy like you in the atheist ranks.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

You are a courageous internet warrior aren't you?

Calm down + direct your ire towards ideas, not people.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

No I didn't, read it again.

I quoted what you said about (a) and then Soul Winners position which also relates to (a)

"If you can explain the rise of early Christianity, the early Christian's genuine belief that Jesus was the Son of God whom they claimed they seen alive and real after His death and died happily proclaiming that testimony under the most horrific and agonizing of deaths then I'm all ears."

:rolleyes:

Genuine belief being the key phrase here. Soul Winner is asking for an alternative explanation for how these people would genuinely believe, demonstrated by willingness to die, all this if it wasn't true, an argument you yourself seem to realize is silly. People genuinely believe and die for things that aren't true all the time, as Zillah pointed out with his flaming monk.

If you insist in being needlessly argumentative then I'm questioning what exactly you think you are bringing to this discussion.

I don't think I'm being needlessly argumentative. I think I'm holding a mirror up to some rather strange posting styles and debating tricks and you guys don't llike what you see in the mirror.

Soul Winner said, "If you can explain the rise of early Christianity, the early Christian's genuine belief that Jesus was the Son of God whom they claimed they seen alive and real after His death and died happily proclaiming that testimony under the most horrific and agonizing of deaths then I'm all ears. And if you can explain that people would easily do this (even knowing that they were wrong) for the ones that they love you then need to explain what turned the apostle Paul around from being this new Faith's most aggressive opponent to become its chief apostle. When I hear GOOD explanations of these facts without needing to invoke anything supernatural then I will not be a Christian."

You managed to ignore the first relevant phrase (I've put it in red type to make it impossible for you to pretend you didn't see it this time).

As for the second relevant phrase, you (quite accidentally and innocently I'm sure) selectively edited Soul Winner's quote so as to omit it altogether - even though it clearly indicates that Soul Winner was referring to the idea of people dying for something they knew to be fictional, not simply for something they believed to be true.

(If the red type isn't prominent enough then I can always use a bigger font if you wish)

King Mob

PDN wrote: »

Ah, so you thought that I was initially saying that to die unwillingly for something would be an indication of the truth of one's beliefs? You seriously thought that? Like really?

Nope, that's not exactly what I was saying.

You could have been suggesting that because they knew it was when caught they would instant recant and therefore be spared.

We provided an example of something like this happening.

We have also provided example how an unwilling death can be interpreted as martyrdom.

You don't seem to want to address these point.

PDN wrote: »

You are a courageous internet warrior aren't you?

Nobody's going to use that old canard about 'no atheists in foxholes' when there's a big brave boy like you in the atheist ranks.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I don't think I'm being needlessly argumentative. I think I'm holding a mirror up to some rather strange posting styles and debating tricks and you guys don't llike what you see in the mirror.

Yeah, that must be it

PDN wrote: »

You managed to ignore the first relevant phrase (I've put it in red type to make it impossible for you to pretend you didn't see it this time).

I ignored that how exactly?

The relevant phrase by the way is "genuinely believed"

Soul Winner is asking for an explanation for how people who genuinely believed in Jesus and genuinely believed he saw him resurrected could believe such a thing to the extend that they would die for that belief if they were mistaken.

PDN wrote: »

As for the second relevant phrase, you (quite accidentally and innocently I'm sure) selectively edited Soul Winner's quote so as to omit it altogether

Of course I did, Soul Winner is asking two different questions. :rolleyes:

He is asking if they believed what they said how do you explain it and then he asked if they didn't believe what they said how do you explain it. He wants non-Biblical explanations for everything, but in relation to your claim on the first one was relevant to what you claimed (no one makes that argument it is an atheist straw man) so I "omitted it altogether"

He made the argument (along with others) that you claimed no one makes and is an atheist straw man.

Are you going to actually response to what he wrote, or do you want to continue with this pointless arguing?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

You managed to ignore the first relevant phrase (I've put it in red type to make it impossible for you to pretend you didn't see it this time).

Without needing to put anything into red, I'm still wondering about this, and this and this

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

You managed to ignore the first relevant phrase (I've put it in red type to make it impossible for you to pretend you didn't see it this time).
...
As for the second relevant phrase, you (quite accidentally and innocently I'm sure)

Oh look PDN's attacking the truthfulness of another poster. I for one am shocked.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Without needing to put anything into red, I'm still wondering about this, and this and this

Stop moving the goal posts.

All I have done in this thread is to point out the difference between two very different positions - while explicitly stating, in my initial post, that neither position proves the truth of the disciples' beliefs. Nevertheless my attempts to help some posters improve their debating skills has, quite inexplicably, stirred up a lot of hostility and petty name-calling.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

All I have done in this thread is to point out the difference between two very different positions - while explicitly stating, in my initial post, that neither position proves the truth of the disciples' beliefs.

You also claimed that Soul Winners argument was an atheist strawman.

What proves the truth of the disciples' beliefs then ?

Nevertheless my attempts to help some posters improve their debating skills has, quite inexplicably, stirred up a lot of hostility and petty name-calling.

Unless I missed it, your the only one who did any name-calling. But I'm open to correction.

sonicthebadger*

robindch wrote: »

Calm down + direct your ire towards ideas, not people.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

You also claimed that Soul Winners argument was an atheist strawman.

I didn't.

I pointed out the difference between what Soul Winner said (that people are unlikely to die for something that they know to be fictional) and an atheist strawman (that people dying for what they believe to be true in any way validates their beliefs).

What proves the truth of the disciples' beliefs then ?

I don't know. You would probably need to address that question to someone who claims that such proof exists. I have never made any such claim.

Unless I missed it, your the only one who did any name-calling.

I would be amazed if you reached any other conclusion.

But I'm open to correction.

Now that is wonderful news. In these current economic circumstances we all need to develop some new skills. Well done!

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

I pointed out the difference between what Soul Winner said (that people are unlikely to die for something that they know to be fictional) and an atheist strawman (that people dying for what they believe to be true in any way validates their beliefs).

Ok then. Do you think 'thats' a good argument ?

I hope not, because its nonsense logic.

People aren't willing to die for fiction = the disciples died for the truth. I know its not your argument, thats why its a question.

I would be amazed if you reached any other conclusion.

I got told to 'shut up' 5 times in a post in your forum, is that acceptable now ?

Now that is wonderful news. In these current economic circumstances we all need to develop some new skills. Well done!

Sarcasm doesn't suit you.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Ok then. Do you think 'thats' a good argument ?

I hope not, because its nonsense logic.

People aren't willing to die for fiction = the disciples died for the truth. I know its not your argument, thats why its a question.

I do think that it increases the likelihood that the disciples were tellling the truth, but that falls a long way short of proof.

That might be a discussion that would be interesting if we could find a suitable forum where both Christians and atheists are welcome. But I've no intention of pursuing it here.

I got told to 'shut up' 5 times in a post in your forum, is that acceptable now ?

Sorry, I can't answer that here. The A&A forum has a policy of not discussing what goes on in other fora - and I do think it good manners to observe the rules in any forum I visit.

If you have a genuine problem then PM a moderator etc. - but you already know that - don't you?

Sarcasm doesn't suit you.

God bless you. Thanks for the tip!

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

I do think that it increases the likelihood that the disciples were tellling the truth, but that falls a long way short of proof.

Why would it ? People die for stuff they believe in all the time. No offence to the people who've done it but look through history, its riddled with people dying for one cause or another.

Look at our own island in the last 50 years. Bobby Sands certainly died for what he believed to be true, and died painfully and horribly for it. Hardly makes the Provos right does it ?

Honestly asking, not taking the mick.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Why would it ? People die for stuff they believe in all the time. No offence to the people who've done it but look through history, its riddled with people dying for one cause or another.

Look at our own island in the last 50 years. Bobby Sands certainly died for what he believed to be true, and died painfully and horribly for it. Hardly makes the Provos right does it ?

Honestly asking, not taking the mick.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So god tricks people into being atheists by creating misleading evidence that only the saved can bring themselves to ignore?

Like I say, God appears to equip unbelievers with a means to sustain their unbelief.

No doubt you've seen the old woman/young woman optical trick? The one in which the precisely same data can be interpreted in two completely different ways? Note that once the primarly connection is made regarding an interpretation of what's been looked at ("It's an old hag!"), all the other elements of the data slot into place to reinforce that interpretation.

So no, God doesn't trick people. But I do think he allows the unbelief to be sustained.

Right so, just wanted to what type of believer I was dealing with.

Well now you know. One who considers the dilemma rationally

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like I say, God appears to equip unbelievers with a means to sustain their unbelief.

Just like those tricksy unicorns. The conspicuous lack of evidence for their existence hasn't got me fooled.

Dr. Loon

antiskeptic wrote: »

Well now you know. One who considers the dilemma rationally

That's a joke right? Rationally? Ha ha. Good one.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

But God isn't an explanation. It doesn't explain anything, leaving aside the issue that you have no way to find out if it is an accurate explanation (ie Did God actually do anything or not)

God explains the reason why the world is the way it is: why there is sickness and death, why there is so much greed, why folk do good and evil. Leaving aside the issue that you, as an unbeliever, have no way of understanding what and what can or can't be found if God decides to inform you - hitched as you are to the (undemonstrable as true) philosophy of empiricism.

These conversations always terminate in the question: "can God (if he exists) let someone know he exists?" To which the answer must be yes.

It isn't an explanation. It isn't an answer. "God did it" is simply a reason to stop asking the question.

Whilst there are many questions one can have that find answers, I'd agree that they all terminate eventually in something like "That's the nature of God". But can't it only be the same with a materialist system? That you end up at "it is just because it is"

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whilst there are many questions one can have that find answers, I'd agree that they all terminate eventually in something like "That's the nature of God". But can't it only be the same with a materialist system? That you end up at "it is just because it is"

If we where to stop at "god did it" we wouldn't have medicine or any other kind of scientific advance.
Simple as that.

Can you point to one advance ever made that was based on divine revelation?
Can you show one falsifiable prediction based on "God Did It?"

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Just like those tricksy unicorns. The conspicuous lack of evidence for their existence hasn't got me fooled.

No, but the notion of a naturalistically sourced universe has. You are intellectually satisfied by the notion of a naturalistically sourced universe aren't you.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

If we where to stop at "god did it" we wouldn't have medicine or any other kind of scientific advance.
Simple as that.

Can you point to one advance ever made that was based on divine revelation?
Can you show one falsifiable prediction based on "God Did It?"

You seem to have a rather utilitarian view of reality King Mob. Not all share it.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seem to have a rather utilitarian view of reality King Mob. Not all share it.

So no, no and no?
Why is it so hard for you to give straight answers? It's like you're trying to avoid them...

Now it's not a matter of utility, it's a matter of demonstrating understanding of the world. The simple fact the science directly lead to actual tangible advance shows it works and accurately describes reality.

Your way of knowledge does not as it is indistinguishable from total fiction and leads to no testable insights into reality.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

God explains the reason why the world is the way it is: why there is sickness and death, why there is so much greed, why folk do good and evil.

No it doesn't since the Bible doesn't explain why God did this as opposed to anything else. It just says he did. So it doesn't actually explain the reason why, nor does it explain the how. It explains nothing.

Again it is like coming home and finding your house turned into a shopping center, when you ask why the answer is "Bob did it because he did"

antiskeptic wrote: »

These conversations always terminate in the question: "can God (if he exists) let someone know he exists?" To which the answer must be yes.

That is irrelevant to this issue. Knowing God exists and did something is not an explanation of what he did or why he did it. It is just a reason to stop asking for an explanation.

A lot of people are happy not knowing so long as they think God did something, anything, because all they care about is knowing that a loving God exists who loves them and promises them an after life. Everything about science and understanding is then directed to this question alone and they don't care about not understanding anything else, all that become secondary

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whilst there are many questions one can have that find answers, I'd agree that they all terminate eventually in something like "That's the nature of God". But can't it only be the same with a materialist system? That you end up at "it is just because it is"

Possibly, but I would rather get to that answer properly rather than just accepting the first comforting answer that comes along and stop altogether which is what "God did it" basically is.

You are a perfect example of this, you are convinced God has let himself be known to you and you are happy with this so you stop any further exploration of this, including other possible explanations for why you think this. You dazzle us with circular logic justifying this position and then simply say you don't actually need to justify this position, you are happy with it.

You stop at the first comforting answer without caring about attempting to determine if this answer is actually accurate or not.

Which is your right of course if you want to but if everyone did that we would still be living in caves, so naturally I'm not a fan of the promotion of such a view point.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

All I have done in this thread is to point out the difference between two very different positions - while explicitly stating, in my initial post, that neither position proves the truth of the disciples' beliefs

That's not the only thing you've done in this thread: you've also ignored my question three times, and your dignified, but complete, silence on the issue of the credibility of the gospel accounts warms the cockles of my atheistic heart on this splendid morning

PDN wrote: »

That might be a discussion that would be interesting if we could find a suitable forum where both Christians and atheists are welcome.

Once the forum's very basic rules regarding etiquette are observed, this forum welcomes all comers, regardless of their beliefs concerning religion.

You're therefore free to start a thread on any relevant topic that interests you, without fear that you or your posts will be censored by any of the forum moderators for the banal reason that we might happen to disagree with your views.

Je vous prie, continuez...

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

No it doesn't since the Bible doesn't explain why God did this as opposed to anything else. It just says he did. So it doesn't actually explain the reason why, nor does it explain the how. It explains nothing.

Why are the laws of nature as they are? Does the fact that you don't know mean the mechanics of things downstream from the unknowable can't be examined?

That is irrelevant to this issue. Knowing God exists and did something is not an explanation of what he did or why he did it. It is just a reason to stop asking for an explanation.

See above.

A lot of people are happy not knowing so long as they think God did something, anything, because all they care about is knowing that a loving God exists who loves them and promises them an after life. Everything about science and understanding is then directed to this question alone and they don't care about not understanding anything else, all that become secondary

This is general rant. You say God doesn't explain anything. It turns out God does - it's just that a point comes where God is like the laws of nature: they just are.

Possibly, but I would rather get to that answer properly rather than just accepting the first comforting answer that comes along and stop altogether which is what "God did it" basically is.

Teasing out the substance here we see simply that you look in different places to me. And seem to take the attitude that arrival at a destination is something to be sneered at.

You are a perfect example of this, you are convinced God has let himself be known to you and you are happy with this so you stop any further exploration of this, including other possible explanations for why you think this. You dazzle us with circular logic justifying this position and then simply say you don't actually need to justify this position, you are happy with it.[/qutoe]

Again, when you strip back the sneering and the assumed higher ground, the philosophy that suggests destinations cannot be arrived at - without saying how you yourself arrived at that destination, is revealed. Along with your unspoken allegience to an undemonstrable worldview: empiricism uber alles.

At least I've the good sense to admit such discussions can only end in stalemate - once you've taken the time to step down of the pedestal of your own undemonstrabel assumptions.

You stop at the first comforting answer without caring about attempting to determine if this answer is actually accurate or not.

Which is your right of course if you want to but if everyone did that we would still be living in caves, so naturally I'm not a fan of the promotion of such a view point.

As per above: unsupportable philosophy undergirding your position

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why are the laws of nature as they are? Does the fact that you don't know mean the mechanics of things downstream from the unknowable can't be examined?

See above.

This is general rant. You say God doesn't explain anything. It turns out God does - it's just that a point comes where God is like the laws of nature: they just are.

Teasing out the substance here we see simply that you look in different places to me. And seem to take the attitude that arrival at a destination is something to be sneered at.

Again, when you strip back the sneering and the assumed higher ground, the philosophy that suggests destinations cannot be arrived at - without saying how you yourself arrived at that destination, is revealed. Along with your unspoken allegience to an undemonstrable worldview: empiricism uber alles.

At least I've the good sense to admit such discussions can only end in stalemate - once you've taken the time to step down of the pedestal of your own undemonstrabel assumptions.

As per above: unsupportable philosophy undergirding your position

If empiricism is so undemonstrable, how do you explain scientific advances and theoretical models leading to experimental evidence?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So no, no and no?
Why is it so hard for you to give straight answers? It's like you're trying to avoid them...

It's because the challenge is framed so badly. You hold up one tool (science) and demand that another tool (religion/philosophy) perform the purpose of the first tool.

Now it's not a matter of utility, it's a matter of demonstrating understanding of the world. The simple fact the science directly lead to actual tangible advance shows it works and accurately describes reality.

I'm not denying that science leads to understanding of the world. I'm just saying that I don't align myself with the view that science is necessarily close to accurately describing reality all of the time.

Your way of knowledge does not as it is indistinguishable from total fiction and leads to no testable insights into reality.

Coming from an unbeliever I can't but agree that's how you'd view it. But you should agree that a blind person (assuming you are blind) can't be expected to see very much.

The question is: are you blind or not. And how would you know if you were?

Which is why I suggest that all such discussion naturally end in stalemate - there is no resolution to it. It's a quicker option than faffing around assuming the higher ground.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

If empiricism is so undemonstrable, how do you explain scientific advances and theoretical models leading to experimental evidence?

By empiricism I mean the philosophy that says (in simple terms) that the only things we can know must be 5 sense detectable. That's a philosophy that can't demonstrate itself to be the case.

Many here have the view: if it's not tangible, if it's not subject to the empirical investigation then it can't be knowledge.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's because the challenge is framed so badly. You hold up one tool (science) and demand that another tool (religion/philosophy) suit the purpose of the first tool.

You're holding up your makey uppy stuff as equal to science. (Superior in fact.)
The point of science is to lead to better insights of the world.

If your nonsense leads to better understanding of reality then it should by necessity be able to make testable predictions.

Otherwise it is indistinguishable from delusion/fiction, and therefore cannot lead to better understanding of anything.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not denying that science leads to understanding of the world. I'm just saying that I don't align myself with the view that science is necessarily close to accurately describing reality all of the time.

Can you provide some examples?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Coming from an unbeliever I can't but agree that's how you'd view it. But you should agree that a blind person (assuming you are blind) can't be expected to see very much.

The question is: are you blind or not. And how would you know if you were?

Metaphysical waffle pure and simple.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is why I suggest that all such discussion naturally end in stalemate - there is no resolution to it. It's a quicker option than faffing around assuming the higher ground.

Well it generally is a stalemate when one of the players refuses to actually answer some of the questions...

antiskeptic wrote: »

By empiricism I mean the philosophy that says (in simple terms) that the only things we can know must be 5 sense detectable. That's a philosophy that can't demonstrate itself to be the case.

Many here have the view: if it's not tangible, if it's not subject to the empirical investigation then it can't be knowledge.

Einstein predicted in 1905 that light is bend by gravity as it passes a massive object.
This very phenomena was experimentally observed during a solar eclipse in 1919.

Gravity isn't detectable by our five senses. (In fact most modern physics doesn't rely on our senses at all.)

Dave!

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not denying that science leads to understanding of the world. I'm just saying that I don't align myself with the view that science is necessarily close to accurately describing reality all of the time.

lol

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

You're holding up your makey uppy stuff as equal to science.
The point of science is to lead to better insights of the world.

If your nonsense leads to better understanding of reality then it should by necessity be able to make testable predictions.

Otherwise it is indistinguishable from delusion/fiction, and therefore cannot lead to better understanding of anything.

I don't hold it equal to science because it's better than science. It makes sense of far more important (to me) questions than "what's the diameter of the world".

Again I'll note it being indistinguishable for you. You don't speak for everyone however - you don't have the authority for that.

Can you provide some examples?

How can I provide an example when it's a principle being talked about. Science itself says it doesn't comment absolutely. And it's the absolute likelyhood that reflects actual reality - not the apparent

Metaphysical waffle pure and simple.

To combat your own philosophicial musings. You don't seem to be aware of the assumptions your standing upon when you throw stones.

Well it generally is a stalemate when one of the players refuses to actually answer some of the questions...

I don't answer them according to the narrow framework your operating according to. A frame work that rests firmly on the philosophy of empiricism.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Einstein predicted in 1905 that light is bend by gravity as it passes a massive object.
This very phenomena was experimentally observed during a solar eclipse in 1919.

Gravity isn't detectable by our five senses. (In fact most modern physics doesn't rely on our senses at all.)

Gravity doesn't exist - only the effects associated with an explanatory notion called Gravity exist. And those effects are 5 sense detectable.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why are the laws of nature as they are?

Which ones? Most of the laws of nature are the way they are because they are the result of more fundamental ones.

If you are asking why the fundamental ones are the way they are I don't know.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does the fact that you don't know mean the mechanics of things downstream from the unknowable can't be examined?

No.

antiskeptic wrote: »

See above.

I imagine you are implying that because I don't know the fundamentals doesn't mean I can't work out "downstream" mechanics.

But we both know that doesn't work for "God did it" because there are no downstream mechanics with a supernatural deity. He just does what he does.

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is general rant. You say God doesn't explain anything. It turns out God does - it's just that a point comes where God is like the laws of nature: they just are.

Can you tell me what "God did it" explains, either upstream or down stream, please.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Teasing out the substance here we see simply that you look in different places to me. And seem to take the attitude that arrival at a destination is something to be sneered at.

Easy comforting answers that have never attempted to be tested are something to be sneered at.

Pretending we know more than we do is something to be sneered at.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Again, when you strip back the sneering and the assumed higher ground, the philosophy that suggests destinations cannot be arrived at - without saying how you yourself arrived at that destination, is revealed. Along with your unspoken allegience to an undemonstrable worldview: empiricism uber alles.

At least I've the good sense to admit such discussions can only end in stalemate - once you've taken the time to step down of the pedestal of your own undemonstrabel assumptions.

I've no problem with you claiming I'm up on a pedestal.

I am up on a pedestal. I'm up there because I'm sick and tired of the nonsense that permeates our modern society and this idea that if we just believe something then that is good enough and perfectly valid.

I read only yesterday of a child in who died because his parents decided to pray for him instead of taking him to a doctor.

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/13/son-dies-slowly-as-parents-pray/

And why wouldn't they, they knew it would work because God told them. Did they bother to try and figure out if God actually told them this? Nope. Why would they. If God exists then he can communicate to his followers that prayer heals people. QED as it were :rolleyes:

And good old Jenny McCarthy is at it again saying that she knows vaccines cause autism even as diseases that were once almost irradiated in the USA are on the rise again. Does she actually need to support this claim? Nope, she knows as a mother that this is what caused her sons autism. Testing and medical science is just for Big Pharma, big business can't destroy what a mother knows in her heart. :rolleyes:

So yes I'm on a pedestal because I prefer living in 2010 not 1410.