 |
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
What I never understand is how they make the leap from "God says this" to "this is right". Why do they assume that, just because God is omnipotent, one ought to do what he says? Isn't that just an extreme example of might makes right? |
Exactly!
Is Something right just because God says so or does God tell us what IS right.
The former translates into might is right (as Kucinich said) and the latter means that their is some higher moral authority that God appeals to when declaring what's right.
Anybody read Russel Bertrand's "Why I am not a Christian"?...interesting stuff
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
You still have an absolute statement founded on nothing. It has "attributes" and "properties," but these are described in terms of other things which are derived from the thing itself. The nature of the argument doesn't clarify, it merely establishes a new set of absolutes with a new set of unknowns behind them. |
Please explain.
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
As in my oft-repeated complaint about evolution; it's an idea that, even if it were true, would be irrelevant, because it cannot be acted on. We cannot stand the idea of "is." |
Not so. This cannot be further from the truth. As it is said modern biology cannot be understood without the foundation of evolution, this alone makes evolution extremely relevant.
However, it has interesting practical consequences, one of which is known as "genetic algorithm." Furthermore, knowledge of evolution can be used to combat diseases such as AIDS, not to mention it has been in use in agriculture for thousands of years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
So Rogan, please propose an experiment where such consequences can be observed. Any rules to be applied to little green elves must apply to your God as well.
|
Things do not have to be verified in a controlled experiment before they exist (as you point out yourself later on in your post). The difference between God and your green elves is that I have personal experience of his existence (which I cannot 'prove' to you) whereas you have no (admitted) experience of your green elves. So my God has had an observable effect in my universe (if not under reproducable experimental conditions), whereas your green elves have not.
This is an interesting point though. Have you personally performed experiments that prove to you that General Relativity (for example) is true, or do you just trust the observations of others? If you have not, are you not just taking GR's validity on faith?
quote:
The big differences are these theories can be tested, verified, and falsified. Can your God be subjected to the same criteria? If not, you should not talk about them in the same breath.
|
String theory cannot be tested in the forseeable future, and will not be testable in my lifetime. I guarantee that I will meet God long before string theory is tested....
quote:
There's a difference -- he exists regardless of your belief.
|
Prove it. The thing is, you can't. Proof is highly dependent on definition and is highly subjective. I may believe the evidence for some phenomenon to be greater than for another while you may see things the other way round - and both viewpoints may be equally valid. Even when one can adopt very exact definitions of 'proof' (as in physics) there can be disagreements as to whether or not the assumptions made invalidate the proof. God's existence is as certain to me as Boris's existence is to you.
The problem is that you are trying to apply scientific ideas to intrinsically non-scientific things. You have to learn when science is applicable and when it is not - what sort of statements science can make and what sort of statements it cannot make.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:35
|
|
Uh, UR, we haven't KNOWN about evolution for thousands of years. Any human use of "evolutionary principles" is basically domestication and breeding as we've been doing since the dawn of civilization. Don't need Darwin for that. I'm not arguing about its verity or falsehood, but that knowing it has no special value. As for understanding modern biology, in the sense it's argued about the most at least, it describes a process far too slow to be observed by humanity in real time, and at any scale it happens over the course of several generations. With genetic engineering, evolution as a principle can only become less important to know. It's academic knowledge.
As for explanation, I might need explanation myself, but for example, the argument about the "shape of the universe" a few weeks back.
The idea that the universe has a shape is incomprehensible, to me at least, because the word "shape" implies an ending, and the idea of a point where space itself ends is self-contradictory; "in the space outside the universe" is like "a shade of yellow that's like, not yellow, and stuff." If there's no more physical space past a certain point, there is no "past a certain point" at all, as we understand space at least.
At the same time, the idea of space going on forever is equally incomprehensible, because our concept of reality is of relations; we think of every single thing, even the universe itself, as a fixed quantity, and the idea of forever is quite literally immeasurable. We might say that the universe goes on forever, but nobody can really adjust to that mentally. It's like "with liberty and justice for all," something we repeat without understanding in any real, visceral sense.
It's a quirk of human thought; we can't bear the idea of the finite or the infinite, because both force contradictions in our understanding of the world. We think of all things in context, and context demands both a complete knowledge of the surrounding objects and a greater unrelated field in which the objects in question interact-the known and the unknown. So we describe the nature of things within the universe in terms of the universe itself.
It's an insider's understanding where no outsider's opinion is available, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything, any more than a dictionary can be read by an illiterate to learn English. It's how things "relate to the rest of the world," not what they are, because their actual nature is more than can be defined by pure relation, like the words in a dictionary only tell you what a word means with a set of other words you have to know in the first place. It's hard to explain, but it really does make sense to me when I think of it, honest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Sorry everyone but I have to bow out of this debate until I can fix my computer. This is the third time I have tried to post between crashes.
UR,
The quotes are attributed in the text on the previous page and some come from: Mae-Wan Ho's book , Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare? 1998 edition. You can read more on her and the subject here: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/genet.php
Your other question was already answered on this thread. The intended receiver of informaion is the componant parts of the machine just as your computer and this program we are using here receives the benefit of intelligent input in it's programming. Surely you would not deny that there is intelligent input into a computer program or the computer itself. In a cell the various chemical reactions are directed by the information within the DNA. Now, I have explained this about 4 or 5 times in the other thread that Boris referred to. If you don't like my answer then that is your privilege but at least have the courtesy of not repeating the falsehood that I did not answer it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
He could choose to be observed. In fact, this is what he did 2000 years ago.  It may not be empirical evidence (ir is certainly not repeatable in an experiment) but that does not make it false, or mean that it didn't happen. Therefore (unlike the green elves) God has had an influence on the universe. |
Ah, except that 1) the evidence for the actual miracles is doubtful and 2) that specific influence lies contrary to all other scientific knowledge.
quote:
This is a very niave viewpoint. Science does not (and cannot) encompass or describe everything in the universe. I does not try to. |
Scientists don't. Science, however, is simply the study of the universe. Anything that is about the universe is the domain of science.
quote:
It only aims to describe mathematically any laws governing physical processes. |
Where'd you get math from?
quote:
Even if we were to find that we can form an equation or a principle which would allow us to encompass all of physics (I don't believe we ever will....) then we would still not know why we have that particular principle or equation. |
Circular reasoning! For there to be a why, a purpose, you must presume an intelligent creator! Otherwise, there is no purpose.
Since I don't accept that there is an intelligent creator, I don't see how there could possibly be a why. And if there is an intelligent creator, science can figure out the why - by asking him!
quote:
Physics and its equations are not laws governing the universe - they are our descriptions of our perceived laws. There may very well be phenomena in the universe which cannot be described by physics (in principle) - should we just make a blanket claim that these phenomena do not exist because we can't explain them? |
Of course they can be "described" by physics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
Ah, except that 1) the evidence for the actual miracles is doubtful and 2) that specific influence lies contrary to all other scientific knowledge.
|
Once again, you claim to be basing your idea on science but make unscientific statements like 'doubtful'. Define your terms: what does 'doubtful' mean? Give me a significance, or a probability, and try and justify your figures. What one person finds doubtful, another may find perfectly plausible.
quote:
Anything that is about the universe is the domain of science.
|
Art is part of the universe. Is that the domain of science too?
quote:
Where'd you get math from?
|
 This is entirely in line with my last statement. Mathematics has very little to do with the real world (other than being a tool). We postulate some axioms and go from their. There is lots of mathematics which is not manifest in physics. In other words, maths is also not the 'domain of science'. (This is why maths used to be taught in arts faculties.)
quote:
Circular reasoning! For there to be a why, a purpose, you must presume an intelligent creator! Otherwise, there is no purpose.
Since I don't accept that there is an intelligent creator, I don't see how there could possibly be a why. And if there is an intelligent creator, science can figure out the why - by asking him!
|
You are misunderstanding my use of the word 'why'. I mean 'why' in the sense that Newton asked 'why do object fall to the ground?'. The more laws we have to describe the universe, the less we actually know about it. Having just one equation to describe all of physics would be great but it would still be one too many.
[q]Of course they can be "described" by physics. [/QUOTE]
Here you go again, making an assumption for which you have no evidence while berating others for doing the same. What makes you think that all phenomena can be decribed by physical laws?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Once again, you claim to be basing your idea on science but make unscientific statements like 'doubtful'. Define your terms: what does 'doubtful' mean? Give me a significance, or a probability, and try and justify your figures. What one person finds doubtful, another may find perfectly plausible. |
You're reading too much into the word "doubtful".
quote:
Art is part of the universe. Is that the domain of science too? |
You are a ****ing retard, you know that? Yes, art is the domain of science, in the sense of statements such as "Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa", not in the sense of statements such as "this painting is pretty".
quote:
Where'd you get math from?
|
quote:
This is entirely in line with my last statement. Mathematics has very little to do with the real world (other than being a tool). We postulate some axioms and go from their. There is lots of mathematics which is not manifest in physics. In other words, maths is also not the 'domain of science'. (This is why maths used to be taught in arts faculties.) |
Where did I claim it is? Math is philosophy, not science, because it is true independent of the universe.
quote:
Circular reasoning! For there to be a why, a purpose, you must presume an intelligent creator! Otherwise, there is no purpose.
Since I don't accept that there is an intelligent creator, I don't see how there could possibly be a why. And if there is an intelligent creator, science can figure out the why - by asking him!
|
quote:
You are misunderstanding my use of the word 'why'. I mean 'why' in the sense that Newton asked 'why do object fall to the ground?'. |
Which was not "why", or purpose, but "how", or mechanism. Science can give answers about that; for instance, relativity answered that gravity is actually distortions in space-time.
quote:
The more laws we have to describe the universe, the less we actually know about it. |
How the hell do you figure that?
quote:
Here you go again, making an assumption for which you have no evidence while berating others for doing the same. What makes you think that all phenomena can be decribed by physical laws? |
Because all phenomena obey physical laws by definition.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
If you don't like my answer then that is your privilege but at least have the courtesy of not repeating the falsehood that I did not answer it. |
It's hardly a falsehood. You were using the term "information" to mean "communicated data" (just count the number of times you used the words "communicate" or "communication" in your posts), but it is impossible to have communication without both an intelligent sender and an intelligent receiver -- that's what it means to communicate. This facet of communication should have been obvious to you, especially after we had repeatedly pointed it out, but we can only assume that you willfully chose to ignore the glaring flaws in your assertions out of fear of the "evolution boogieman" or whatever. You were unable to provide an example of an intended intelligent receiver for this supposed DNA "information," and you were unable to provide a single example of information encoding (communication) that occurs between an intelligent sender and a non-intelligent receiver (e.g., a man talking to a rock is an example of dementia, not of communication). Boris quoted two questions of mine from that thread -- you gave an incorrect answer to one and ignored the other, so either way you cut it you failed to answer the questions posed to you in that thread.
Last edited by loinburger on 30-04-2004 at 12:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
What, no unorthodox Voodoo/Animism option?
Dumb poll.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
You're reading too much into the word "doubtful".
|
Am I now? Well, rather than banging you head against a wall all day (not good for you that) why don't you tell us what you were meaning by 'doubtful'..
quote:
You are a ****ing retard, you know that? Yes, art is the domain of science, in the sense of statements such as "Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa", not in the sense of statements such as "this painting is pretty".
|
losing you rag? tut tut.
I would call the statement "Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa" neither art nor science.
quote:
Math is philosophy, not science, because it is true independent of the universe. |
I agree that Maths is not science, but I disagree that it is independent of the universe. Have you ever been to a different universe to check? You are making assumptions again....
quote:
Which was not "why", or purpose, but "how", or mechanism. Science can give answers about that; for instance, relativity answered that gravity is actually distortions in space-time.
|
'How' can only come after the law is introduced (as in 'How does gravity make the apple fall?'). Why must be asked in order to come up with the law.
Besides, this is all semantics. You know perfectly well what I was objecting to - you are just trying to sidestep the issue....
quote:
quote:
The more laws we have to describe the universe, the less we actually know about it. |
How the hell do you figure that? |
Right.... let's assume we have a law which describes the behaviour of a particle in a certain state A, and we have a completely different law which describes its behaviour in a different state B. If some clever chappy comes along, says 'ah-ha' and writes down a single law which describes the behaviour of the particle in both A and B, do we know more about the universe or less? I would say that we know more, because we are able to describe the two previous laws by one unifying theory. But now we have fewer laws. Ultimately we will want one theory to descibe everything (I suspect that if there is one that it will actually be a symmetry principle).
quote:
Because all phenomena obey physical laws by definition. |
By what definition? By definition of the word 'law' or the word 'phenomena' or the word 'physical' or what? Are you so lacking in imagination that you can't imagine a phenomenon that is non-predictive and therefore unable to be explained by a 'law'? Isn't your insistence that everything can be described by a physical law just a matter of faith?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Am I now? Well, rather than banging you head against a wall all day (not good for you that) why don't you tell us what you were meaning by 'doubtful'.. |
The evidence does not meet a scientific standard. Happy?
quote:
I would call the statement "Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa" neither art nor science. |
You'd be wrong. It is a scientific fact that he painted it.
quote:
I agree that Maths is not science, but I disagree that it is independent of the universe. Have you ever been to a different universe to check? You are making assumptions again.... |
No I'm not, you're being stupid. Math doesn't behave differently in different universes because math is unrelated to the universe! Just like the statement P implies P is tautologically true, so is 2+2=4. Anything tautologically true is true independent of the universe.
quote:
Which was not "why", or purpose, but "how", or mechanism. Science can give answers about that; for instance, relativity answered that gravity is actually distortions in space-time.
|
quote:
'How' can only come after the law is introduced (as in 'How does gravity make the apple fall?'). Why must be asked in order to come up with the law. |
"Why" never has to come into it at all! "Why" is purpose, and purpose only exists when there is an intelligent creator of something! The answer to"why do guns exist" is "to kill people", because guns are created by intelligent (by which I mean sentient) beings, humans. A rock has no purpose, even though it can be used to kill someone, because it wasn't created by a person or other intelligent being.
By claiming "it doesn't answer 'why'" as a failure of science, you are presuming your assertion (there is an intelligent creator) to be true, so it's all circular!
quote:
quote:
The more laws we have to describe the universe, the less we actually know about it. |
How the hell do you figure that? |
quote:
Right.... let's assume we have a law which describes the behaviour of a particle in a certain state A, and we have a completely different law which describes its behaviour in a different state B. If some clever chappy comes along, says 'ah-ha' and writes down a single law which describes the behaviour of the particle in both A and B, do we know more about the universe or less? I would say that we know more, because we are able to describe the two previous laws by one unifying theory. But now we have fewer laws. Ultimately we will want one theory to descibe everything (I suspect that if there is one that it will actually be a symmetry principle). |
Oh, so you mean that when the laws aren't integrated into one underlying law, we know less. WTF does this have to do with anything? We also know less if this nice underlying law is false.
quote:
Because all phenomena obey physical laws by definition. |
quote:
By what definition? By definition of the word 'law' or the word 'phenomena' or the word 'physical' or what? Are you so lacking in imagination that you can't imagine a phenomenon that is non-predictive and therefore unable to be explained by a 'law'? Isn't your insistence that everything can be described by a physical law just a matter of faith? |
If a phenomenon is "non-predictive" (by which you mean probabilistic or even wholly random, I presume), then you can have a law describing either a) the probabilities of the various outcomes or b) (if it is wholly random) the fact that all of the outcomes are equally likely. Everything is still subject to natural laws. Natural laws are, obviously, the laws by which nature operates, thus the laws by which the universe operates (there is no meaningful definition of nature that is not exactly equivalent to the universe), and thus the laws by which everything operates.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-04-2004 20:46
) are strawmen
|