When Will Science End?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-12-2014, 04:15 PM
RE: When Will Science End?
(17-12-2014 03:42 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  We aren't discussing "anything" here, but the question of what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality.

ANYBODY who makes a claim that they are in a position to know what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality has to prove they are in that position. Theist, atheist, it makes no difference.

Heart of reality Consider

Is that similar to "the depth of the soul" or "the color of my thoughts"?

Meaningless drivel.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2014, 04:27 PM
RE: When Will Science End?
Quote:Heart of reality Consider

The god proposal is an assertion about the source of reality etc. Put that however you prefer, ok with me.

The point is that it's a VERY large assertion, and thus anyone who attempts to debunk it is also entering the realm of very large assertions.

If I say the moon is made of cheese, and you say the moon is not made of cheese, we are both claiming knowledge of the moon.

If I say the heart of reality is XYZ, and you say it is not XYZ, we are both claiming knowledge of the heart of reality.

Upon what basis does ANYONE credibly claim to know what the heart of reality is or isn't?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2014, 04:39 PM
RE: When Will Science End?
(17-12-2014 04:27 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
Quote:Heart of reality Consider

The god proposal is an assertion about the source of reality etc. Put that however you prefer, ok with me.

The point is that it's a VERY large assertion, and thus anyone who attempts to debunk it is also entering the realm of very large assertions.

If I say the moon is made of cheese, and you say the moon is not made of cheese, we are both claiming knowledge of the moon.

If I say the heart of reality is XYZ, and you say it is not XYZ, we are both claiming knowledge of the heart of reality.

Upon what basis does ANYONE credibly claim to know what the heart of reality is or isn't?

I dunno, depends on what the heart of reality is. Care to explain, while I contemplate the sound of madness of the particle spin of hope.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2014, 04:48 PM
RE: When Will Science End?
(17-12-2014 04:27 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
Quote:Heart of reality Consider

The god proposal is an assertion about the source of reality etc. Put that however you prefer, ok with me.

The point is that it's a VERY large assertion, and thus anyone who attempts to debunk it is also entering the realm of very large assertions.

If I say the moon is made of cheese, and you say the moon is not made of cheese, we are both claiming knowledge of the moon.

If I say the heart of reality is XYZ, and you say it is not XYZ, we are both claiming knowledge of the heart of reality.

Upon what basis does ANYONE credibly claim to know what the heart of reality is or isn't?

We define "reality" as all that which can be determined to exist. We determine the existence of reality through observation.

Therefore, that which cannot be determined to exist through observation is thereby deemed to not exist.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? I am an atheist because it is the natural state of being we are all born into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2014, 04:50 PM
RE: When Will Science End?
(17-12-2014 04:27 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
Quote:Heart of reality Consider

The god proposal is an assertion about the source of reality etc. Put that however you prefer, ok with me.

The point is that it's a VERY large assertion, and thus anyone who attempts to debunk it is also entering the realm of very large assertions.

If I say the moon is made of cheese, and you say the moon is not made of cheese, we are both claiming knowledge of the moon.

If I say the heart of reality is XYZ, and you say it is not XYZ, we are both claiming knowledge of the heart of reality.

Upon what basis does ANYONE credibly claim to know what the heart of reality is or isn't?

Please read my longer post on the previous page regarding inductive knowledge.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2014, 04:51 PM
RE: When Will Science End?
(17-12-2014 04:27 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
Quote:Heart of reality Consider

The god proposal is an assertion about the source of reality etc. Put that however you prefer, ok with me.

"Source of reality" Consider

Once again this has no meaning. I can't put it another way as I have no idea what either "heart of reality" or "source of reality" refers to.

Please use non-ethereal concepts so I may understand.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2014, 05:02 PM
RE: When Will Science End?
(17-12-2014 04:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Therefore, that which cannot be determined to exist through observation is thereby deemed to not exist.

Well said.

Doesn't your formulation assume that we could see XYZ if XYZ existed? Doesn't it assume an unproven ability?

I have a proven ability to see shoes. So if I search my bedroom for shoes, and find none, I can reasonably conclude that shoes do not exist in my bedroom.

But what if I'm searching for gamma rays, and my body does not possess the ability to detect gamma rays? In that case, the fact that I don't find gamma rays means nothing about their existence or non-existence.

Only 100 years ago we couldn't see 99%+ of the universe, and our inability surely didn't prove that those hundreds of billions of galaxies don't exist.

Given that it is a documented fact that we missed 99%+ of reality, how conclusive is it really if we don't observe something else?

Why not say this?

1) We tried to observe XYZ and were unable to do so.

Instead of this...

2) We tried to observe XYZ and were unable to do so, therefore XYZ does not exist.

The first statement is clearly factual, whereas the second statement is speculative.

Why not skip the speculation and just stick to the known facts?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2014, 05:06 PM
RE: When Will Science End?
(17-12-2014 04:51 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Once again this has no meaning. I can't put it another way as I have no idea what either "heart of reality" or "source of reality" refers to. Please use non-ethereal concepts so I may understand.

Ok, theists say God created reality. Surely you are familiar with this creation assertion, yes?

Source? Creator? Either is fine with me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2014, 05:06 PM
RE: When Will Science End?
(17-12-2014 05:02 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(17-12-2014 04:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Therefore, that which cannot be determined to exist through observation is thereby deemed to not exist.

Well said.

Doesn't your formulation assume that we could see XYZ if XYZ existed? Doesn't it assume an unproven ability?

I have a proven ability to see shoes. So if I search my bedroom for shoes, and find none, I can reasonably conclude that shoes do not exist in my bedroom.

But what if I'm searching for gamma rays, and my body does not possess the ability to detect gamma rays? In that case, the fact that I don't find gamma rays means nothing about their existence or non-existence.

Only 100 years ago we couldn't see 99%+ of the universe, and our inability surely didn't prove that those hundreds of billions of galaxies don't exist.

Given that it is a documented fact that we missed 99%+ of reality, how conclusive is it really if we don't observe something else?

Why not say this?

1) We tried to observe XYZ and were unable to do so.

Instead of this...

2) We tried to observe XYZ and were unable to do so, therefore XYZ does not exist.

The first statement is clearly factual, whereas the second statement is speculative.

Why not skip the speculation and just stick to the known facts?

How do you differentiate between something unobservable and something that doesn't exist? Even then if the claim is that a thing exists then they still need to have observed it in some way.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2014, 05:07 PM
RE: When Will Science End?
(17-12-2014 05:02 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(17-12-2014 04:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Therefore, that which cannot be determined to exist through observation is thereby deemed to not exist.

Well said.

Doesn't your formulation assume that we could see XYZ if XYZ existed? Doesn't it assume an unproven ability?

I have a proven ability to see shoes. So if I search my bedroom for shoes, and find none, I can reasonably conclude that shoes do not exist in my bedroom.

But what if I'm searching for gamma rays, and my body does not possess the ability to detect gamma rays? In that case, the fact that I don't find gamma rays means nothing about their existence or non-existence.

Only 100 years ago we couldn't see 99%+ of the universe, and our inability surely didn't prove that those hundreds of billions of galaxies don't exist.

Given that it is a documented fact that we missed 99%+ of reality, how conclusive is it really if we don't observe something else?

Why not say this?

1) We tried to observe XYZ and were unable to do so.

Instead of this...

2) We tried to observe XYZ and were unable to do so, therefore XYZ does not exist.

The first statement is clearly factual, whereas the second statement is speculative.

Why not skip the speculation and just stick to the known facts?

It's not that we "believe they don't exist"

It's that we "don't believe they exist until proof or evidence is provided"

big difference, sometimes the blind squirrel finds a nut... but it's not a reliable source.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: