Originally posted by Wesker
Let's get our definitions in order firstly, because I think you're misusing a lot of terms.[b]
2 entries found for a priori.
a pri·o·ri ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ä pr-ôr, -r, pr-ôr, -r)
adj.
Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.and empiricism...
empiricism
n 1: (philosophy) the doctrine that knowledge derives from experience [syn: empiricist philosophy, sensationalism] 2: the application of empirical methods in any art or science 3: medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings [syn: quackery]
The ideas are mutually exclusive. By saying otherwise, you're demonstrating a severe lack of understanding of all the terms involved, and your point dissolves. [/B]
I´ve not misused any terms, it is those definitions that I am using. If you do understand what these terms really mean, you are not doing the connections...
Let me explain my point again :
That a look at the definition of a priori, it says "Knowable without appeal to particular experience.", "Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect", "Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience".
From that, one can understand that a priori knowledge is independent of empirical evidence, a priori knowledge is assumed knowledge, it is knowledge that is not deducted, or proved, so you say that you know it "a priori". Postulates and axioms are "know" a priori.
Why empiricism and a priori knowledge are mutually exclusive ? It is because empiricism does only accept the fact that knowledge comes from experimentation, and a priori knowledge is exactly the kind of knowledge that does not come from observation(just like what it says in the definition of a priori).
Now, lets remember what I was saying... I was telling you that science and religion are not so different from each other, specially because both of them need to assume something without necessarily proving them. I think it is easy to understand that God is assumed without reference to experimentation since God is not something that is proved "empirically". What I am saying is that God existence is know a priori in religion. Maybe you think that a priori knowlegde is not valid, or maybe you agree that it can bring some truth, but it doesn´t matter now.
Lets take a look into science now, it works using empiricism the point of view that knowledge comes from experience(just like it says in the definition that you posted), and observation of the world. Thats why science must do observations to either reject or accept their theories.
Now, my point is that empiricism must be assumed to be true, you cannot prove it. I mean, science uses the principle that experimentation, and observation alone brings knowledge(empiricism), but they do not prove it, since to prove it they will need to use experimentation, but if they use it, they already assumed empiricism to be true. You cannot assume this if you want to prove this.
To prove empiricism you obviously need to do it without making use of it, what means you can´t use experimentation. So, what really happens is that empiricism is assumed to be true, and if it is assumed to be true, it is know a priori. What other thing is know a priori by religion ? God, right ? That is my point, both religion, and science assumes things to be true, not just religion.
We become so dependent to empirical evidence that we do not even perceive that it is not absolute, but we need to choose to believe in empiricism first, or have faith in it first, to accept something so obvious to us like empirical evidence, or facts.
What I find interesting is that so many people are so eager to prove that all around us is explained by chemical reactions and natural development, that there is nothing more. So I ask all that do believe in evolution, what do you believe happens when you die? Are you perfectly satisfied believing that when you die that is it, you cease to exist? If that is true perhaps you better examine your own mortality a little more.
Really I am at the point of not giving a crap about all that want to try so hard to disprove religion. I know what I believe, and for those that want to go their separate path, have fun in hell.
Evolution is a religion in itself. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. So they dug up some bones that look similar to human. If evolution is true then why do we still have apes? Why do we still have all those beginning steps? Why do we not see any of those intermediate steps today?
If scientists chose to try and prove the existence of God, then more than likely you would see Jesus in science books and not Darwin. Scientists keep spouting their theories and people keep taking them as facts just because they are labeled scientists. Yet I have heard no viable theory as to where that initial space rock that everything exploded from came from.
Consider this, explosions are created from a chemical reaction. A chemical reaction is created by certain conditions being met during a period of time. So if this rock always existed then it would be outside the constraints of time therefore time would not exists for these conditions to be met. Of course the same thing could be said of God, but science works with these time boundaries, thus why they can't say where it all started from.
Anyway if you are so set on the evolution theory then why are you so adamant for people to submit proof that God does exist? Perhaps your beliefs are not as sound as you think.
Originally posted by Jayrell
What I find interesting is that so many people are so eager to prove that all around us is explained by chemical reactions and natural development, that there is nothing more. So I ask all that do believe in evolution, what do you believe happens when you die? Are you perfectly satisfied believing that when you die that is it, you cease to exist? If that is true perhaps you better examine your own mortality a little more.Really I am at the point of not giving a crap about all that want to try so hard to disprove religion. I know what I believe, and for those that want to go their separate path, have fun in hell.
Evolution is a religion in itself. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. So they dug up some bones that look similar to human. If evolution is true then why do we still have apes? Why do we still have all those beginning steps? Why do we not see any of those intermediate steps today?
If scientists chose to try and prove the existence of God, then more than likely you would see Jesus in science books and not Darwin. Scientists keep spouting their theories and people keep taking them as facts just because they are labeled scientists. Yet I have heard no viable theory as to where that initial space rock that everything exploded from came from.
Consider this, explosions are created from a chemical reaction. A chemical reaction is created by certain conditions being met during a period of time. So if this rock always existed then it would be outside the constraints of time therefore time would not exists for these conditions to be met. Of course the same thing could be said of God, but science works with these time boundaries, thus why they can't say where it all started from.
Anyway if you are so set on the evolution theory then why are you so adamant for people to submit proof that God does exist? Perhaps your beliefs are not as sound as you think.
so your reasoning isnt any different form any1 relegious. if everythin has to come from domewhere then tell me WHERE GOD CAME FROM? cant answer that? cant even think up of a THEORY? dont worry neither can the wrest of the relegious world. if you say HE ALWAYS EXISTED, than the rock can also ALWAYS HAVE EXISTED.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
so your reasoning isnt any different form any1 relegious. if everythin has to come from domewhere then tell me WHERE GOD CAME FROM? cant answer that? cant even think up of a THEORY? dont worry neither can the wrest of the relegious world. if you say HE ALWAYS EXISTED, than the rock can also ALWAYS HAVE EXISTED.
Yes I can think of a reason, I have read it. It's called the Bible, which is what I believe in. According to what I believe God created everything including time. Science can't give us an answer to that question.
So no my reasoning isn't any different from anyone else religious. It's what I believe. Yet if I see someone attacking what I believe then I am going to voice it.
Feel free to believe whatever you want, I know where I will go when I die. Have fun wrestling with your own theories.
Originally posted by Jayrell
Yes I can think of a reason, I have read it. It's called the Bible, which is what I believe in. According to what I believe God created everything including time. Science can't give us an answer to that question.So no my reasoning isn't any different from anyone else religious. It's what I believe. Yet if I see someone attacking what I believe then I am going to voice it.
Feel free to believe whatever you want, I know where I will go when I die. Have fun wrestling with your own theories.
funny, just one post before you were actually discussing LOGIC, the second u start losin u dismissed all things logical and went on belief and thought ID be the one wrestling with my theories. try n wrestle with yours of trnity and god being one or god being the father and the son at the same time. or god being perfect yet being proven imperfect. etc etc
Originally posted by leonheartmm
funny, just one post before you were actually discussing LOGIC, the second u start losin u dismissed all things logical and went on belief and thought ID be the one wrestling with my theories. try n wrestle with yours of trnity and god being one or god being the father and the son at the same time. or god being perfect yet being proven imperfect. etc etc
And that is where your points exhibit no merit. Before you argue against something maybe try and understand it a little.
Religion is not simple 1 + 1 = 2, you must think beyond those simple equations. Your last 2 sentences make perfect sense to me beacuse I have actually read enough of the Bible to know what it all means. You seem to just pick up bits and pieces and think you have it figured out.
To me, my beliefs are logical, there is simply no other reasonable way for the creation of everything. You only see they are not because they are not what you believe. I guess you have never really believed in anything before to the point that it makes perfect sense.
i HAVE actually up until the age of 11-12 which is why i KNOW what im talkin about. if youve read the bible{n many others have} then why dont u EXPLAIN to my stupid little mind how you can make sense of all those contradictions and paradoxes when my mind and logic{along with most of the logical world} CANT.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I´ve not misused any terms, it is those definitions that I am using. If you do understand what these terms really mean, you are not doing the connections...Let me explain my point again :
That a look at the definition of a priori, it says "Knowable without appeal to particular experience.", "Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect", "Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience".
From that, one can understand that a priori knowledge is independent of empirical evidence, a priori knowledge is assumed knowledge, it is knowledge that is not deducted, or proved, so you say that you know it "a priori". Postulates and axioms are "know" a priori.
Why empiricism and a priori knowledge are mutually exclusive ? It is because empiricism does only accept the fact that knowledge comes from experimentation, and a priori knowledge is exactly the kind of knowledge that does not come from observation(just like what it says in the definition of a priori).
Now, lets remember what I was saying... I was telling you that science and religion are not so different from each other, specially because both of them need to assume something without necessarily proving them. I think it is easy to understand that God is assumed without reference to experimentation since God is not something that is proved "empirically". What I am saying is that God existence is know a priori in religion. Maybe you think that a priori knowlegde is not valid, or maybe you agree that it can bring some truth, but it doesn´t matter now.
Lets take a look into science now, it works using empiricism the point of view that knowledge comes from experience(just like it says in the definition that you posted), and observation of the world. Thats why science must do observations to either reject or accept their theories.
Now, my point is that empiricism must be assumed to be true, you cannot prove it. I mean, science uses the principle that experimentation, and observation alone brings knowledge(empiricism), but they do not prove it, since to prove it they will need to use experimentation, but if they use it, they already assumed empiricism to be true. You cannot assume this if you want to prove this.
To prove empiricism you obviously need to do it without making use of it, what means you can´t use experimentation. So, what really happens is that empiricism is assumed to be true, and if it is assumed to be true, it is know a priori. What other thing is know a priori by religion ? God, right ? That is my point, both religion, and science assumes things to be true, not just religion.
We become so dependent to empirical evidence that we do not even perceive that it is not absolute, but we need to choose to believe in empiricism first, or have faith in it first, to accept something so obvious to us like empirical evidence, or facts.
I still think you're wading through semantics. The point you're attacking (And from a glance, the fellow below your post) is that of truth. What can we actually know? This hasn't been conclusively decided. Pure rationalism has faults. Pure empiricism has faults. Any student of philosophy knows the inherent problem with defining proof. Even the idea of anything here being "proven" is proven in a personal or collective way; that is, it's proven in that somebody accepts it and it conforms to common sense.
Now the end result of scientific empiricism and faith-based religion are totally different; it's the fundamental difference between Mythos and Logos. Logos tries to find natural causes for natural phenominon via trial and error and observation. It does not proclaim anything to be true unless it has been supported by lots of this type of testing. Compare this with Mythos, or religion, which comes up with a supernatural explanation for the unknown or myserious (and even the mundane) natural occurences and things. Mythos and religion claim things without proving them using pure reason OR pure empricism. And likewise, there are fundamental problems with using either to establish bonafide truth, since the very idea of truth itself is elusive.
Suffice to say that scientific "proofs" are observable, practical, and reliable. This makes them much more useful in a real world than faith to explain things. If you see the sun in the sky and you say "That's the wolves pulling the spark's from Thor's hammer" and I say "No, its' actually a celestial body that works according to certain principles", which answer is more trustworthy? Why?
Trying to generalize science and religion based on semantics is piss poor, man. There is a very fundamental difference, and it's like night and day.
Originally posted by Jayrell
What I find interesting is that so many people are so eager to prove that all around us is explained by chemical reactions and natural development, that there is nothing more.
Actually, the stance of a proper scientist and philosopher is not one that God or Gods cannot exist; it's that one cannot know their nature since evidence and proof is not forthcoming. Atheism and science do not go hand in hand. That's called a stereotype.
So I ask all that do believe in evolution, what do you believe happens when you die? Are you perfectly satisfied believing that when you die that is it, you cease to exist? If that is true perhaps you better examine your own mortality a little more.
A rational person accepts that this is a possibility. We hope not, but we can't prove otherwise. What do you expect us to do? Have faith?
Really I am at the point of not giving a crap about all that want to try so hard to disprove religion. I know what I believe, and for those that want to go their separate path, have fun in hell.
... But you had to say something. If you weren't personally insulted, you wouldn't have replied. A confident and faithful person does not get angry and wish people "fun in hell" for being not of their faith. That's called "being a self righteous religious bastard". Having an attitude like that doesn't help your case any. It just makes you look arrogant and narrowminded.
Evolution is a religion in itself. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.
Read my above post to Atlantis. The idea of "proof" and "truth" is heavily in debate. But the best way to solve this is to look to common sense: are you going to go to a doctor and say "No, I don't want that life saving surgery. It's made by an unproven science of medicine. Instead I'll stick eight pins in my ass and pray"? No. That's ludicrous. Science provides real and natural explanations for how the world works. Religion offers nothing but a carrot to dangle before the donkey.
So they dug up some bones that look similar to human. If evolution is true then why do we still have apes?
Most likely because, if you understood the concepts behind evolution, you'd realize that offshoots of species undergo random mutation, which in turn eventually makes certain species unable to reproduce with their parent species. They then go on to reproduce and number their ecosystem until another such mutation occurs. This accounts for diversity in nature. We can observe such effects nowadays.
Why do we still have all those beginning steps?
Who says they are beginning steps? We have more extinct species of animals then we have living ones in this day and age. Very few creatures on this earth remain unchanged from the dinosaur era, and almost none exist unchanged from previous eras.
Why do we not see any of those intermediate steps today?
Go research evolution before you make these claims. All these basic questions can be answered in textbooks.
If scientists chose to try and prove the existence of God, then more than likely you would see Jesus in science books and not Darwin.
No, this is a ridiculous assertion. God cannot be known with current methods and technology. Any assumptions made otherwise are purely arrogant and presumpuous. Darwin is a living man, and his observations can be found after his death. God leaves no such trails.
Scientists keep spouting their theories and people keep taking them as facts just because they are labeled scientists.
People believe in scientists because in most cases, scientists' hard work and observation benefits mankind and helps us understand the world around us. Being on your knees and praying to the invisible man up in Heaven doesn't produce a cure for cancer, pal. Don't discredit scientists just because they don't endorse your organized religion. They provided the computer you're typing on.
Yet I have heard no viable theory as to where that initial space rock that everything exploded from came from.
Glad you know the name. The Big Bang theory is one of a few theories and is the most popular one. It is just that: a theory. Scientifically, it has some evidence in its corner. Mostly stuff you wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of, but it's there. And like any scientific theory, it is falsifiable, meaning it is only held as accurate until new information can be found, assuming there is any. At least scientists don't make bold claims like their findings are absolute truth and 100% correct. Religion makes such claims all the time. Proof? 0.
Consider this, explosions are created from a chemical reaction. A chemical reaction is created by certain conditions being met during a period of time. So if this rock always existed then it would be outside the constraints of time therefore time would not exists for these conditions to be met. Of course the same thing could be said of God, but science works with these time boundaries, thus why they can't say where it all started from.
What the hell ARE you talking about?
Anyway if you are so set on the evolution theory then why are you so adamant for people to submit proof that God does exist? Perhaps your beliefs are not as sound as you think.
Religion is human egoism given flesh. Religion claims that God is a certain way and that human is weak before God and must obey or rot in hell. Instead of tearing down science for providing logical and applicable answers to the world around us, take a good long look at the very foundation you're supporting. It's narrowminded and lacks proof. Quite the opposite to science.
Originally posted by Jayrellno, were all doing a DIFFERENT part in explaining it, so our EVIDENCE is more accurate and reasonable. Don't see anyone doing that to creationism.
What I find interesting is that so many people are so eager to prove that all around us is explained by chemical reactions and natural development, that there is nothing more.
Originally posted by Jayrellwhen you die, you rot in the ground because the elements and compounds we're made of, react that way. We become the ground, which (when reacted with seeds air and light energy from the sun) become plants which we eat. That is saying energy can't be lost, it goes in a cycle. Or do you believe a soul floating into a kingdom in the clouds makes much more sense?
So I ask all that do believe in evolution, what do you believe happens when you die? Are you perfectly satisfied believing that when you die that is it, you cease to exist? If that is true perhaps you better examine your own mortality a little more.
Originally posted by Jayrellwhat is this "hell" that you speak of. Where is it?
Really I am at the point of not giving a crap about all that want to try so hard to disprove religion. I know what I believe, and for those that want to go their separate path, have fun in hell.
Originally posted by JayrellJust like the bible, you askked two questions that contradict eachother. You said "Why aren't the apes here today?" and "Why are the apes still here?" Did you not? The apes we evolved from are different to the apes today, did you actually look at the fossils and bones? Or are you just makiing this up?
Evolution is a religion in itself. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. So they dug up some bones that look similar to human. If evolution is true then why do we still have apes? Why do we still have all those beginning steps? Why do we not see any of those intermediate steps today?
Originally posted by JayrellSo what you're saying is, Jesus is a scientists, every other like Darwin is a liar and if you can't prove an assumption, it's obviously false. Now who's the crazy one?
If scientists chose to try and prove the existence of God, then more than likely you would see Jesus in science books and not Darwin. Scientists keep spouting their theories and people keep taking them as facts just because they are labeled scientists. Yet I have heard no viable theory as to where that initial space rock that everything exploded from came from.
Originally posted by Jayrellermm, we'll never know what the beginning is. God can't be the beginning, what made god? Don't you realise you're asking a question that NO-ONE can answer?
Consider this, explosions are created from a chemical reaction. A chemical reaction is created by certain conditions being met during a period of time. So if this rock always existed then it would be outside the constraints of time therefore time would not exists for these conditions to be met. Of course the same thing could be said of God, but science works with these time boundaries, thus why they can't say where it all started from.
Originally posted by JayrellWe wanna prove god doesn't exist because people like you are posting crap, that is gonna turn the world back into the dark ages, where everyone is fighting over which god is right. And which book is right. Understand.
Anyway if you are so set on the evolution theory then why are you so adamant for people to submit proof that God does exist? Perhaps your beliefs are not as sound as you think.
I think what Jayrell is trying to do is prove creationism by disproving evolution, showing he didn't bother to read the first post. Not only that, but he didn't pay attention to any science that might shake-up his whole world view. But what he doesn't know is, I've just proven him wrong, before he even got a chance to be right. And just so yoou know, I'm not even 15 yet 😉