Originally posted by Digi
Yup, ok, understood. We're beating a dead horse at this point. This is definitely an agree to disagree moment, because I have absolutely no desire to continue.
My philsophical pedantry will just not allow me budge...unless I believed as Plato believed and thought we could learn Objective Knowledge.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There's no such thing as burden of proof in this discussion
If you say so. You can't wish away things without making sense though.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
As I previously stated, we live in a world where everything is debatable.It doesn't matter what you arrive at empirically, I can deny it using the same non-absolutist approach that so many anti-dogmatists employ.
Everything's debatable, but you misunderstand what empiricism is.
What's your favorite meal? Maybe it's lunch. And maybe mine is dinner. Subjective.
What is the reading on that instrument over their? How many kilograms do you weigh? How many beats per minute is that metronome? You, me, or anyone on the planet will arrive at the same conclusions. That's objective, empirical.
You can disagree that we have a scientific explanation for much that you attribute to the divine. It's debatable, as you say. But you're not working with facts.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Who's to say that anyone one is right about anything?[b]Speaking as a non-absolutist
, any and all fact or truth is subjective. [/B]
So then how do you know anything either? See, there's the crux. We can't be 100% certain of anything. Fine, accepted. But if you use that to say we can know nothing, there's where we have a difference of opinion.
Second, that same fallibility applies to you and your faith. In damning anyone's beliefs, you damn your own.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Just because you believe that the sun is in the sky doesn't mean that I have to.
You could deny it, but you'd be pretty dumb to. We have mountains of evidence that it DOES exist in the sky (or space, rather). But of course, you believe the sun is up there. But this same logic could apply to, say, evolution. Mountains of evidence, and zero against it. Or rather, the only evidence against it is about precisely how it happens, not whether or not it happens at all.
Anyway, science deals in provisional likelihoods. Not absolutes. Facts conform to the evidence, but are never unassailable. That's what no one understands about science. The power is in the adaptability.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I think life is just a video game. I don't believe any of it is real. But again, [b]I speak as a non-absolutist.So don't try to impose your logic and rationale on me.
Your logic and rationale is true for you and I respect that.
Why don't you respect my non-absolutist beliefs?[/COLOR] [/B]
I respect everyone's right to believe what they want. Disagreement isn't disrespect. In fact, it's very respectful, because I believe in a marketplace of ideas and the right to call other peoples' beliefs bullsh*t. I'll defend your right to have those beliefs, but I'll also defend the rights of others to say they're wrong.
Anyway, you think life is a video game? You don't believe it's real?! You're a Christian, right? Or are you trying to twist it into one of those "faith is the only true knowledge" arguments?
Originally posted by Digi
If you say so. You can't wish away things without making sense though.Everything's debatable, but you misunderstand what empiricism is.
What's your favorite meal? Maybe it's lunch. And maybe mine is dinner. Subjective.
What is the reading on that instrument over their? How many kilograms do you weigh? How many beats per minute is that metronome? You, me, or anyone on the planet will arrive at the same conclusions. That's objective, empirical.
You can disagree that we have a scientific explanation for much that you attribute to the divine. It's debatable, as you say. But you're not working with facts.
So then how do you know anything either? See, there's the crux. We can't be 100% certain of anything. Fine, accepted. But if you use that to say we can know nothing, there's where we have a difference of opinion.
Second, that same fallibility applies to you and your faith. In damning anyone's beliefs, you damn your own.
You could deny it, but you'd be pretty dumb to. We have mountains of evidence that it DOES exist in the sky (or space, rather). But of course, you believe the sun is up there. But this same logic could apply to, say, evolution. Mountains of evidence, and zero against it. Or rather, the only evidence against it is about precisely how it happens, not whether or not it happens at all.
Anyway, science deals in provisional likelihoods. Not absolutes. Facts conform to the evidence, but are never unassailable. That's what no one understands about science. The power is in the adaptability.
I respect everyone's right to believe what they want. Disagreement isn't disrespect. In fact, it's very respectful, because I believe in a marketplace of ideas and the right to call other peoples' beliefs bullsh*t. I'll defend your right to have those beliefs, but I'll also defend the rights of others to say they're wrong.
Anyway, you think life is a video game? You don't believe it's real?! You're a Christian, right? Or are you trying to twist it into one of those "faith is the only true knowledge" arguments?
I hope you got the point of my previous response.
I am not a non-absolutist.
I was merely making a point and speaking from the perspective of a non-absolutist to show you how easy it would be to discount your world view.
There are people that actually think like I was pretending to think in my last post.
They dispute everything.
Here is an example:
"Is There Absolute Truth?" by Living Waters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lvSGCaicEg
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=521531&pagenumber=9#post14449701
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I hope you got the point of my previous response.I am not a non-absolutist.
I was merely making a point and speaking from the perspective of a non-absolutist to show you how easy it would be to discount your world view.
There are people that actually think like I was pretending to think in my last post.
They dispute everything.
Here is an example:
I'm familiar with the argument. But what's your point? That everything can be disagreed with, and some people think differently than others? Not exactly a revolutionary concept. You just spent a few posts pretending to debunk my stance with another stance you disagree with. I'm not sure we're you're trying to take this.
I'm not an absolutist either, btw, at least in the sense that I don't think our knowledge is infallible. But that doesn't mean we can't work toward the truth. That's what reason, logic, scientific inquiry, etc. are all about. We have a better understanding of the universe around us because of it. And we know that it works, because we can observe and apply what we know. If physics didn't follow some basic mathematical principles, we wouldn't have flight. Or a thousand other inventions and discoveries that require a causal, logical universe to function, which we can discover and learn as empirical truths (albeit provisional, not dogmatic) via repeated experimentation, observation, and application.
Originally posted by Digi
I'm familiar with the argument. But what's your point? That everything can be disagreed with, and some people think differently than others? Not exactly a revolutionary concept. You just spent a few posts pretending to debunk my stance with another stance you disagree with. I'm not sure we're you're trying to take this.I'm not an absolutist either, btw, at least in the sense that I don't think our knowledge is infallible. But that doesn't mean we can't work toward the truth. That's what reason, logic, scientific inquiry, etc. are all about. We have a better understanding of the universe around us because of it. And we know that it works, because we can observe and apply what we know. If physics didn't follow some basic mathematical principles, we wouldn't have flight. Or a thousand other inventions and discoveries that require a causal, logical universe to function, which we can discover and learn as empirical truths (albeit provisional, not dogmatic) via repeated experimentation, observation, and application.
Logic—by, of, and in itself—is a phenomenon to me, just like cause and effect, mathematics, truth, scientific inquiry, and physics.
The fact that these abstract concepts, verities, or realities coexist in the same space-time construct seem indicative of design, purpose, intention, and will—as opposed to randomness or serendipity.
The very laws or principles if you will that you, me, and others use to arrive at an answer or result are predictable, reliable, sure—and work every time without fail.
Furthermore, mathematics, physics, logic, cause and effect, etc. can be applied to many things to form what we call a logical conclusion.
What I am trying to say is do you believe that logic exists of its own accord or is it the product of a source?
If so, then it follows that everything produces according to its kind (or creator).
Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, cause produces effect, mathematics produces an algorithm, logic produces reason, the scientific method produces a logical conclusion, humans produce humans, horses produce horses, trees produce trees, so it stands to reason that this universe, this earth, all that exists came from an original source, prime mover, or creator.
This is the logical conclusion based on the fact that nothing in this natural, physical world can create itself.
I did not create myself. You did not create yourself. Your parents did not create themselves. My parents did not create themselves etc.
Everything in this natural world and universe obeys the law of cause and effect, and its other concomitant laws like logic, physics, reason, and mathematics in some capacity, no matter how small.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=533188&pagenumber=122#post14450424
Oi...tell 'em it's round.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Logic—by, of, and in itself—is a phenomenon to me, just like cause and effect, mathematics, truth, scientific inquiry, and physics.The fact that these abstract concepts, verities, or realities coexist in the same space-time construct seem indicative of design, purpose, intention, and will—as opposed to randomness or serendipity.
The very laws or principles if you will that you, me, and others use to arrive at an answer or result are predictable, reliable, sure—and work every time without fail.
Furthermore, mathematics, physics, logic, cause and effect, etc. can be applied to many things to form what we call a logical conclusion.
What I am trying to say is do you believe that logic exists of its own accord or is it the product of a source?
If so, then it follows that everything produces according to its kind (or creator).
Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, cause produces effect, mathematics produces an algorithm, logic produces reason, the scientific method produces a logical conclusion, humans produce humans, horses produce horses, trees produce trees, so it stands to reason that this universe, this earth, all that exists came from an original source, prime mover, or creator.
This is the logical conclusion based on the fact that nothing in this natural, physical world can create itself.
I did not create myself. You did not create yourself. Your parents did not create themselves. My parents did not create themselves etc.
Everything in this natural world and universe obeys the law of cause and effect, and its other concomitant laws like logic, physics, reason, and mathematics in some capacity, no matter how small.
Ah, the Watchmaker argument. Ok, now we're on the same page.
I disagree, of course. The universe suggests nothing like your God, by any rule or law. But there are others who have handled this particular argument more thoroughly and eloquently than I could. Here's the first 5-6 results of a google search, if you're interested:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-schwartz/intelligent-design-watchmaker_b_1730878.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDdn0UPDjmk
http://www.stonemakerargument.com/1.html
http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2012/02/27/the-watchmaker-analogy-not-an-argument/
...I didn't read through and/or watch each. I'm familiar with the argument and its refutations. I'm sure they touch on a lot of similar points.
As you said earlier, to every argument, there is a counter-argument.
Originally posted by Dolos
I'm sorry I just kind of find it difficult to take a comedian's viewpoint as definitive.Richard Dawkins did a better job. Though, he wasn't as comical. But that's not his way.
The man makes some blunt, hilarious and valid points though...Why wouldn't God mention the kangaroos.
I don't believe in the miracles in the Bible, Noah's arc I don't take literally, Samson I don't take literally. I do believe there was a man named Jesus who changed the world. I don't believe in the supernatural, I am very grounded in the physical laws in the universe I don't think God would directly manipulate events in that way. But I do believe in providence through nature, I believe in God.
See what I've had to say in this thread: It is my core belief and it is really a lot more strange and out there than direct physical miracles.
Originally posted by Bardock42Not if he didn't exist.lol You're commenting on how religion and the people practicing Christianity perpetuated his change. That is very true.
Even if there wasn't a man named Jesus, he definitely changed the world.
Even so, to instill an idea the way he did, he must have been sup-par to a normal person. I believe he was very religious, but most of what he did was driven by him being a political cynic. Think, Libertarian. He challenged the belief structure of the wealthy and powerful, he challenged authority, hierarchy, he would have been a nightmare for Andrew Carnegie.
Without people willing to sacrifice themselves, willing to stand up for their beliefs and give up everything for them, society will remain as uncivil as it was before they decided to meddle in the affairs of the rich and powerful. An uncivilized society is not conducive of evolution. But because of our physiology, we can only be so civil. Humans have to end, I believe, but I don't believe that intelligence should end or that humanity's end should be anything less than euphoric.
See, The Technological Singularity. And the Technological Singularity will result in a Holy War to end All War. And society WILL decline as long as there are humans, Stephen Hawking says we have 90 years to get off earth before population and nations: Before people in general start getting fed up with the global economy and humanity's inability to fix things and kill all life on earth. We have the technology to end life.
Originally posted by Dolos
I don't believe in the miracles in the Bible, Noah's arc I don't take literally, Samson I don't take literally. I do believe there was a man named Jesus who changed the world. I don't believe in the supernatural, I am very grounded in the physical laws in the universe I don't think God would directly manipulate events in that way. But I do believe in providence through nature, I believe in God.
Those last two seem to contradict one another. You don't believe in the supernatural, and think the physical laws of the universe determine its course. But you believe in "providence through nature."
What is providence through nature? How is it any different than the causal laws of the universe? And if it's different than causal laws, how does it work around them or supersede them?
Basically, if you think God works outside physical laws for this providence, you do believe in the supernatural. If you don't think he does that, and maybe you think God IS nature, then there's no need for God at that point. You're adding a superfluous divinity to what can be explained without it.
Originally posted by DigiI think that by understanding existence for what it is, life is never dull. There's real poetry in the real world. There's real meaning in the cosmic scheme of things. Everything is a miracle of God. People like Jesus have a divine purpose.
Those last two seem to contradict one another. You don't believe in the supernatural, and think the physical laws of the universe determine its course. But you believe in "providence through nature."What is providence through nature? How is it any different than the causal laws of the universe? And if it's different than causal laws, how does it work around them or supersede them?
Basically, if you think God works outside physical laws for this providence, you do believe in the supernatural. If you don't think he does that, and maybe you think God IS nature, then there's no need for God at that point. You're adding a superfluous divinity to what can be explained without it.
Originally posted by Dolos
I think that by understanding existence for what it is, life is never dull. There's real poetry in the real world. There's real meaning in the cosmic scheme of things. Everything is a miracle of God. People like Jesus have a divine purpose.
Now you have that annoying thing stuck in my head!
Originally posted by Dolos
I think that by understanding existence for what it is, life is never dull. There's real poetry in the real world. There's real meaning in the cosmic scheme of things. Everything is a miracle of God. People like Jesus have a divine purpose.
Didn't answer my question, but ok.
Originally posted by mr.smiley
Now you have that annoying thing stuck in my head!
Symphony of Science is awesome!
Originally posted by Digi
Ah, the Watchmaker argument. Ok, now we're on the same page.I disagree, of course. The universe suggests nothing like your God, by any rule or law. But there are others who have handled this particular argument more thoroughly and eloquently than I could. Here's the first 5-6 results of a google search, if you're interested:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-schwartz/intelligent-design-watchmaker_b_1730878.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDdn0UPDjmk
http://www.stonemakerargument.com/1.html
http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2012/02/27/the-watchmaker-analogy-not-an-argument/
...I didn't read through and/or watch each. I'm familiar with the argument and its refutations. I'm sure they touch on a lot of similar points.
As you said earlier, to every argument, there is a counter-argument.
Life can only arise from life.
Furthermore, the universe has definite laws.
Laws require a lawmaker.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14455799#post14455799
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=533188&pagenumber=122#post14450424