"We're all searching for answers"

Post Reply New Topic

Well, this isn't the science forum.

Lies masquerade as facts. For sake of convenience these "truthy" facts are referred to as "BS", which is a broad and useful expletive

ou la la

My point exactly. Also, what happens if facts no longer become verifiable?

Truths are verifiable all day and every day. Gravity works, this is truth, and it's been true for at least as long as I can remember. Which is also truth and a fact.

The last relevant part of this discussion (outside of puddingmouse being sexytime)

What is implied through this viewpoint of "confirming truths" (these "truths" being unscientific in nature, from a YMCA/Unintelligent Design viewpoint) is that preconceptions exist that discourage true empiricism by being forgone conclusions.

Modern interpretation without proper knowledge of past scholarly discussions have lost key concepts and a proper footing on earth. They're much like liberals (read: modern liberals) who have their feet planted firmly in the air. Those individuals and/or organisations rely on faulty logic and assumptions. True study of a god figure entails research into opinions formed by many of the past and present. People like Aquinas, Maimonides, and Kierkegaard who have a developed philosophy and logical constructs for their conceptions.

Your problem is, you're still trying to employ scientific methods to a philosophical discussion which does not rely strictly on conventions of empiricism, you're mixing two schools of thought and they're not compatible, and I may add it's the wrong forum. One cannot experiment to find god (though I've met a few pot smokers who would disagree) because it's beyond our reach, if you're assuming a big bang hypothesis. We're too far away from source to get a reading due to the limitations of Celeritas and the expansion of the universe itself. However studies in entanglement may provide a clue if you're willing to make a scientific "leap of faith".

Fact and truth are interchangable terms. The opposite is an untruth or falsehood. However, this only applies to objective truth claims. We must also distinguish between objective truths and subjective opinions. The latter can never be objectively true, but that doesn't make them a falsehood or lie. They are simply personal impressions that can't be applied on a universal scale.

"I like chocolate / chihuahuas / the New York Yankees" is a subjective opinion, whereas "chocolate contains theobromine, which is toxic to chihuahuas but not to the NY Yankees" is a fact / truth. And yes, facts can change if you change the premises they are based on. If the NY Yankees ever adopt a chihuahua as a mascot, I would have to adjust my previous statement accordingly. I hope that clears things up.

Regarding philosophy: Both science and philosophy have to be firmly grounded in reality in order to have any practical use or value. Debating the surreal is a waste of time and mind power. I don't expect philosophy to be empirical, but I do expect it to be rational and deductive. Philosophers like Kierkegaard remind me of something Michael Shermer once said: "Sometimes smart people are great at rationalizing the things they came to believe for not-smart reasons."

As for PP&R not being a science forum: Science is natural philosophy 2.0 And as an adherent of two fact-based philosophies, scientism and naturalism, I rely on falsifiable scientific facts to form my opinion about the universe that I live in.

Smarts have little to do with wisdom.

The opposite of smart is dull-witted or dumb. It is unwise to do or believe dumb things, imho. Can there really be wisdom without wit?

Certain people lack both...

That's something they have to do with each other.

>.>

They seem to often go hand in hand, if you lack one, often you lack the other.

searching for answers is masturbatory and ultimately futile. i generally search for questions, and then answer them myself by a variety of means.

Now you're speaking my language, cw10. Why couldn't you have engaged in this sort of discussion to begin with? You have perfectly good points, no need to obfuscate!

Elaborate?



"Research into opinions" is just that. Opinions are not evidence. Additionally while you state this is the method to do this sort of research, why is it that many theists still feel that they can make scientific assertions?



If you acknowledge that there is nothing scientific or empirical about theism, then you have essentially proved my point. You cannot on one hand, when scrutiny is applied to your beliefs, claim they cannot be understood using scientific method, while on the other hand, demand intelligent design be treated equally as a scientific hypothesis.



A lot of the "generic" pot-smokers I know claim "everything is like... connected.. maaaan". I laugh

To me it's clear that an omnipotent being who wanted to be discovered could make it a lot easier (or even possible) to confirm his presence. That doesnt appear to be the case. Assuming a christian diety exists, it seems to be about faith. The universe is an elaborate faith testing machine in that case.

I think that many christians want to defeat their own doubts so badly that they chase some imagined confirmation of their beliefs without noticing that point. It's a more subtle version of the "finding" of Noah's ark every few years. For some it's really about finding proof because they want more than abstract faith. For others it's just about promoting a story that gives a morale boost to believers for however long the story lasts.

^ That's a good point. I wonder about those "Found the Ark" stories. Honestly, if they *did* find an ark, of some kind, on a mountain... well, the only thing it would actually confirm is that every single species that exists today certainly didn't fit inside

"Elaborate"

I've met a few bible thumpers in my day who don't have a clear understanding of their book. They take literally and out of context the bible. These people don't bother to read other discussion on the matter. Or to study other philosophers who've dived into greater depths and used logic of concept in their arguments.

"scientific assertions?"

This goes back to my original point. People like Aquinas who made some very good arguments for "first cause" and backed it up with solid logical arguments aren't studied by the current batch of theistic morons who don't bother to understand the whole picture. If they did this whole debate on creationism vs. the big bang theory wouldn't even exist. It's not even an argument of evolution. The creationists firmly believe everything was created in it's current state while science has good reasons to argue the universe grew from something very small. I think neither is completely accurate. And science nor religion can't and I'll use this word "falsify" my argument, which leads nowhere but further searching for facts which is the wrong thing to look for because you'll never find them due to limitations of the universe itself. This is where the search for truth begins and gets confused by theists who mistake them for vanilla facts.

"If you acknowledge that there is nothing scientific or empirical about theism..."

It's another ball of wax. Science asks how, but never why, it's not it's job. When you ask why you're asking for an opinion. Truth can be asserted through opinion. However one can use science to ask the how questions to help shed some light on the why.


"A lot of the "generic" pot-smokers I know claim "everything is like... connected.. maaaan". I laugh"

Everything is connected. The universe is one whole place, it's not made up of fragmented parts. We're all connected by gravity, and EM.