Please refer to the list of definitions in the other thread.*playing violins*
^ subject not indicated
Theists
- Thread starter Oniw17
- Start date
Please pick a definition and then I will apply it to baums previous post and turn said post into compost.Pls refer to baums post previous to the list of unnecessary definitions.
This must be what the new revised atheist dictionary calls "rational" argument.
Tell me why is one test or one scientist not sufficient to establish a theory?
Because a lone scientists tends to become lonely. This makes him think about sex which distracts him and causes him to accidentally pour liquid sodium into his coffee, thus blowing him up.
Other than that, the clear subjective bias of one scientist with one result in hand is worth no more than the claim of any theist.
Now, let's stop playing dumb with regards to the word "subjective" as we both know its intention when used to describe the difference between "objective" (say double-blind) experiments or studies, and "subjective" opinions of scientists.
How many scientists does it take for a theory to be established?
17.
What I mean is zero. Since all theories are purely subjective and have no value in the real world, which is just a subjective construction of the human mind anyway.
Explains why a Noble prize in medicine was given for the revolutionary technique of lobotomy
an anonymous thomyst
Registered Member
The analogy means exactly what it implies. One could only call it a poor analogy if it did not, in fact, have a solid metaphoric appropriation to what the author purports to imply. Indeed, an architect can make his presence clearly known to anyone living in the house. As a Christian, Lewis will argue that God did, in fact, make his presence known in the cosmos at a particular historical juncture, in the person of Christ by the hypostasis of incarnation. If someone does not, on dogmatic principle, believe God could exist, of course the analogy would appear poor, since they subject the "God side" of the analogy to the same method of verification as the "architect side" of the analogy. They cannot accept that God is "like" the architect because an architect exists whereas God does not. That seems to simply ignore the point the analogy makes, rather than manifesting merely a poor analogy. Such a reduction in meaning makes not just this analogy, but all analogies poor: we use analogies to illustrate something unknown by means of something already known. In the aforementioned quote, then, Lewis addresses the very issue you raise: he is saying that such a complaint that God cannot be verified by means of the scientific method is nonsense. He does not, however, say that there is no other way to find God out. But, as I said before, those methods most moderns will not accept, because they're not taught not to, and they take the word of science on authority rather than reason.
The light I refer to is Truth, Meaning, Significance. We do, indeed, have a much more detailed understanding of nature than did the ancients and the medievals. However, because of the slant toward specialization, many people believe that their particular little quadrant of knowledge can explain the entirety of reality; e.g., some think everything can be explained by means of cognitive science, or physics, or biology, or economics. So I am not advocating "ignorance," but escape from ignorance into a more transcendental perspective: this perspective is not the abandonment of knowledge but the synthesis of all knowledge. If a Plato or a Shakespeare lived today, they could see how all of the knowledge we do have points to truths beyond solely empirical events, by--who knew?--the subtle power of inference. They would see what they saw even more clearly, because they have more detail.
I find this kind of statement coming from a theist to be highly amusing. You can see why of course?
Very nice. So what do you say to those of us who have some specialized knowledge and a lot of general knowledge that we synthesize into a coherent whole and find a simplicity and beauty in a cosmos with no sign of a creator?The light I refer to is Truth, Meaning, Significance. We do, indeed, have a much more detailed understanding of nature than did the ancients and the medievals. However, because of the slant toward specialization, many people believe that their particular little quadrant of knowledge can explain the entirety of reality; e.g., some think everything can be explained by means of cognitive science, or physics, or biology, or economics. So I am not advocating "ignorance," but escape from ignorance into a more transcendental perspective: this perspective is not the abandonment of knowledge but the synthesis of all knowledge. If a Plato or a Shakespeare lived today, they could see how all of the knowledge we do have points to truths beyond solely empirical events, by--who knew?--the subtle power of inference. They would see what they saw even more clearly, because they have more detail.
an anonymous thomyst
Registered Member
You seek proof for the existence of something for which "existence" is the proof. That is, of course, if you earnestly do seek it.
I don't think the cosmos is "simple" at all. At least, Einstein's thought doesn't make it seem that way.
Seems like a problem, dosen't it?
On a fundamental level most scientists (I believe) marvel at the basic simplicity of the cosmos. Literally a handful of fundamental particles in the standard model, and gravitation.