Did you not read anything I posted there? My point has completely flown over your head, go back and read it again.
My goodness, it's like talking to 4 year old children.
What has god done for you
- Thread starter fishtail
- Start date
Did you not read anything I posted there? My point has completely flown over your head, go back and read it again.
My goodness, it's like talking to 4 year old children.
well, because it has sense perception (which is inherently limited) for a start
hence the clear distinction between scientific fact and scientific theory
it means much what nutter was suggesting - the facts of physics are ascertained by physicists (often encountered in physics text books), and everyone else outside of the necessary prerequisites for direct perception accepts (or rejects) such authority on the grounds of faith.
It seems you have the unfortunately uncommon lack of what a 'scientific theory' means. A 'theory' in science is a way of unifying already existing scientific facts. Here is a short list of theories that exist in science: the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, Einstein's theory of relativity, Newton's theory of gravitation, the theory of evolution.
It should be obvious that in science, 'theory' is NOT used as the general consensus uses it; it does not mean a hunch or a guess.
So if you're trying somehow to debase science because it frequents the term "theory" then you are greatly misinformed. If not, then disregard my post up until here, it just seemed like you were trying to assert that from your response.
You say "sense base perception" as if there is another form of perception that is obvious and readily available to the human species. There isn't.
The difference being, of course, that physicists lay out their entire line of reasoning on how and why they reached the conclusions they did, so that others can repeat the observations and look for flaws or corroborative evidence - and science is prepared to accept any answer that explains things at least as well or better than current theory.
They don't say "Here it is, it's infallibly correct, take it on faith".
La sigh, must I really think so much for you? Here we go:
There seems to be a great misconception about what faith is. Faith is believing something based on no evidence. When I read a physics book, I believe what I read because it is evident that the man speaking is a bona fide expert in his respective field. In a proper scientific article, sources are [/i]always[/i] listed; indeed any and all background information that could be requested to prove the validity of what is being said is offered openly, even down to the entire details of a particular experiment.
This honesty in science is automatic; if someone attempts to abuse this and preach a finding without evidence, whereon I'd then have to take it as faith, the rest of the scientific community would soon expose and refute this finding by the time you'd read about it. Therefore, it is safe to assume, based on evidence and not faith in the slightest, that a scientific article that is widely upheld is done so for good and honest reasons.
This is a polar opposite from religion, where it IS a matter of faith; it IS one person's word versus another; it IS riddled with personal interpretation and agenda.
Scientific evidence is dramatically different than a preacher's word, which does rely on faith, which is what you are trying to pull the entirety of science down to so that you can feel less lonely in the inescapable pit you've found yourself in.
But let's say this assumption isn't justified enough for you still. I welcome you to delve into the sources behind what I say, you are free to do any research you deem necessary. I assure you that you will find not only that millions do what you are asserting to do with all of scientific fact each day, but that there is ample and a tremendous amount of honest support and evidence to back it up. So once again, it is NOT faith, it IS derived from evidence. Get your definitions and facts straight.
scientific fact is drawn up between two (or more) perceptible phenomena - hence scientific fact is falsifiable and testable.
scientific theory is something that remains on the platform of hypothesis because there is not sufficient perception of phenomena to make it either falsifiable or testable
I mean empiricism in the classical sense (a sense that is the foundation of material reductionism) - namely the accepting that all phenomena can ultimately be reduced to combinations of material observations
such a view point rules out the notion that there exists a consciousness superior to ours - namely god - (and of course coming into contact with that superior consciousness enables a different type of perception than what one could otherwise muster)
religion works on a similar foundation - there are claims not only of direct perception of god but also claims of how to come to the position of direct perception
thats because empiricism is not capable of making absolute claims (since its foundation, human sense perception, is not absolute)
If you enter into discussion about god who has sensory powers capable of the creation, maintenance and annihilation of many millions of universes, obviously the foundations are quite different
Celpha Fiael
evident to who?
other physicists?
10 year olds?
agriculturists in the gobi desert?
For example, can you tell me where the error lies in this diagram?
truly you are a man of faith
what evidence does a person have access to in physics if they are not a qualified physicist?
scientists?
10 year olds?
agriculturists in the gobi desert?
its not faith for the qualified scientist
it is faith for the person outside of such qualifications however
why else aren't scientific theories redefined or discovered by anyone less than a qualified scientist?
evident to who?
other physicists?
10 year olds?
agriculturists in the gobi desert?
all such footnoting means absolutely nothing to persons of two of the above three categories.
For example, can you tell me where the error lies in this diagram?
:roflmao:
truly you are a man of faith
outside of faith do you have any guarantee that what you are reading at the moment in the name of science will not fail such a test
err?
what evidence does a person have access to in physics if they are not a qualified physicist?
amongst persons bereft of the proper foundation of knowledge, yes, much like its a question of faith for persons bereft of a foundation in science on matters of science
is the above statement "scientific"?
and that tremendous body of scientific evidence is validated/falsified by who?
scientists?
10 year olds?
agriculturists in the gobi desert?
its not faith for the qualified scientist
it is faith for the person outside of such qualifications however
why else aren't scientific theories redefined or discovered by anyone less than a qualified scientist?
TRULY YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE RIGOROUS TESTING AND INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION SOMETHING HAS TO GO THROUGH TO BECOME ACCEPTED SCIENCE.
(1) You are very wrong on this, and (2) I could just as easily turn your cross hairs on yourself by saying that you take this on faith. I won't because it's pointless stupidity, something which you seem to have no problem being a proponent of.
Once again, completely false by all standards. Go to Wikipedia or something. Heck, visit a 3rd grade science class for that matter. I'm not going to waste breath arguing the same points I've been making over and over in hopes that this time, you might look outside of your narrowly-scoped opinions.
(bolding mine)
Right, but for good reasons. There IS NOTHING that hints at said realm, and there IS NOTHING supporting your claim of its existence. I also find it extremely suspicious to say the least that these alleged supernatural realms are interactive only to those who have already assumed that it is there. Research the self-fulfilling prophecy.
OF COURSE it's going to seem like to you that materialism is missing something, you've already assumed the supernatural to be there. I could do the same thing you're doing very easily. I could assume a realm beyond the supernatural, the meta-supernatural say, and then by that declaration, claim that your notion rules out the possibility of my imagined realm and that it is therefore insufficient. It's complete linguistic engineering--and not very good engineering at that--that allows you to reward yourself with a superior viewpoint. Pure bullocks.
Even if there WAS any good reason to base our lives assuming the possibility of a higher intelligence supervises us in some higher realm, which is what I see as a serious superfluous addendum to our understanding of the world, how would that necessarily make it God?
You seem to be incapable of recognizing that science provides hard evidence while religion provides only personal interpretation. For example, of "direct perception", of "god", even of "how to come to the position of direct perception". There is NO objective grounds upon all religions can test the validity of their opinions; in science, THERE IS.
Even if you choose to ignore my earlier point which completely deteriorates this argument into ash, I can still show you an inconsistency in what you've just said concerning what is bolded:
You come to these conclusions via empiricism, even rationalism (the opposite of empiricism) is grounded in empirical soil, i.e. your mind, a sense organ. If you are claiming that by empiricism, science is incapable of making absolute claims, then you are subject to that incapability yourself, concerning your conclusions.
Furthermore, if god's sensory powers, and entire being for that matter, is so above us as humans, then how by that conclusion are you able to say what you say about him at all, even reject what I have to say about him? It's pots and kettles.
Rationally thinking humans, which by your response, you've only convinced me more that you are excluded from.
You can't be serious. OF COURSE IT MEANS NOTHING TO THEM, and we wouldn't consider them very intellectually developed, now would we? Do you?
Because when I say "we", i mean rational people, and as I've said, you seem to be trying really hard to distance yourself from being associated with this kind.
For example, can you tell me where the error lies in this diagram?
:bugeye: wtf, mate? Completely insane and irrelevant. :shrug:
Yes I do, it's the evidence of the success and honesty of science that has been proven over and over and over and over again throughout centuries of doubtful observers like yourself. It's completely outside of faith. But don't take my word for it, preach what you talk; go do a scientific testing of these things, I'm sure that you will at once be satisfied in excluding faith as the perpetrator.
You might as well ask what evidence does a non-epidemiologist have concerning something like how not washing your hands increases the risk of you getting a disease. Or, "Why in the world should I listen to my doctor? I'm taking what he says to be true on faith!"? You wouldn't listen to these experts simply because you think it is a matter of faith? You'd seriously rush confidently into a house where the bubonic plague is rampant and be fully expectant not get infected all because you fail to see how others aren't doing so just 'out of faith'? That, sir, makes you officially stupid.
See my first response to your equally as ignorant, yet exponentially more annoying set of questions.
If it was questionable before, it's incontrovertibly apparent now; you truly are a person of absolute unabashed ignorance.
wtf, mate? Completely insane and irrelevant. :shrug:
It is certainly a pity that man chooses to place his faith in created things instead of the Creator, who is forever praise Amen. :worship:
Have you seen the entire Kerb's cycle work or went through every single step of it for yourself or did you take the scientists word on it? It certain takes a lot of more faith to believe a bunch of formulas and the mathematical creations of man than to believe that there is a Creator, who has revealed Himself to us through history, generally through nature and specifically through Christ Jesus and His word.
My relationship with Christ Jesus is the most intimate relationship that I have. He is my knowledge, my strength, my courage, my motivation, my love, my righteousness, my everything, etc. Without Him I would be nothing, as good as dead, just as the trivial pursuits of knowledge (the knowledge of good or evil) placed us in this big mess. I love my Lord Christ Jesus with all my heart, all my soul, all my strength, and all my mind. I am a new creation in Christ Jesus with eternal life and salvation. That is why my name is Christenstein.
That is what Christ Jesus has done for me (showed me who I am as a son of God), way more than any scientific textbook or any discovery of science can ever do for me. For everything that I had lost, I have now found through Christ Jesus. Everything that I need, He provides. Science cannot fill that gap for me. And, since the scientific method is based on doubt and must be falsifiable, it makes faith in science ever more absurd.
For I was once lost and now I am found. For I once couldn't love, but now I can. That's what Christ Jesus did for me and more for He has given me life and gave me it abundantly.
Christenstein
No! it takes usually zero faith to understand a bunch of formulas, it just requires you to find out for yourself that the maths works and it represent whats happening in the world, and infact is pretty well a requirement. Whereas a made-up diagram (that transparently doesn't apply to the real world for someone who has the former experience) would require 100% faith to prevent those lacking from finding out for themselves that its nonsense. .
The point simply is that a majority of students do not investigate the claims behind the science, but just have faith in the science. This is not surprising given the notion that man worships the created instead of the creator. Have you ever seen the entire Kerb's cycle from start to end with your every own eyes?
I have communicated to Christ Jesus, spoken to Him and He has spoken back. I have seen Him work through others and myself, changing many lives. I have not yet seen science do any of these the things that I see Christ Jesus do today. The proof is there, it is just that satan's children are rebellious and do not want to see/acknowledge it.
Christenstein
Thats just not true. Try any science course and you will find that it is full with you having to investigate what the material tells you for yourself.
dont presume to attach your blindness on everyone.
No I've just seen the arrangment of actual chemical compounds in a jumpled mass of nonsense that was just presented here.
Do you expect the hallucinations of drunks to be taken as real also? Or can you better drunks by supporting yours?
Yikes, a personal account of your delusional journey to where you are now is not necessary, nor is it pertinent. But just as a personal side note of my own, I've felt the same way about all the stuff you feel about, and now, upon higher education, feel it to be profoundly dull and unsatisfying compared to the understanding of what I have now, especially concerning my place in it. We atheists are not immune to wonder, beauty, purpose, love, or anything else your 'sonship' may claim to have a monopoly over. Moving on.
I agree with only one thing you've said: "...it makes faith in science ever more absurd." You're absolutely right, faith has no place in science whatsoever. It only has a home in the absurd, which science is not.
But you seem to be suffering from the same intellectual plague that this other dude is. So to further pinpoint it and hopefully cure it from you, I'll ask some questions using a rhetorical situation, as to get a better map of your mind:
Someone approaches you with a sealed tube. You, having such a lovely day, are in a jubilant and curious mood, "What is in this tube you have here?" "Well," responds the person, "it is a vile of carbon monoxide." "Oh, I don't think I have ever come across that substance before!" you reply. "Of course you haven't," explains your newfound friend, "if you had come across it, you wouldn't be here right now, you'd be dead. Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas, that if inhaled in such a quantity as I have here, is seriously toxic." "Goodness..." you say pensively, "...that's a lot to claim for something that looks so much like regular air. How can I be so sure that what you're telling me is true?" The person you've befriended makes apparent his lab coat he's dressed in and explains, "I am a scientist. Not just any scientist, but an expert in the field of chemistry and I incessantly study gases like this for a living for the sake of knowledge itself."
Now to dramatize the scenario and reveal my point, let's say the you have to make a choice here. You can (a) believe what this scientist says and not breathe in the gas or (b) not believe what this scientist says and breathe in the gas for yourself.
Which option would you choose and why?
Last edited:
Did you not read anything I posted there? You are simply parroting things that you read, yet you naively assume that you have a superior epistemological footing because, of course, the items you choose to parrot agree with your preconceived metaphysical wishes.
Such naivete is not uncommon among undergrads.
So tell me christenstein...
1) What did he sound like? Any specific accent? Southern American/European? What?
2) What has he said exactly word for word? (If you tell me you don't remember you must be aware I am going to argue that 'gods' words can't be all that important).
Thanks.