let me reiterate
more like say the entire state of the entire earth's populations 2 000 000 years ago based upon an a selection of evidence one could fit on a pool table.
What's The Difference Between Religion & Myth/Superstition
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
more like say the entire state of the entire earth's populations 2 000 000 years ago based upon an a selection of evidence one could fit on a pool table.
no matter how deeply we immerse ourselves into star trek, there remains two inherent limitations to (empirical) science.
There is an epistemological great divide that separates all knowable things into two categories –those things we can control and those things we cannot control.
Some things we cannot control simply because we don’t have the technology or knowledge to control them yet (as one bumper sticker reads “Earth First. We can mess up the other planets later”). So in principle we could control them. But there are some things we cannot control even in principle.
more
Could you cut to the chase please?
Psychology is a science. One of the things we can control is the ideology of the masses. You are under a spell and you've lived most of your entire life not realizing it. Being under control gives you the opportunity, and for some the power to control others, no principles involved whatsoever.
Why not? Insofar as all we know, this is it.
The only thing I struggle with is life itself. But it is here. I can't touch it but I can't touch gravity either. There is currently enough mystery in the universe for a god to exist as a thought. A thought is a natural product of the material brain. I don't see what the problem is, can you elaborate?
lightgigantic
Go! Run! GAAAAAAAHHHHHH! (8,278 posts)
09-04-08, 09:28 PM #1
Here’s a curious statement which tends to under-ride practically all atheist claims.
“There cannot be certain occurrences that cannot be explained by natural laws (granted that new information and revision of natural law definitions proceeds).”
Is this a statement of belief or is it impervious to issues of incredulity?
Stranger =========== I've never heard that from an atheist.
Everything does have an explanation. Many things we don't yet have the explanation for. Some things we may never have the explanation for.
Go! Run! GAAAAAAAHHHHHH! (8,278 posts)
09-04-08, 09:28 PM #1
Here’s a curious statement which tends to under-ride practically all atheist claims.
“There cannot be certain occurrences that cannot be explained by natural laws (granted that new information and revision of natural law definitions proceeds).”
Is this a statement of belief or is it impervious to issues of incredulity?
Stranger =========== I've never heard that from an atheist.
Everything does have an explanation. Many things we don't yet have the explanation for. Some things we may never have the explanation for.
If we don't know or have an explanation for everything then how do we know God exists?
I would say that claim is over stated.
Science can only directly explain things which can be observed and verified (which usually requires their being subject to measurement of some kind and their being replicable). It is possible to speculate about somethings which are not subject to observation and verification, like strings, but they cannot be known as being actual until there exists a way to at least indirectly observe and verify their existence.
Natural laws are just derived from observation of nature. If something "violates" one it just means the "law" was miss formulated. There can be any number of things which we didn't yet know from which we might need to reformulate "natural law." The theory of relativity being a famous example.
strange that you can post this above pschotic's contribution ...
you think that empiricism accounts for everything knowable?
given that classical empiricism is your modus operandi, that is actually a thought
Except everything there is to know about nothing, but I think that's where you come in.
Exodus isn't one story, it's actually quite a few stories. Before you start saying lies like that get your facts right.
now would be a good time to explain how you know that consciousness is a materially reducible phenomena ..... that god doesn't exist .... etc etc
I can't find enough evidence of God to fit on a microscope slide.
if you also took an extended detour whenever you encountered the means of practical lab work, you probably wouldn't even find a microscope
now would be a good time to explain how you know that consciousness is a materially reducible phenomena ..... that god doesn't exist .... etc etc
Good Lord!!! Not again. This will accomplish nothing.
As far as I can tell, without me being here there is no consciousness. To be conscious of my existence I have to exist. Since I exist there is a good possibility of me being conscious of it, and in my own case I am. I have yet to bump into any disembodied consciousnesses.
if you also took an extended detour whenever you encountered the means of practical lab work, you probably wouldn't even find a microscope
You are a condescending little minx tonight.
I love it. Oh LG, there you go again, making claims without any evidence. A very common theistic trait.If our ancestors saw lab work then it would only be mythical as you've claimed. Just what did the ancients see that convinces you they were on the fast track to God?
Can you tell the difference between philosophy and empiricism??