RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken

RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 4:31:08 PM)
Since it appears to have been established that one can neither prove or disprove the existence of a creator, the whole thread is rather irrelevent beyond semantics.

anthrosub -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 4:33:54 PM)
I keep wondering why nobody here talks about simple experience and building on the discussion from that point. Everything I know, all my memories, are based on my experiences. If I see something happen, I have an experience of it. If someone else witnesses the same event, there will be things we can both agree on that happened but there will also be things each of us experienced a little differently which makes our own experience unique (and never the twain shall meet as the saying goes). If you read a book, you have an experience of reading a book. What you read in that book is not what you experienced. The same holds true for when someone tells you about something they experienced. You experience them telling you about it and that's all. Sure, you can "imagine" yourself in their shoes or in whatever situation you read in the book but that then becomes another experience...a sort of feedback mechanism. Even your own thoughts are a type of experience. The little voice in your head is your brain activity and while it's busy churning away chewing on itself, another part of your brain remembers it and then the act of "remembering" it becomes yet another experience. This is the realm of fantasy and imagination...which are also experiences in and of themselves. Talking about the existence of a God is nothing more than comparing notes on what each person "thinks" is the truth based on their ideas shaped by their experience, whether it be direct experience or their own inner thoughts. Beyond that, there is nothing anyone can say one way or the other (except "I don't know" which is the only universal truth about God that's out there). Some go forward on their faith, others on their beliefs, and still others on what's sensible in the physical world (or maybe a combination of all three). I think this is why mathematics is so useful. Just like the universal "I don't know" there is nothing in math that can be interpreted...not even Pi which is infinite. But then again, if everyone agreed with all that I just said, what would we have to debate? anthrosub

meatcleaver -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 4:40:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub I keep wondering why nobody here talks about simple experience and building on the discussion from that point. Because people don't like to think they have wasted money on their education. When a certain French philosopher questioned the nature of gravity, a physicist told him to jump off a very tall building and then reconsider his thesis. Now that was a more pertinent point than all linguistic acrobatics.

Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 4:47:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang If a person cannot follow the demands of simple logical then a conversation becomes nearly impossible without first establishing all kinds of ground rules and information that many of us take as given. Exact definitions are essential to any logical debate. Your failure to comprehend this and your insistence on the use of fallacious definitions disqualifies you from any logical debate. quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang SusanofO is claiming ignorance not only of basic assertions about god, but also of the rules of logic. Rule is making a special plea for us to disregard the rational and accept the irrational. You accept only the rational? You dismiss the irrational? The natural numbers are rational. All other numbers are not rational. Is the number zero rational? No it is not. It is crazy to invent a number that indicates no quantity. Are the negative numbers rational? No, they are not. It is crazy to say 'there is minus one house'. Are the rational numbers rational? No, they are not. Whomever ever heard of 2.34 apples growing on a tree? The rational numbers are a crazy invention. Then of course there are the irrational numbers, like pi. Are those rational? Then why do they call them irrational? Even more crazy is the number i, the square root of which is defined as minus one. Utterly irrational, not so? So go ahead: dismiss the irrational lightly. The fact is that the universe loves both the rational, natural numbers and the 'irrational' non-natural numbers. The existence of both kinds of numbers has theological implications - but I suspect that you will never recognize this. quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang People can believe any damned fool thing they want, as long as it doesn't touch on my life. I have to accept this kind of live and let live policy but I remain concerned about what it says about society overall People will always touch on our lifes. You do not have to accept anything. If you feel the urge to go on a killing spree, then do so. (As long as you kill responsibly.) quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang Some people are basically insisting on the irrational because they have had some experience of the divine that is beyond their meager understanding - why can't they accept that they simply don't understand what happened and leave it at that? If they can't reproduce the experience then it provides no significantly greater spiritual insight than that of a car stalling in the middle of traffic - it's just a one off experience, forget about it! It was a fucking brain fart - move on. You can't base your whole life and hang your ethical system on a moment poorly understood and that never comes again. Certainly, I would not try to arrange my life thusly. The spiritual experience of LadyEllen has been repeated many times, and at least several people have often had controlled repeat experiences. Miracles have been testified to, like faith healings in churches and the Miracle of Fatima. In none of the posts in this thread as far as I recall has anyone proposed to 'base your whole life and hang your ethical system on a moment poorly understood and that never comes again'. What do we have so far? These things are dismissed by Chaingang: a. Semantics b. Logic (by implication of a) c. Testimonies. (He probably dismisses all written evidence that Isaac Newton ever existed.) 1. of world mythology, 2. of saints, 3. of ordinary people in the past and present, 4. of miracles. d. Irrationality (Which it is not at all rational to dismiss, thus leading to a contradictio in termini) e. My proof of the existence of the divine by my example of reducto ad absurdem. (This dismissal is justifiable, because my deduction is not publicly available. But nevertheless...) f. He never said that he accepted my evolutionary argument (which does not in fact prove that the divine exists, merely asserts that belief in it benefits the species). g. Any arguments that the divine is not subject to the rules of our physical universe. (For a mammal like the platypus by definition cannot exist.) h. All parables about the divine. (As irrational nonsense.) i. The concepts 'divine', 'spiritual' and 'god' (Because of his fallacious perception and definition of these concepts.) Curious, isn't it, that all words in all languages describe concrete concepts except these three words? Or can it be that they are no exception at all? That they do describe 'concrete' concepts just like all the other words? Probably I forgot to mention some other dismissals. Perhaps you will at a later time become spiritually aware, Chaingang. Perhaps not. Perhaps you lack the inherent ability. Is that bad, to be thusly handicapped? Yes and no. If everybody was spiritually aware, most of them would probably be sitting on their ass and contemplate their little toe. What is a handicap from one point of view is an advantage from another point of view. And whenever you want to know what the colour blue looks like, you can ask somebody who can see. You will never comprehend what he tells you, but it may reassure you that the colour blue does in fact exist.

Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 5:00:15 PM)
quote: quote: Original ChainGang Religion never doubts itself nor its fundamental assertions. Religion is always just a long string of assertions. Take it as it is, or leave it. * Blanket generalizations. Ick. Yeah - right. That's why there are so many religions to begin with. Nobody ever doubted religious leaders. Not Martin Luther. Not the pagans. Certainly not Jewish people. Or Protestants on general. Or the Catholics. Not Muslims or Hundus or Bhuddists. People have always accepted one religious leader's "fundamental viewpints" - thta's why nobody has ever been inspired enough, or disagreed enough with one religion to start one of their own. Where did Fhuddism come from? The development of Christianity can be linked to developemnts of pagan rituals, but I don't see pagan as a dirty word. Martin Luther was so disillusioned by Cathoicism in the tmje he lived in, he began Lutheranism. Etc. As for religion being a long string of assertions, so is logic, and the study of logic, I think. I think I could make a case that some theologians make a 'science' out of the study of religion and questions of whether or not the existence of God can be proved. In fact that 's what theology is all about. What is your definition of "science"? And why is there necessariy a "bad connotation" having to associated, with either area of inquiry? Susan, thanks for your kind appraisal of certain of my points. This brickbat thrown at Religion, that it never doubts itself, that it just asserts and expect/demands belief is of course preposterous. I have to assume that when otherwise reasonable people say things like this they have just never been exposed to the literature of religion or any sort of representative range of testimony from religious people. The examples you give of Martin Luther and so forth needed airing. I've read in the mystic literature of a number of religions and I've absolutely encountered more doubt there, and learned more about doubt there than from any other single category of literature. I agree that some Theologians have attempted to make a science out of their field. To the extent that this is what Theology has been about I believe that Theology has been primarily a waste of time and as other critics of religion have pointed out a string of excuses for cruelty and genocide, among other good and bad things. Just as Science requires a willingness to overthrow the currently popular hypothesis (like: "everything is deterministic") based on new evidence and good reasoning ... I mean anything less and it just isn't Science if you ask me. Maybe it degrades into some sort of scientistic politics or something, I'm not sure. Anyway by a similar token Religion requires, rather than forbids doubt. What you can't doubt you can't have faith in, after all. You don't "have faith" that you're looking at a computer screen right now. That would be silly talk. You're certain of it in a way that is, well I want to say "pre-epistemological." But never mind confusing made-up words. There's your screen. You can't doubt it without being silly (i.e acting like a lot of epistemologists and some posters to this thread.) So what would it mean to say that you "have faith" that you're looking at a computer screen. Pretty much nothing, I'd say. It is a verbose way of saying "I'm looking at a computer screen." And some people will gladly tell you that I know* from verbose.* As I understand the use which careful religious thinkers make of the word Faith, it has no meaning in un-doubtable contexts. One English translation of a Taoist text says: "The Tao which can be told is not the eternal Tao." I would hold, based upon my reading of careful religious thinkers, that the God which can be proved is not the genuine article either--though it may be just dandy for certain TV preachers. Dubitability is built in to the notion of God, as it were, whether we notice this or not. Just like the fact that "set" is a mathematical notion is true whether or not we realize that at age five when we get our first set of Hot Wheels cars. Enough goofy examples for now.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 5:04:07 PM)
Spirituality is such a woolly idea, I for one would like to know what you actually mean by it. From Dictionary.com spir‧it‧u‧al‧i‧ty /ˌspɪr[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]ɪ[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]tʃuˈæl[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]ɪ[image]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/image]ti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spir-i-choo-al-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -ties. 1. the quality or fact of being spiritual. 2. incorporeal or immaterial nature. 3. predominantly spiritual character as shown in thought, life, etc.; spiritual tendency or tone. 4. Often, spiritualities. property or revenue of the church or of an ecclesiastic in his or her official capacity. [Origin: 1375–1425; late ME < ML spīrituālitās. See spiritual, -ity] Rule writes- And whenever you want to know what the colour blue looks like, you can ask somebody who can see. You will never comprehend what he tells you, but it may reassure you that the colour blue does in fact exist. You are arguing about language and not the shared experience and consensus of what blue is.

Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 5:22:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO I just don't think science is going to ever conclusively resolve the question of whether or not there is an all powerful being, whom many may view as God (at least not in my lifetime, anyway). Because, I think, resolving that issue is a matter of faith, not logic. It will probably never be answered by science because scientists don't care about that kind of nonsense. There is no evidence either way, therefore everyone is mute on the subject. What else should they be? I have stated this repeatedly, one way or another. I would like to strongly agree with my new friend Chain on some key points here. Ain't convergence grand? No that "question" won't be answered by science any sooner than the mathematical formula for a triangular curcle will be forthcoming. There is no need to say "probably" if you only take into account what the words Science and God are meant to point toward. A string of words which only appears to be a question will only admit of strings of words whic similarly only appear to be answers. It isn't that no scientists care about these matters, of course. That's just false and I think you know it, my friend. But Science, so to speak, doesn't care about them and when a man or woman who happens to be a scientist is busy applying him or herself to these matters they should in clear vision and good conscience take off the lab coat and encounter the matter as it comes. That is to say as something which cannot intelligibly be the subject of science. quote: Religion explains things by asserting both phenomena and explication. Science observes natural phenomena and then tries to explain it. There's a magnitude of difference in those approaches. I've read John of the Cross, and Rumi, and Kierkegaard, and various Eastern religious texts, and dozens of comparable sources. I've discussed these matters with priests and preachers, nuns and lay theologians and at least one Atheist with a shitload of citations to his work in the philosophical literature. In fact it has really cut into my TV watching time over the years. Based on this data it seems to me that your characterization of how religion operates is fucked. The silver lining here is, well if that's how you think religion operates, I mean based on assumptions like that a lot of your other ideas liine up like ducks in a row and are clearly reasonably well thought through. My tip to you today, Chain old buddy, is that the phenomenon you're critiqueing is not the one you're naming. And I'll soon be getting on board with Seeks (I think it's him) in pointing out that the right business of Science is prediction. I mean if you want to hold a defensable position which lets Science do everything it wants to do before the politicians and priests stick their noses in (remember St. Occam!). It the sense of the word "explain" is really limited to the prediction business, well okay. But if the sense of "explain" is taken to go one inch further you'll eventually find yourself in a morass of Philosophy of Science which is as murky and I think as irresolvable as the bad kind of Philosophy of God referred to above.

Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 5:35:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO So - What's your point? That calculating PI is not the same kind of activity as telling a fairy tale. That calculating PI might be the basis of how to achieve something requiring practical results. That fairy tales ought not be the basis of policy-making or ethics. ----- Your retreat into a term like "intuition" leaves reason to be desired, by definition. Okay now this is some juicy shit. Fairy tales (and presumably myths in general) should not be the basis of policy-making or ethics? Please. What should be the basis of ethics? That is to say, what--after all these generations of effort--has science proved should be the basis of ethics and how has it proved this? Please take your time and be specific. I hope this will be something other than one of those "If scientists ruled the world everything would be as good as it can be" fairy tales. Because while it is true that Fairy Tales impart truths, the one that fairy tale imparts is stated as ironically as hell. I've witnessed up close the clusterfuck that is Scientific Administration. A bunch of guys who can't assign office space with out having hissy fits and derailing the progress of their own research for months or years of stepping on their own dicks are not my first nominees for running the world. But again I don't want to assume too much so, sincerely, Chain, what has science proved should be the basis of Ethics?

Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 5:39:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Having just ploughed thru' reams of prose varying from the outraged to the turgid to the incomprehensible I am determined to say something. Rule you rascal: Heisenburgs Uncertainity Principle states....it is not possible to accurately know at the same time the velocity and the position of a particle. The limiting error is h Planks constant. Whip the Hip seems to be outraged because of the old problem of evil in a world supposedly created by a loving God. The concept of a loving God may be an error in those religions which proclaim its truth. It says nothing about the existance of a God. Someone said science explains things. It most certainly does not. It models things and then attempts to make predictions based on those models. Dont suppose I've added much but at least I will sleep better to night. Rule: calculating PI may or may not be mundane. Conceptualising its existance is certainly not mundane. This where, as promised, I get on board with Seeks in his incisive--and more to the point defendable--characterization of science. I have the same impression about Whip and Evil. I credit him for the passion of his response I just wish he'd harness it more consistently.

Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 5:42:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang Before getting caught up in another semantic digression (this time "models" vs "explains") can anyone defending a religious perspective tell me the utility of religion? Does it explain anything? Does it model anything? See now I complained about Whip repeating himself and now I'm gonna do it. I'll try not to use bold type: The Tao which can be told is not the eternal Tao All clear now?

Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 5:45:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang ... Arriving at ever better approximations of PI is considered by many one of the primary human achievements. It is certainly one of the fundamental achievements of mathematics. Further, it has actual utility. ... Please PLEASE promise you will never seat me next to any of these people at dinner. ... and by the way, can you explain (or model) the actual utility of knowing a billion and two decimal places of Pi, as compared to knowing only a billion and one? I have to do some repairs on my boat this winter and I'll take help wherever I can find it.

Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 5:59:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Someone said science explains things. It most certainly does not. It models things and then attempts to make predictions based on those models. I think you just gave a good definition of the verb, "explain." Scientists explain why it rains by measuring the pressure, relative humidity, dew point, and temperature of the air. They discovered that warm air can carry more moisture than cold air. They also discovered that as air rises, it cools. They then demonstrate how when cold air (which is heavier than warm air) collide, the warm air is lifted above it and is subsequently cooled. If it's lifted high enough and cools down enough, it reaches its "lifting condensation level" or "LCL" and it rains or snows depending on the season (also hail or snow can appear in severe storms in the summer). Ever wondered why fair weather clouds have flat bottoms? Well, now you know why. Tell me how this is not an explanation. Post note: I just realized something...in this example, I think I've just given a demonstration of how science can answer not only "how" but also "why." It's not always the case but it can happen. I think the "why" questions that science cannot answer are those born out of human interpretation and conceptualization (i.e., "Why did this terrible thing happen to me?"). anthrosub I take your points, Anthro, but I guess it seems to me that any time that science answers a "why" question it is really just a paraphrase of a what or how question. "How is it that clouds are flat on the bottom?" seems to do exactly the same work that your Why qustion about it does. Whereas if my friend says: "How is it that this terrible thing happened to me?" and I offer a scientistic: "Well, Gerry, you see your son got drunk and parked his car on the railroad tracks. Now Newton's physocs applies in this frame of reference and Newtons predicts ..." In other words, in the sense that my friend suffering a tragic loss asks "why?" I think he is bust with an entirely differnt linguistic enterprise than the guy who is curious about clouds. Even with the cloud question, you ca chase it back to a why that science is not interested in: Q. But why should metiorology work like that instead of some other way? A. Physics. Q But why should physics work like it does instead of some othre way? A. Pass the beer nuts. See, that last "why" question has nothing to do with prediction and accordingly is just isn't much of a scientific question. You and I can and probably are using words somewhat differently and that's okay. Can you see, though, how letting Science deal with prediction works slicker than snot on a doorknob and asking it to explain (in more than a facilitating prediction way) just opens a can of worms? ANd importantly that every scientist can do every study or experiment he cares to and justify it in terms of prediction? So again hewing to Occam's Heuristic, why not leave it conceptually at that? Anyway I think you're on to soemthing with your last paragraph. I wonder if anyone picks up that thread.

Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 6:01:25 PM)
quote: Noah maybe didn't think that anyone around here would ever make posts longer than his. If anyone thought that, I guess that theory just sailed off a flat Earth, he.[;)][:)] - Susan Damn your eyes, girl. Now I'll have to redouble my efforts.

Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 6:04:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver God is irrelevent, at least on this side of the grave. Okay. Well. Some people hold that apprehension of truth (positve or negative, so to speak) is a good thing in itself irrespective of consequences. If you are strongly a consequences guy then that's okay too.

Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 6:06:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Spirituality is such a woolly idea, I for one would like to know what you actually mean by it. Good question. In fact I used it for want of a better word, later provided by LadyEllen as 'the divine'. I used it to indicate the elusive factor / mystical 'being' that is not part of nor subject to the laws of our universe, yet that acausally affects our reality in response to our wishes and fears and faith and that is in continual communication with everything and every person and organism in our universe. Thus I suppose both your options one (spiritual communication) and two (the elusive 'mystical being') apply. 1. the quality or fact of being spiritual. 2. incorporeal or immaterial nature. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You are arguing about language and not the shared experience and consensus of what blue is. I am saying that a colour blind person that cannot perceive the colour blue will never have the shared experience and consensus of what blue is. I could tell him that when I look at a quiet summer sea, that blue is peaceful and that, though without taste, it tastes of salt and ozon and algae, but when he goes to see such a sea, he will experience all those things, but not experience the colour blue. I can tell him that though blue has no substance, the blue of the wings of a butterfly feel like many tiny balls bouncing off a wall, but he will never share this experience, even if he touches the wing of a butterfly. If a colour blind person is desperate to know whether the colour blue exists, he will have to rely on the testimony of people that do perceive that colour. If Chaingang wants to know whether the divine exists, he will have to ask someone who is spiritually aware to confirm this.

Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 6:07:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave This lack of statistical randomness may be observed in the UK lottery. Despite precautions to ensure unbiased outcomes the numbers 1-46 have not presented themselves in an unbiased way. ie some numbers have cropped up far more frequently than others. So I suspect it is in basic natural phenomena. Thus, for example, the model of the atom developed on the idea of equal probability of outcomes of events, has produced false results. I wonder...is all this waffle ? But wouldn't staisticians predict that eventually some numbers would present in apparently anomolous patterns?

Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 6:22:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If religion could prove itself to have more of a foundation than one of pure superstition, I might consider it more worthy of attention. Even as I was sat in church as a child I couldn't help but think, that if there was a god with a message he would have the foresight to speak to me direct than through the insanities of men thousands of years ago. Since God apparently was happy to speak directly to prophets and seemed rather forceful at getting his message across in so much he threatened all sorts of tortures to be visited on those that didn't listen to him, why doesn't he speak directly and clearly to each of us? Simply because god doesn't exist is my answer. Religion isn't necessary to develop ethics and morals.It really isn't necessary for anything positive at all and only exists as a form of control. Since no one is going to find out if there is a creator or not, to me it's irrelevent because I don't believe there is any divine intervention in the universe, certainly no evidence above superstition has been shown to me. A least several currently popular religions--including the one I suspect you were raised in--hold that God speaks to individuals now. One of the ways he is credited with doing this is through the stories of prophets of earlier times. Speaking of when you were a kid ... when I was a kid grownups spoke to me all the time. I'm not sure my unwillingness to listen was conclusive proof of the lack of clarity of their message. I think history shows us cultures founded on superstition which were pretty cool, and quite a few years after the enlightenment things don't seem to be trending too well. Whip kindly mentions Hitler and Stalin. I'll throw in Pol Paht. How much better do things go when the religious hand over the reigns to the anti-religious? The evidence seems to be mixed so far. Maybe the only thing we can all agree on is megalomaniacal whack jobs talking religious shit whether they believe it or not is a fucked up deal all around. As for me, I don't think consequences have much of a place in discussions like this. So on what do you base ethics and morals, meatcleaver? I read a good book by Iris Murdoch called Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals. Kant said some useful stuff about basing ethics on reason (which have had a powerful effect on me personally,) so you're in good company in my book. If you'd like to submit the bases of your ethics for our perusal, that would be great.

Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 6:25:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster All right, all right. Just don't say that your reality is larger than his. C'mon, LAM. Elephants or no elephants. It isn't the SIZE of your reality. It's how you USE It.

Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 6:36:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang The Problem of Evil ---------------------- A good God would destroy evil. An all powerful God could destroy evil. Evil exists and is not destroyed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Therefore, there cannot possibly be such a good and all powerful God. ----- It’s not that god is logically impossible - it’s that a certain conception of God is logically impossible. There is a difference. The Abrahamic conception of god, however much one tries to evade it, is riddled with internal contradictions. If you don't believe me read "The Book of Job" where these very problems are discussed at length (which culminates in god appearing to Job in a whirlwind and angrily asserting his authority over humanity). Men, not god, create things by applying logic and reason to observed phenomena and arriving at continually reproducible results. So when you press that button the computer tends to turn on and start humming away; or if you plant and water a seed the corn grows. The bottom line is you don’t have to have faith for reproducible phenomena - what was observed before will happen again. In fact, science can be defined as "knowledge, especially that gained through experience." Science deals with experiential phenomena - the things perceived through the senses, evidence, something tangible. The problem with the "god hypothesis" is that it tends to start falling apart the minute we move beyond the original assertion. On top of that, there are other competing theories with greater reliance on observable evidence - even as tentative a theory as "The Big Bang" is predicated on some physical evidence. By contrast, there is no physical evidence of the "god hypothesis." Also, the "god hypothesis" wants always and only to prove itself - other theories are useful only until such a point as they are disproven or superceded by a stronger, more comprehensive theory. The "god hypothesis" wants its own magical sphere of unquestioned authority. What is the purpose behind the "god hypothesis"? The furtherance of knowledge of the truth about the nature of reality? No, the whole "god hypothesis" seems to be predicated in "feeling good," or "worthy," or possibly even "loved" in relation to some mystical being without a physical reality and whose existence is "logically impossible." Silly Chain. You keep oscillating between recognizing that saying "God" is not a move in the game of science, on the one side, and then using some wacky scientistic piece of nonsense like "the God hypothesis." Language can work in a number of ways. The scientific way is a great one within its immense but finite range of application. Religious speech operates differently so any attempt to critique religious speech on strictly scientistic grounds is as stupidly myopic as making scientific claims based on scripture. And God (if it exists) knows (if knowledge is possible) that plenty of religious people make this mistake from their side. Plenty of knuckleheads and whack jobs on the anti-religion bandwagon do too. We don't need otherwise-worth-listening-to guys like you ignoring this linguistic distinction too. I fact as some new poster pointed out very early in the thread, there aren't two opposing sides here at all in terms of teh matters at hand. The matters at hand can be seen to co-exist with no clash or contradiction until someone on one side or the other gets myopic and starts attacking or building battlements. Does soccer suck because you can't steal bases?

Noah -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 6:41:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip > you showed that a model is an explanation A model is not an explanation. A model is a bunch of mathematical equations that describe and predict the behavior of natural phenomenon. An explanation neither describes nor predicts. Some models are balsa wood. I'll admit that those aren't the ones that catch my eye on the catwalk, though. Not all scientific models are mathematical, either but I'll thank you for once again pointing to prediction as the right conceptual province of science. Sometimes you rock, Whip.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625