To you? Why should we care what you think? All of science doesn’t check in with you as to whether it’s accurate and objective.
This limitation you keep going on about is more and more about you, and not what science reveals about the universe.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."
- Thread starter mikkel_the_dane
- Start date
This limitation you keep going on about is more and more about you, and not what science reveals about the universe.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, again:
That is off course written by me and is only about me.
Why do you keep posting this link when no one disagrees? And no one is claiming science is anything it isn’t. You seem to be hiding your issues behind this link.Well, again:
That is off course written by me and is only about me.
It is universal as far as the evolving knowledge of our physical existence. Claims of a universal beyond this is subjective, and there are far to many claims of what would be the universal beyond what we can know through science concerning out physical existence.
Acknowledging science has limits does not address the subjective "claims" of what is the "best form of knowledge beyond science,
How could we determine anything consistent and reliable beyond our physical existence to determine the "the only or best form of knowledge."
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So sciece it about the universe as the universe according to you, right?
Or is it about some parts and not others?
Just answer that and either we agree or disagree and I will then leave it at that.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, it is not a fact that all of our existence is physical as there is not evidence for reductive physicalism.
Science describes many things about how the universe works.
What parts are you talking about? Please avoid being so vague. It makes discussion impossible.
I can’t answer such vague questions.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, all the subjective stuff like the meaning of being human, morality, usefullness and what a good life is.
That part of science which in my culture belong to cultural and human science and not natural science.
I refuted your argument already.
X can have knowledge of Y without being Y, just as a map can represent the world without being the world itself.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but that is not independent, that is a relationship. That you know how water boils is a relationship, not independent of you.
The nature of our physical existence is objectively physical by the objective verifiable evidence consistent and repeatable, and evolves with new knowledge.
First I do not argue for the Philosophy of Physicalism, I argue for the reliability and predictability of scientific knowledge to explain the physical/
You are arguing form a vague incoherent Idealism with an adequate explanation, All you have done is argue stocaically against science.
Your claim was 'beyond the physical" and you are dodging a coherent response concerning this assertion on your part
Please respond to your claims of beyond the physical.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, I am arguing from this point of view:
To say the morality is physical is not even a joke, it is just absurd.
Water boils independent of any human dependence on the boiling temperature of water,
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, as for control you are right, but this is about knowledge of it.
No, I am arguing from this point of view:
Then you your argument is terribly inconsistent, obtuse and incoherent. You did not respond to my posts citing you concerning your view of the physical and science,
Acknowledging science has limits is a "sky is blue" argument and not meaningful even though you redundantly repeat it and repeat it.
Repeating vis a cracked record is not a coherent argument.
At this point I have not argued that morality is physical
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
But does it happen?
Water boils independent of any human dependence "nor knowledge of it" on the boiling temperature of water,
WAter simply boils indifferent to human dependence or knowledge.
It’s irrelevant to science. It’s not a limitation, it’s simply irrelevant. And no one, including me, is claiming otherwise.
We have not got past your vague, obtuse, incoherent argument concerning the relationship of the physical and science.
Simply at this point. It simply happens.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
But if there were no humans in the universe it wouldn't be known that there was a universe.
I am talking about knowledge as such. Not just science.