Science IS religion

[mikkel_the_dane]

Prove it. The way i see it, i'm controlling your next reaction. Like i controlled this one.

If i don't control you, then you are able to answer to me using your philosophy in a way that amounts to a discussion. Now you're just making the admission that what i'm doing is causing you to recoil in a way that prevents this eventuality.

How do you deal with this?

/E: Last time we had a discussion, you immediately stopped answering when i told you this:

I know that you're being limited by your understanding of "nothing." I can reduce you into nothing inherent to yourself. All your thoughts, experiences, feelings, and even genetics, are but the thoughts, experiences, feelings and genetics of someone / thing that you experience, feel and think about, or to who you are biologically related.

You literally have nothing inherent to yourself. Your very being is an amalgamation of things that came before. Much like a star. Or a piece of sand.

The very idea of what "you" even are, is a defence mechanism.

Trust is not of our own making; it is given. Our life is so constituted that it cannot be lived except as one person lays him or herself open to another person and puts him or herself into that person’s hands either by showing or claiming trust. By our very attitude to another we help to shape that person’s world. By our attitude to the other person we help to determine the scope and hue of his or her world; we make it large or small, bright or drab, rich or dull, threatening or secure. We help to shape his or her world not by theories and views but by our very attitude towards him or her. Herein lies the unarticulated and one might say anonymous demand that we take care of the life which trust has placed in our hands.

K.E. Løgstrup The Ethical Demand (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1997) p.18

 

[Darkstorn]

K.E. Løgstrup The Ethical Demand (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1997) p.18

Read that in high school.

Your lack of skill in philosophy is really disappointing. You don't even have a solid understanding of your own views. And you've decided you're ready to shoot others down.

It's... Sad. You could be more than a dogmatist but you willfully choose not to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Read that in high school.

Your lack of skill in philosophy is really disappointing. You don't even have a solid understanding of your own views. And you've decided you're ready to shoot others down.

It's... Sad. You could be more than a dogmatist but you willfully choose not to.

How funny. You believe I am a solipsist. I know that the "I" is an illusion. But apparently it works over time, so I will stick with it and keep believing that you and I exists in in part shared reality,

 

[Darkstorn]

How funny. You believe I am a solipsist.

But your argument against empiricism(I.E the assumption of objective evidence) is infinite regress. That's a hallmark of a metaphysical solipsist. You answer a practical assumption(we can use empiricism to make claims of nature) with an impractical assumption (which deals with claims of reality that serve no purpose other than needless complexity.)

If you aren't arguing for infinite regress, then why are you trying to shoot down the idea of an objective reality independent from the mind?

so I will stick with it and keep believing that you and I exists in in part shared reality,

Any shared reality by definition is objective, and independent of our minds. So which is it? Can you be consistent?

 

[dad]

I know, what you're saying is entirely in line with your last thursdayism beliefs.

Exactly like i've been saying for quite a while now.



Retract, or you'll be known as a liar. In addition to being a last thursdayist. Everything you say is in accordance to last thursdayist beliefs. There's a reason why Answers in Genesis both dismisses the hypothesis, and accidentally supports it in many instances: It's because both are really, really dumb.

You are not here to debate, nor do you even respect the rules of a debate. You're here to spew your hate-filled(and did i mention dumb?) message. Last thursdayists... Heh.

Rather than posting lies that I believe the universe was created to look old, please admit that it is to YOU it looks old, not me! Ha.

Looking at your post I see no evidence for the issues so far discussed on the basis of origin sciences claims. Namely that nature on earth was the same, and that time in far space is the same as here on present day earth.

Pretending you offer evidence really will not cut it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Any shared reality by definition is objective, and independent of our minds. So which is it? Can you be consistent?

Okay, if reality is independent of the mind in the strong sense, then that is solipsism, because then any form of knowledge is impossible. Further if reality is independent of the mind and objective, then we couldn't communicate because language is inter-subjective, not objective. The meaning of words are not independent of the mind and in the words themselves(objective), but rather subjective in the single individual, but requires an inter-subjective community of speakers.
So we inter-subjectively share language and it is not objective.

 

[dad]

Now you are confusing history too? Rome fell from attach of the northern tribes of Europe.

The reasons you see and the real reasons may not be the same. I look at it like this, Rome aided and abetted the leaders of Israel in killing their Messiah. The night they did so sealed their fate, it was only a matter of time. Likewise, Israel sealed it's fate that day, and it was also a matter of time. In Israels case, about 70 years. Now you could look at political issues, and generally accepted ideas of why it happened, but I view things in the light of God's hand in history.

So that claim shows your understanding history appears to be on the same level as your understanding of biology or science in general

Speaking of missing the forest for the trees omitting God from science has no better results than missing His hand in history!

. Then you put in some random statement of the hours of darkness mid day? The earthquakes? Jesus appearing to over 500 people? These appear to be fragmented and tangential statements instead of clear coherent statements.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the series of events that happened after He was killed. Fine, I can see why mentioning some briefly would not ease your confusion. So your best bet is to find some thread where you can learn about those sorts of things.

This with your magical thinking could suggest an issue with cognitive processing. Lets remember the misuse of words like pseudo science as religion. This shows a lack of understanding of the words or the science - you choose.

A deeper understanding of the actual basis of claims in origins sciences clearly shows that the basis is indeed belief based. Since you appear unaware of this, maybe your best approach would be to talk about actual issues, and those core assumptions and beliefs that underlie the models of the past in 'science'. Then we will see if they are beliefs or if you can show them to be knowledge and fact based!! Ha
What are repeated fail shows?[/QUOTE]

 

[Darkstorn]

Okay, if reality is independent of the mind in the strong sense, then that is solipsism, because then any form of knowledge is impossible.

Wrong. Solipsism makes the exact opposite claim: that reality is NOT independent of the mind.

If reality is independent from the mind, people can make the same measurements and come to the same conclusion. I.E objective evidence exists.

So, are you a solipsist? Your description of it clearly indicates that you are. You don't get to change the definition of solipsism.

Further if reality is independent of the mind and objective, then we couldn't communicate because language is inter-subjective, not objective. The meaning of words are not independent of the mind and in the words themselves(objective), but rather subjective in the single individual, but requires an inter-subjective community of speakers.
So we inter-subjectively share language and it is not objective.

This is solipsism too. You're still doing the infinite regress. Methodological naturalism assumes empiricism and objective evidence. Your view does not. You do not understand your own view, or what you're arguing against.

You're a egotistical novice.

 

[Darkstorn]

Rather than posting lies that I believe the universe was created to look old, please admit that it is to YOU it looks old, not me! Ha.

Looking at your post I see no evidence for the issues so far discussed on the basis of origin sciences claims. Namely that nature on earth was the same, and that time in far space is the same as here on present day earth.

Pretending you offer evidence really will not cut it.

I don't need evidence to ridicule your beliefs of last thursdayism.

Because it's dumb.

So yay, arguing now with a last thursdayist and a solipsist. Mikkel_the_dane, take note: I see no difference between your and dad's claims of reality.

 

[dad]

so we are all pantheists???? LOL
By your logic (?) if i believe there is leftover fried chicken in my refrigerator, I have formed a new religion. Well done.......

No. If you claim no one killed the bird, and cooked the meal, or made the refrigerator then you would have beliefs. If you offered your claim of the origin of the food as science you would be engaged in pseudo science!

So if science says the chicken is a dino that came from a worm..etc...well, then we need some evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wrong. Solipsism makes the exact opposite claim: that reality is NOT independent of the mind. ...

And you are a dualist.
You use a duality of mind and the rest. I include the mind in reality, but doesn't claim that the mind is reality. The mind is a part of reality, but not all of reality.

 

[Darkstorn]

And you are a dualist.
You use a duality of mind and the rest. I include the mind in reality, but doesn't claim that the mind is reality. The mind is a part of reality, but not all of reality.

I have not told you MY views. Hint: dualism is a particularly poor guess if you take everything i've said into account.

You're slipping. Now you are just babbling ala word salad.

I make no claims of reality: My purpose here is to remind you that you can't make any either.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have not told you MY views. Hint: dualism is a particularly poor guess if you take everything i've said into account.

You're slipping. Now you are just babbling ala word salad.

I make no claims of reality: My purpose here is to remind you that you can't make any either.

So if and only if. That requires that it makes sense, so something exists.

 

[Darkstorn]

So if and only if. That requires that it makes sense, so something exists.

This post needs to make sense for it to be understandable to me.

Why are you so resistant in answering all my points by the way? This is a poor excuse for a philosophical discussion if you just give up at the first sign of difficulty.

And i'm typing this all on my phone so if I need to use this much effort into arguing with you, please show some effort in return.

You aren't any different from dad.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This post needs to make sense for it to be understandable to me.

Why are you so resistant in answering all my points by the way? This is a poor excuse for a philosophical discussion if you just give up at the first sign of difficulty.

And i'm typing this all on my phone so if I need to use this much effort into arguing with you, please show some effort in return.

You aren't any different from dad.

We start by establishing how we talk about reality. If we can't agree on that everything else is pointless.

So what is reality to you or do you want me to start?

 

[dad]

Please try to understand. ALL matter is affected by the 4(maybe five) fundamental forces of nature, period.

All matter here on earth and the area of the solar system is affected by the current forces of nature, yes. Of course. The issue is NOT whether forces that exist affect matter, but what forces used to exist!

All the 4 fundamental forces are interconnected, since at one time they were just one force. I pointed out the cascade of changes that would also have had to occur, if somehow these forces were different in the past.

Naturally the laws of nature are synced. That does not mean they are eternal.

The change in the speed of light, and the acceleration due to gravity were only the most obvious ones.

You don't seem to get the basic concept of time itself being different. In our time and space time exists in a certain way. For example, so a car moving at a certain rate or speed will take so much time to go, for example a mile. Let's say that speed is 70 miles per hour. Now imagine we take time away and replace it with another 'time' which is nothing like the time we know. Let's say for example, that the new time would result in a car moving at that same rate would travel one mile in one second of the new time. The speed has not changed, only the time involved in going the distance!
So if time and space in the distant universe is not as we know it here, we cannot say that anything (including light moving a certain distance) takes the same time!

I'm not interested in you poor understanding of tangential, centrifugal, and centripetal forces, and how they are used to determine masses of planets, stars, and galaxies.

Only if distances/sizes mass are known.

My comment was, that in order for changes in the acceleration of gravity to have occurred in the past, the rotational velocity and the mass of the earth would need to have changed. Do you agree or disagree?

Firstly, we do not know that gravity has changed. Secondly acceleration of gravity is caused by the force of gravity! So if the force changed I suppose we might see some change in how things get accelerated by that force?

If this has occurred, then there would certainly be evidence of this. You are saying that it may have occurred, so what is your evidence? How do you simply change forces, that are properties of matter itself?

You might as well ask how you create them in the first place! Science doesn't know.

Also, Gravity, Weak and Strong, and Electromagnetic forces are interconnected with each other. Changing one, will also change the others.

Great, so let's have them all come to exist at once! Whatever was changed was not that. That was what we had as a result of the former nature changing.

If changes happened in the past, we would still see it today. These changes would also have a cascade effect on everything related to these forces. It is like saying that time itself, may not have been the same time, as it is today. You also seem to think that by understanding these natural forces, we can somehow affect the nature of these forces.

Once again you are envisioning changes IN OUR nature. No. Our nature is the result of the former nature changing, not our nature.

How do you KNOW what forces use to exist?

Exactly! How does science know? It has no clue, so it has assumed what we see is what we always had.

How to you KNOW that these forces are different than the same forces we have today?

I don't have to know! Science does, IF it claims a certain set of forces existed! I am happy to default to the historical and Scriptural records. If you claim nature was a certain way, for heaven sake we would hope you have some sort of reason for this!

We can also look into the past in space, and see how other stars, galaxies, and other objects have formed. We can then form comparison models to how our planet and solar system formed. We can accumulate evidence to form an educated hypothesis.

Actually the theories are constantly falling and being changed as new info unfolds. How far you think you look into the past depends on what time is like out there! You thought it depended on a fishbowl perspective.

The rest of us want to expand our knowledge and understanding of all natural phenomena.

The universe consists of more than natural phenomena. (especially more than the current nature in the fishbowl)

Religion is the antithesis of science

Origin pseudo science is the antithesis of science! It is faith based.

. Only the mythical stories vary from one religion to another.

Including your thermal vent/Darwin's pond/comet sprinkled gook stories!

If you could look outside of your self-imposed fishbowl, you could see far beyond Einstein's relativity(Quantum fields, Quantum Gravity, Chaos Theory, etc.).

Oh I do see way beyond those fishbowl concepts!

 

[Darkstorn]

We start by establishing how we talk about reality. If we can't agree on that everything else is pointless.

No. This thread is not a philosophical debate. We don't need to define any reality, ALL we need to talk about is evidence in regards to the claims made.

Your infinite regress adds nothing, and just makes you confused as to what it means to be a debate of evidence.

You are merely muddying the waters and adding nothing. If you want to have a philosophical debate, make a thread about it and we'll talk.

I will NOT support your attempt at off-topic. Even if the the topic sucks and is being perpetrated by a last thursdayist.

It's not about arguing different philosophical views. We've already decided upon our views and are talking about things not related to it in any way.

Why do you need me to be here to tell you this? I thought it self-evident.

So what is reality to you or do you want me to start?

I won't say nor do I want to hear yours. Not to mention I already know what solipsists think of reality.

But this isn't a thread for that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Your infinite regress adds nothing, and just makes you confused as to what it means to be a debate of evidence.

...

Someone: Everything can be done with evidence.
Me: No!

 

[Darkstorn]

Someone: Everything can be done with evidence.
Me: No!

That's an argument for another thread.

Or do you think it's valid for you to go to threads about empirical evidence and tell everyone they can't talk about it until they accept your world view? Which just happens to make the evidence conveniently suspect...

This is what I mean by "muddying the waters." You're not a hero challenging our understanding of things, you're a snake oil salesman, trying to push YOUR understanding.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's an argument for another thread.

Or do you think it's valid for you to go to threads about empirical evidence and tell everyone they can't talk about it until they accept your world view? Which just happens to make the evidence conveniently suspect...

This is what I mean by "muddying the waters." You're not a hero challenging our understanding of things, you're a snake oil salesman, trying to push YOUR understanding.

How subjective of you. You don't like that I challenge what ever it is you believe in.
If we are to talk about objective reality, we need to agree on what that is and how that connects to evidence.
So what is science:

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

So we don't talk about evidence and if it has limits. And we don't mention this about science:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Or indeed not this about reason and truth and what ever.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3