[Gabriel Synthesis]

mike_d, on Oct 26 2005, 11:27 AM, said:

does phallacific have anything to do with phalluses?

yes, lots

[where_i'm_calling_from]

first of all, yes andrew. you make my point with the relevant readings included. and you just know people are going to reading 'mathematical axioms' and go 'huh?'. now i want to move on to slapping curtis and bradley.

Forgone Conclusion, on Oct 25 2005, 11:38 PM, said:

since there have been, or will be an infinite number of universes

what the fuck? are you stating that the oscillating universe theory is true? or that there are billions of parallel universes where all possible events occur? because either way, you are making a fucking huge statement, and one that your beloved science cannot come anywhere near broaching. for all you know, this is the only universe there has ever been and when it dies the strange anomoly that is linear life will disappear forever. you cannot make that kind of claim. in fact, by the principle of parsimony (ockham's razor) you must take the simplest hypothesis as it is most likely to be true. explain to me how billions of unseen universes or a universe that is continually exploding and contracting is more likely/simpler than that the here and now exists and that is all that will exist?

by that principle you deduce that this is the only world there is, and looking at what happened in the big bang for starters, the probability of a universe able to contain life was practically 0. you must have seen the video in RS where they show what could have happened if the Big Bang had contained 1% more hydrogen etc etc. it is fucking unlikely. yes, it may be coincidence or whatever, but who are you to make that claim?


ok bradley. when you say a theory must be falsifiable to be valid, on what basis do you make that assumption? in meta ethical theory, the only way a theory can be acceptable is if it is unfalsifiable by application to any event. you are saying that theories of the world are intrinsically limited to the limits of human scientific knowledge. thus, if we do not have sufficient knowledge of quantum physics/super string theory/base particles we cannot postulate a theory on this basis? that is absurd. people who do not understand science are the only ones who are so firm in their view that science actually has overwhelming evidence to support what is common knowledge. as you say, science is a house of cards. it is also true that the cards are made from flimsy, whimsical evidence supported by pages and pages of theory. the only reason the house stands up is that these theories all seem to fit together just about. although since einstein this is less and less the case. relativity is 'known' to be a 'correct' hypothesis. unfortunately, it cannot account for gravity, and thus quantum physics is invented. science is becoming more and more complex to cover the holes in what was originally a very simple newtonian theory. the more we discover, the less we know, and can be certain of nothing. who is to say that at the heart of the increasing complex web that is science there is not a metaphysical entity? ockham's razor posits it to be actually probable.

[Automatic Man]

does everybody have to post long answers?

[Eh! Steve]

no but you won't get any cool points if your reply is under 100 words. ed - good soliloquy but it's occam's razor...

quickly arguing the other point of view for a second, nobody has mentioned the anthropic principle (although this shoots my previous argument in the foot, I like to demonstrate how clever I am...) which states that there is no point marvelling at the wonderful coincidences that led to our occurrence because if they hadn't occurred then we wouldn't be here to investigate them, so it isn't really a coincidence because it is the only way that things could have happened. Also, ed you've got it the wrong way round - relativity is the macroscopic theory that deals with gravity and stuff which quantum can't - quantum wasn't developed to fill a hole it was developed pretty much at the same time as relativity and while both seem to be correct in their own little way they are completely irreconcilable which is a massive problem for science/braddles

[where_i'm_calling_from]

actually william of ockham lived like 1000 years ago when spelling wasn't standardised. thus there are several equally correct ways of writing it. like qur'an/koran.

and yeah, it was quantum physics not reconcilable with gravity. string theory attempts to reconcile them. although this kind of works, but bringing in 15 new dimensions etc etc, there is no evidence to support it at all.

This post has been edited by xedx: 26 October 2005 - 10:51 AM

[Eh! Steve]

duly zinged!

[where_i'm_calling_from]

mike_d, on Oct 26 2005, 11:47 AM, said:

no but you won't get any cool points if your reply is under 100 words. ed - good soliloquy but it's occam's razor...

mike_d, on Oct 26 2005, 11:50 AM, said:

duly zinged!

i would submit my "zinging" of you for the cool points thread, but sadly it was less than 100 words long. curses.

[Eh! Steve]

the cool points comment in my above post was a throwaway that made me think that a cool points thread would be a pretty nifty idea - it doesn't ACTUALLY have to be 100 words long so long as it's cool, which the zinging wasn't particularly, it was just factually correct

[Forgone Conclusion]

way-to-go lower the tone there mike (with the phallus thing)

ALso, andrew, your argument is one from an entirely philosophical perspective. You are asking things like waht is proof, etc hich isn't really helping with argument at all. And yes, scientists deal with a physical side of evidence, because we live in a PHYSICAL WORLD, there's far les spoint in studying something else. And yes, scientists don't accept theories without evidence, but that's the whole idea isn't it?

Ed, you are right, i did make a bit of a broad statement there, but the idea of there being multiple universes, whether over time, or at the same time, is an aspect which is generally found across the board in the major theories about the universe today. Also, your point on if there was 1% more hydrogen, no, i haven't seen the video, but HAD there been 1% more, or less, of that element or another, sure, WE wouldn't have necessarily been created, but life in another form may well have been. Like i said before, it's not the universe that fits us, it's us that fits the universe

This post has been edited by Forgone Conclusion: 26 October 2005 - 03:02 PM

[Echoes]

Quote

science is becoming more and more complex to cover the holes in what was originally a very simple newtonian theory. the more we discover, the less we know, and can be certain of nothing. who is to say that at the heart of the increasing complex web that is science there is not a metaphysical entity? ockham's razor posits it to be actually probable.

absolute gobshaize. Occam's razor does nothing of the sort!
Science refines its model of the world to get closer to the truth, and not only does that not satisfy you, but you use increasing understanding (or 'complexity' as you call it) to summon up a hole for a magical being? If at least you'd used something other than Occam's razor to serve up thatargument, I might not be so nonplussed.

Further decrying science's advances, you instead hark back to the days where science was 'originally' (dunno where that came from, science predates Newton by quite some time ya'know?) a 'very simple newtonian theory' - demonstrably false and presenting a worse model of understanding the world we live in than today's science's offering. Are you even serious when you assert we had more knowledge back then?

Quote

as you say, science is a house of cards. it is also true that the cards are made from flimsy, whimsical evidence supported by pages and pages of theory. the only reason the house stands up is that these theories all seem to fit together just about.

You go on to describe the cards as if I hadn't been fully aware of the extent of the metaphor when I used it. Scientists are constantly whipping ill-fitting, weak cards out and putting better ones in, causing ripples of change to all the cards above it too which need to be slightly rethought in light of the added information. Scientific revolutions, like Darwinism's perckerslapping of Lamarckism, represent vast sections collapsing, only to be rebuilt stronger. This house of cards brought you the computer you use, the food you eat, the car you drive... with each added card it's made more relevant and a better, more useful tool for understanding the world around us - decrying its advances and the addition of new models and theories like you did is flippant and off-key, and it's significant you can only assert your recalcitrance with imbecile soundbytes like 'the more we discover, the less we know, and can be certain of nothing' (what's more, of course we can be certain of nothing, this is why we speak of theories, and not actually back it up.

It reeks of retrograde paranoia.

[Forgone Conclusion]

In an argument against science, while you are correct to say that it's theories are improving, alot of theories, especially on the very forefront of science, is based on VERY shaky theory, based on even shakier stuff (and, i find ironically, relies on alot of faith). However, while this is how it is at the moment, what sets science apart from religious-based ideas such as ID, is that while it is shaky and based on faith at the moment, they are always making modifications to it, improving it, or rejecting it the idea all together. The ideas are very mobile in nature, and lie bradley said 'replacing the flimsy card, with stronger ones'. This way science advances, and while there is stuff we don't know now, we know a helluva lot mre than we did 10 years ago, unlike religious theories, which are stuck 1000s of years in the past

[where_i'm_calling_from]

i'm not in the mood to write a long reply to bradders here, as i have an essay whose deadline is now less than 17 hours away, but i'd just like to say that the science that brought us processed food and the computer is not the science that attempts to show there is no need for god.

also, why are you so vehemently against religion? ok, if you're right then you are triumphant and you die and become the sum of your parts. you are nothing. nothing you do matters. you can never achieve anything. there's no point being remembered or remarkable because earth is insignificant and it'll make no differnece to your decomposing corpse. life without spirituality is hollow and shit. even if it is a load of bollocks, wouldn't you rather hold out that there is something more, than maintaining that you are right and you know you are worthless? think about.

i'll post more here tomorrow.

[Forgone Conclusion]

Of course stuff you do matters. If you need a god to define your lfe and feel it is worth living then in my opinion that is quite sad and pathetic. Also, science does not show there is no need for god and religion at all, it has never tried to show that. What it has done is show that alot of the things people have been led to believe through religion and god are infact untrue.

tbh, in a way, i wish i did believe in a god and an afterlife, it would be very comforting, and i'm sure it is to a lot of people, but it's not for me.

Also, why am i so against religion? I'm not at all. As i said, religion does a lot of good things - it creates a decent moral code, it brings a lot of people a lot of comfort.

HOWEVER, i do disagree with many of the things that are involved in a lot of religions. The preaching, the homophobia, the forcing of your ideas on others, the passing off of ideas that are obviously untrue, the use of it to start wars, the divides it causes, the sexism, the idea that if u don't agree with our ideas you will suffer for eternity, and some of the moral guidelines that it sets aren't exactly that morally just. These and many more are why i have beef with some religions (i know these poinsts don't all go for all religions, but these are just a few)

I've gone slightly off topic here, but u did ask

This post has been edited by Forgone Conclusion: 26 October 2005 - 04:09 PM

[where_i'm_calling_from]

why don't people read what i write? i was directing that at bradley. he bums richard dawkins.

and i don't think science has just lead people to stop circumcising each other or whatever. its taken peoples' faith away. and yes, thats exactly what it tries to do.

to be honest, if you regard yourself as an ecological freak - a one in a million occurence that has no meaning, really where is the point to your life? there is no incentive to try and make a difference even on the most base level.

the third anthropic principle points to the characteristic of altruism - if man was evolved merely to survive, why do some people sacrifice themselves for others? eg. 'weary' dunlop a PoW in a japanese camp. he had the chance, in an exchange of prisoners, to be released but chose to stay behind to tend to the sick. he died there 6 years later, having had the chance to leave repeatedly. why would someone stay in a camp, have no food and be tortured, especially when you knew the people you were with were going to be killed. it doesn't make sense in a darwinian world.

and what about morality? Kant thought man had an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. its very hard to see a moral sense evolving. however, the point is that in a world where god is dead, anything is permitted (nietzche). in a world without god, man's moral sense fades - there is no sense of duty and society deteriorates/collapses as a result. seriously, we live in a secular age, and how many people do you know who are absolute scum with no sense of right or wrong? people weren't so scum back when everyone believed in a god.

overall god is good, religion is bad.

god instills a sense of purpose, a sense of security, a sense of right and wrong, which the world would be a better place with.

i'm so tired so this post is quite incoherent, but i hope my point is being made.

[Forgone Conclusion]

Actually, u said ur were NOT in the mood to reply to bradley, meaning that it was aimed at anyone but him.

Your life does not have to have to have god to be without meaning. OK, i suppose ihn the long run it doesn't, but for now, even my life has meaning. One meaning could be to make me happy, another to make others happy, opr to give others the oppurtunity to do so. It may not be a deep answer for THE meaning of life, but that's certainly how i intend to live mine, with no interference from God.

Also, it does make sense in a darwanian world - one member sacrificing themselves for the greater good of the species. It happens all the time - bees die from using their sting, but do it anyway. It isn't necessarily survival of the individual, but survival of the species.

Science doesn't try to take away people's faith, that's not its job, it just tries to inform people of the world around them. It's not fair on people to be led to believe something when they don't have all the facts. Also, as we have said before there is no way to disprove the existance of God, which is why so many scientists are religous, and many people don't take the bible, or whatever literaly anyway, so whether some of the 'facts' within it are true or not has little bearing on their religous beliefs.

I think people shouldn't really follow a particular religion. They should make their own. Believe in god or don't, cover your face or don't, i don't think everyone should conform to one particular religion, as it doesn't make sense, everyone's belief's are different (or WOULD be if it wasn't forced on them as a child)

This post has been edited by Forgone Conclusion: 26 October 2005 - 04:55 PM

[Andrew]

Forgone Conclusion, on Oct 26 2005, 05:52 PM, said:

Science doesn't try to take away people's faith, that's not its job, it just tries to inform people of the world around them. It's not fair on people to be led to believe something when they don't have all the facts. Also, as we have said before there is no way to disprove the existance of God, which is why so many scientists are religous, and many people don't take the bible, or whatever literaly anyway, so whether some of the 'facts' within it are true or not has little bearing on their religous beliefs.

In that case why do we have this absurb culture of militant aethism where the non-believing science follower is presumed to be more intellegant and the onus of proof is on the believer? Not blaming the scientists for this, but followers of science have elivated it to the status of a new God.

There's also a strong argument that science doesn't evolve in the way you describe. It's argued quite a lot that schools of science don't really change, they just die out (Kuhn mentions this in his book I think, failing that I'm pretty sure David Bohme talks about it). In this way it's much the same as religion, many overtly dogmatic religions have died out or become liberalised. If religion doesn't evolve, how do you explain Luther?

[where_i'm_calling_from]

andrew, you argue well but its hard to take you seriously when you can't spell 'elevate'



religion does evolve: christianity is completely different now to 1500 years ago. even islam, the most static religion ever, has been manipulated by the el saud family and is more fanatical than it was in 700.

[Gabriel Synthesis]

religion also borrows from other religions

christianity has adopted many beliefs from zoroastrianism and also buddhism

[where_i'm_calling_from]

i think you'll find most religions come from the same roots, and christianity only borrowed from zoroastrianism when it was founded: the stuff in revelation is dualist. it hasn't adapted incorporating elements of other religions since...

zoroastrianism predated christianity by over 1000 years.

[Gabriel Synthesis]

i just missed your point