There are many things that disprove a sentient creator, for those interested in that. I am allready an atheist, but I still find these things interesting - such as our unfortunate ability to inhale food, and die while eating. There is also our ability to trip on our own legs, while trying to escape danger, for then to endanger ourselves/die.
Owls get to turn their heads all around, but humans don't, despite the fact that we turn to look around ourselves all the damn time - and so on.
The universe begins chaos. God is order. Order illuminates truth. Move towards order. Observe from above. Infinity is the state of incomprehensability. All things grow. All things move. To move is to die, to transfer. If there is no death, there is no movement. The plane is non-existent. Time is woven into the universe. There is no light without darkness. All bi-polarities create the third. The middle path leads to the third eye. The black and white move into color. Everything flows.
Oh wait oops sorry about that.
Anyways, uhh yeah Richard Dawkins is really good at trolling dumbasses. Including the dumbasses who treat him as a god.
There might be yet unsolved questions. But the science we apply, gravity, evolution, etc. are facts. We use it all the time. Even religous people. There is zero room for religion here. That's simply how it is.
As far as the real world goes Science is doing a perfect job really. The moment you come up with things like inteligent design, filling the gabs and so on, you're starting to argue out of ignorance. For all practical purposes and explanations, Science is the way. What you believe spiritually is your thing. And what positive trait you get out of it as well. If you need religion to keep going, that's fine too. But you should never get the feeling that religion could explain anything here. And this is not paradoxal or a growing myth or anything. It's real hard data and facts. There is nothing that religion can explain in the real world. And it never has. And it never will be. Because religious texsts, books and beliefs are not scientific or writen to be scientific.
Even as religious person you have simply to accept the fact that as far as the real world goes Science is the way to go. There are catholic priests that can accept that for gods sake. This has proven to be true since Newton - but even HE made the error of filling the gabs with "god". If you want accurate and good explanations for the things that happen around you, sience is the way to go. No spirits. No ghosts. No super natural beeings. And definitely no intelligent designer. If you're not interested in explanations, that is alright. I respect that. But than don't look for answers in religous texts about scientific questions. It doesn't matter if you're an atheist, angonistic or religious. It is more of a question, how far could we be today in our research if religion didn't play any role here?
The scientific process is merely a particular method by which to apply deductive reasoning. That's it. Nothing more. Saying "science is most of the time correct" is on equal footing with "God has a plan".
Bad wording on my side, sorry for that. I will try it again. Science is actually always correct. If we stay in the real world. The kind of world that gives us TVs, Computers, Tools, understanding of Evolution and the like. And there is no room for arguing or questioning it. Gravity, Electromagnetism, Nuclear physics and so on. Those aren't merely concepts. They are real aplicable subjects which came from Science and we use them every day. Where is it incorrect? Where is gravity or nuclear physics not working? That's what I am talking about. I hope that clears it up. Again. There is no arguing about Science as a whole and it's use as tool to explain the world around you.
because science is NOT a thing, a being; science is a process. It's a MINDSET, not an almanac.
In any case, there is definitely more to it than just beeing a mindset. Because we are not talking about ideas or ideologies and just thoughts. We are talking about real applicaple areas here.
As always, you dutifully prove my point without even realizing it.
A process is a process. It's a course of action. It is NOT a product, or an object. "Science" is not a tangible "thing", yet people like you are referring to it like it IS a thing. The same thing happened (can't speak for worldwide, but at least this was the case, stateside) back in 2008 when people started fearfully worrying about "the economy" as if it were some kind of looming danger hovering over their head. The way you speak of "science" is NO DIFFERENT than the way some zealot speaks of "God", and the way all those fearmongerers spoke about "the economy" is ALSO no different than how the same zealots might speak of "the Devil". The fact that you'd say otherwise is where the paradox comes into picture. If you're AWARE of that and openly disregarding that, it becomes more of an open hypocrisy than mere paradox.
Science is a method, not a physical thing. Economies are a metaphorical (non-physical) "chain" of interactions of resources. People who speak of either of these things as though they ARE are merely fooling themselves.
Also I dunno WHERE you get the arrogance to declare "religion has no place here". I mean, wow. Way to contradict yourself after saying it's okay if people want religion for their own ends, only to deny them "here", wherever the fuck "here" is supposed to be. This little smidgeon of the internet? Your country? Doesn't matter. Elsewhere I denounced someone's personal choice as being nothing more than their OWN personal choice, and the same rule applies here and now, to you. Your admonishment of religion is yours and yours alone. You don't represent ANY space "here" beyond your own skin cells.
If people wanna "fill in the gaps", that's their business, not yours. If people wanna apply all manners of thinking simultaneously that do not conflict with one another, that's for them to decide, not you.
EDIT: If you need more proof, or more fuel to power an explanation, let's say we categorize "ignorance" as a result of "inductive reasoning", and "science" as a result of "deductive reasoning". Sound like a fair (if simplistic) thought experiment?
The scientific method IS, after all, a particular model OF deductive reasoning; coming to conclusions based on observations. The differences, as we all know (or at least I'd hope) is that the scientific method is more provocative. It explores and generates observable circumstances in order to arrive at more conclusions, uses controls and variables to separate individual actors in a given situation in order to understand what role each plays (if any at all). Inductive reasoning, by contrast, is arriving at a conclusion AHEAD of observation, and forming your hypothesis around your observations in order to explain away your bias. You don't shake your hypothesis regardless of what evidence is presented to you, because your idea was formed from the very beginning. For example, "Climate change is warming sea temperatures. Rising sea temperatures were observed to be related to warming at the bottom of the ocean. Ergo, heat entering from the atmosphere and trapped due to climate change DESCENDED into the bottom of the ocean!" But the very first law of thermodynamics quite clearly states that "heat rises", so unless this one and only circumstance is somehow magically avoiding a scientific law, it's quite likely the conclusion arrived at was induced, not deduced, because the observations weren't being considered when framing their new conclusions.
Would you say that IGNORANCE, a product of inductive reasoning, is a physical thing? A veritable barren well of thoughtlessness? Something beyond the metaphorical realm that could be manifested in some corporeal shape? Could it be revered, or feared?
I HOPE your answer would be "no", because it's all just conceptual. Actions do not equate to objects, even if actions interact with objects. Likewise neither do their motivations nor thought processes nor methods. If Ignorants ("Intelligent Design" believers, to use your personal example) are the product of induced conclusions, actively refusing to acknowledge conclusive observations and data, is the sum total of their ignorance a THING? It's not more tangible of a thing, nor any less reverent than "science". They're both merely concepts and methods and thoughts and ideas. They're INTANGIBLE. Revering them is folly. If at this point you still don't understand that, then.....
So you're saying that approaching discovery by exclusively scientific method, is neglecting any other potentially viable way of discovery, that we have not found yet?
The Scientific Method is an alchemical principle. It is the basic model for discovery that the human animal is currently capable of.
That we do not know, and to be able to know, we must ourselves go into the unknown.
As far as the block of stuff above me, I wrote something somewhere else that tackles the issue.
Cognitive biases are things that only occur to someone of the literal mind. It denies any idea worth keeping by forcing it to conform to the other cognitive biases that one already has within them. Materialist-Science ideology has a nice bit of cognitive bias in claiming that it alone holds the answer to any argument, and if it doesn't, no one does. The same goes for fundamentalist religions. The whole argument of alchemy is the base idea that things that show some sort of effect in reality must exist somewhere, either exterior to one's self of internally. As above, so below. So, as with the core foundation of science, brought to the West by Immanuel Kant who's book critique on pure reason was inspired by him being possessed by an angel, alchemical practices are the same.
A process is a process. It's a course of action. It is NOT a product, or an object. "Science" is not a tangible "thing", yet people like you are referring to it like it IS a thing. The same thing happened (can't speak for worldwide, but at least this was the case, stateside) back in 2008 when people started fearfully worrying about "the economy" as if it were some kind of looming danger hovering over their head. The way you speak of "science" is NO DIFFERENT than the way some zealot speaks of "God", and the way all those fearmongerers spoke about "the economy" is ALSO no different than how the same zealots might speak of "the Devil". The fact that you'd say otherwise is where the paradox comes into picture. If you're AWARE of that and openly disregarding that, it becomes more of an open hypocrisy than mere paradox.
Yeah, let us ingnore the undeniable fact and knowledge that came out of it. You do realize that it was this kind of intangile thing you speak about that eventually gave you the very real aparatus infront of you that allowed you to type your text? That the scientific research of the last 100 years has at least supported (A lot) the development and engineering we see today. We are talking about something that is real, like gravity or electromagnetism. If you want to understand how those things work than you have no alternative to research and experimenting etc. as how it's done in Science usually. I don't know where you see a paradox here.
If people wanna "fill in the gaps", that's their business, not yours. If people wanna apply all manners of thinking simultaneously that do not conflict with one another, that's for them to decide, not you.
Uh, I think you don't understand what it means. Watch the video of Neil Degrasse Tyson about the subject. He particularly mentions it. And why it is bad for a Scentist and research. Filling in the gabs means that you stop with your research and just declare god did it! Tyson mentions this in combination with the work of Newton for example, The Principia. I suggest that you go and watch it. But if you're not feeling like watching the entire thing, here is the part I am talking about specifically. If you want to be a good scientist it explains rather well why "filling the gabs" with "god must have done it" is a shitty way to do your research. That's the point where "belief" or "religion" makes it's way in to research and science. And it really doesn't take a degree in Science to see where the flaw is in that.
Imagine if a doctor in your research lab would do his research like that. You know what? I can't cure this particular form of cancer! God must be responsible for that, probably for his divine plan, let's move to the next problem! Would you seriously say that it is really only his business at this point? Or would you fire him because he is doing a shitty job and look for a researcher that will continue to work on the problem?
The same thing happened (can't speak for worldwide, but at least this was the case, stateside) back in 2008 when people started fearfully worrying about "the economy" as if it were some kind of looming danger hovering over their head.
There are many things that disprove a sentient creator, for those interested in that. I am allready an atheist, but I still find these things interesting - such as our unfortunate ability to inhale food, and die while eating. There is also our ability to trip on our own legs, while trying to escape danger, for then to endanger ourselves/die.
Owls get to turn their heads all around, but humans don't, despite the fact that we turn to look around ourselves all the damn time - and so on.
The universe begins chaos. God is order. Order illuminates truth. Move towards order. Observe from above. Infinity is the state of incomprehensability. All things grow. All things move. To move is to die, to transfer. If there is no death, there is no movement. The plane is non-existent. Time is woven into the universe. There is no light without darkness. All bi-polarities create the third. The middle path leads to the third eye. The black and white move into color. Everything flows.
Science can only go so-far, and that's not a flaw - it's the imposed limitation of science. Science cannot go where you want to take it, it would be like trying to have a chef build an airplane, while criticizing him for his lack of creativity, mechanical insight, intuition for good aerodynamics etc
It is an obvious problem though: We need science to solve the mysteries of reality for us, but our frame limits all our reality to the safe, hard ground here on earth. As soon as we include space into our reality, things go haywire pretty quickly, and ideas like "hard" and "soft" "big" and "small" "slow" and "fast" begin to boggle our minds. Things lose meaning, because we limited the scope of our meanings to one specific planet, to one specific organism, and the limited senses of that organism.
Like I told Crni 2 years ago, and he did not understand what I meant then - this time maybe you do crni: Colors are not a product of our universe, our universe does not contain these colors within it. It contains various "flunctuations", it contains rythms and beats - and our MINDS interpret these rythms and beats as "color" after they have been processed by our eyes.
We base our understanding of reality into these interpretations.
"Red giant"
Red?
Giant?
Bright?
Dark?
Why? I feel that it exactly does that. Scientists take it all the time to where they want it to be, that's at least what I think. I would say Hass very nicely explained that, much better than I could, so I will simply quote him here :
Science (and physics in particular) is "correct" in the sense that it can give accurate descriptions and predictions. In the end, physics is nothing but math applied to observation.
(...)
it's all about what predictions hold up and which do not.
And well, that's pretty much it. Sience is always at the drawing boards. It never stops because you never reach a point where you can't ask questions. We do have the problem of limitations, like in quantum mechanics, what came before the Universe, are there multi-verses, string theory, m-theory and so on. But, there is no assurance that those limitations might not be pushed further away at some point. You never know, maybe the person that will push this barrier, this limitation is already born in our time? Or maybe in 50 years? The next Newton/Einstein/Hawking etc.
It is an obvious problem though: We need science to solve the mysteries of reality for us, but our frame limits all our reality to the safe, hard ground here on earth. As soon as we include space into our reality, things go haywire pretty quickly, and ideas like "hard" and "soft" "big" and "small" "slow" and "fast" begin to boggle our minds. Things lose meaning, because we limited the scope of our meanings to one specific planet, to one specific organism, and the limited senses of that organism.
But why do you feel you have to do that? Take stars for example, their whole process of fusion and physics was already understood long before they had the necessary telescopes and technology to observe said stars. Nuclear physics has proven to be true in stars like our sun just as it does here earth. The same principles are at work here. As best example engineers build atom and fision bombs long before they had a chance to correctly observe any stars.
Though I am a bit confused, because you definitely can not talk about space in like the actuall space, you know the Universe, as that is a very real thing. Unless you want to tell me that the moon, our solar system and galaxy are not real. Just because we can not "grasp" it, doesn't mean it's not real. I would also question that any human can actually really grasp even something as small like the earth, continents or even just nations, unless we are talking about the Republic of Dave. Seriously, when it comes to our intelect most of us can not imagine things further than their eyes can see.
Sience, as how I see it, has been so far the best tool to describe our reality and the world around us. Giving us the possibility to not only apply but also understand something, even if we can't really imagine it. But I see no reason why that should change. Scientist start to scratch on the fabric of reality, there are limitations. But I absolutely don't think there is any need for a supernatural beeing or mystical force or what ever to fill the gabs here. We are not there quite yet.
Colors are not a product of our universe, our universe does not contain these colors within it. It contains various "flunctuations", it contains rythms and beats - and our MINDS interpret these rythms and beats as "color" after they have been processed by our eyes.
*thinks about it* hmmm no, sorry it seems like I am just as confused like 2 years ago, hope you're not tooo disapointed
Maybe it was a different topic about art or something like that? No clue. As long as we're talking about Science, the Scientific Method, what physicist find out about the Universe etc. than I have no clue what you're trying to actually tell me here.
*thinks about it* hmmm no, sorry it seems like I am just as confused like 2 years ago, hope you're not tooo disapointed
Maybe it was a different topic about art or something like that? No clue. As long as we're talking about Science, the Scientific Method, what physicist find out about the Universe etc. than I have no clue what you're trying to actually tell me here.
The color of a surface, let's say "blue", is light bouncing, reflecting, off the surface and into your eye. Just light. Light at a certain frequency, it is this frequency that becomes the color, in your brain. Your eye and your brain determins the color, they interpret this information in that way. That is why a dog, which has different eyes, experience different coloring of the world. Color is not inherent in the world - light and wavelength is. Color appears in the mind.
And all I'm saying about science is that it IS the ultimate tool we humans have to understand our universe within the scopes of our ability. It is a bit redundant, obviously, on the quasi-philosophical side, but yeah... we will in the end always be limited by our senses, and our science is equally tied to those senses, but when that is said - what else can we hope for? Science and the scientific method is the optimal way in which to confirm things around us in a reliable way. Everything that falls outside of this scope is irrelevant to us, but it's fun to imagine how much it is.
I like the whole prospect of, for example, a snail crawls along a dry surface, it is in trouble, it feels exhausted. I pick it up, and put it somewhere nice and moist. I sometimes do that.
The snail has no way of comprehending what happened
What happened to the snail isn't even something that usually happens to them, there is nothing comparable, it is beyond the snail!
The deliberateness of my action - my empathy for it - my intervention - concepts a snail will never, ever come clooose to understanding
I posess those concepts, as I lift the snail up, and place it down, somewhere nice and pleasant for it, before moving on my way. Such an event happened maybe to one in a thousand billion snails that week.
I was actually trying to catch one of those things in the house so I could take it outside, the humanitarian that I am I didn't want to kill it. Man it was difficult to catch it.
Being a non-believer/freethinker/atheist/etc. I don't really see the point of arguing with religious folks about religion. So I won't take part in that if you don't mind.
The color of a surface, let's say "blue", is light bouncing, reflecting, off the surface and into your eye. Just light. Light at a certain frequency, it is this frequency that becomes the color, in your brain. Your eye and your brain determins the color, they interpret this information in that way. That is why a dog, which has different eyes, experience different coloring of the world. Color is not inherent in the world - light and wavelength is. Color appears in the mind.
Yeah. But there is still a clear and mensurable science behind it. Or you could not explain it. Just like you said, differences in the eyes, or maybe brain damage etc. So it is not imaginary. It is red for you and blue for me? There is still a pattern behind it that can be observed and researched and eventually explained.
And all I'm saying about science is that it IS the ultimate tool we humans have to understand our universe within the scopes of our ability. It is a bit redundant, obviously, on the quasi-philosophical side, but yeah... we will in the end always be limited by our senses, and our science is equally tied to those senses, but when that is said - what else can we hope for? Science and the scientific method is the optimal way in which to confirm things around us in a reliable way.
To be blunt, that's why we have tools to help us to overcome those limitations, and very succesfully to say that, like a geiger counter and other devices to measure and gauge the full spectrum of the electromagnetic waves and what ever else is out there. There might be soon enough machines so accurate that they can measure gravitational waves. And who knows, give it another 100 years from there with more improvements and those machines could be used to detect the gravitational waves of the big bang which could be more accurate than the microwave background we use today. And I think I remember some physicist saying there might be even something before gravity, but I forgot the name of said particle.
Everything that falls outside of this scope is irrelevant to us, but it's fun to imagine how much it is.
And which area would that be? I am serious. Please ... don't tell me the supernatural, consciousness in atoms or something like that. I am not trying to ridicule you. I am not a scientist, and I am pretty sure that there is a lot of stuff that I get wrong, because I don't know it better, or because I lack the correct terminology and knowledge. But when something is not part of our reality, than why should it matter if it's there or not? It can't affect us in any measurable way, you can't prove it's existance and just to imagine it? That's really not enough. Beacuse you could as well imagine that Zeus is behind everything. Or you could at the same time ask for some serious research to find the easter bunny or prove that santa claus exists.
It is obvious that both our senses and our mind have their limitations. Either becuse we can't see/smell/feel it or because it is to big to imagine it. I might be wrong with this but that is where I always feel Science steps in and why it is actually there. To actually overcome those limitations. A telescope, computer/calculator, geiger counter etc. all of those have no senses nor a mind. They just collect and calculate informations. No astro physicist can actually imagine the universe or those distances, the math behind black holes etc. Yet, they work with it all the time, runing their simulations and calculations and coming to conclussions, setting rules and making predictions. How can they do this even though they have no way to imagine it nor to understand it with any of their senses? Trough science.
Meh, I really don't know why I even bother trying to explain simple concepts to you. I make a very specific statement, you somehow miss the entire point of it. Repeatedly.
Crni, somehow you seem to be arguing the importance of science to me, and I've no idea why
I've always been a science-guy, and I value science to the absolute, all I'm saying is that I find fascinating the notion that the same way a snail only experiences a small part of a broader reality (for example, the snail cannot comprehend my good intentions, in picking it up, and moving it to the lawn), there are things that are bigger and beyond us.
If I knew what it was, or pretended to, it would be miraculous, so I'm not gonna pretend to know what that bigger thing is, that which is beyond all our senses and comprehension. But it is there, the same way our world is here, and the snail will never know.
What I'm talking about isn't "something more between heaven and earth", I'm talking about entire measurements of existence that we - humans - will never know, ever. We are physically unable to detect it, the concepts are beyond us, the same way rythm and music exists in this world - music co-exists with flowers, with insects, but insects can never know what music means, despite sharing the same reality with it.
In the end, I'm not making any point here. There is nothing we can do with this information, and this is what I mean by "science cant take us everywhere", it can only take us to within the scope of our senses. But that is - in the end - the best thing there is, because there are no better alternatives for us.
Science rulez.
Oh, no need to apologize - I guess I often "muse" more than "discuss", I just throw observations out there, that don't have that much of a point for or against anything
sometimes I just like certain certainties, and this time it simply was the certainty that our biological meat brain is of a limited capacity. That's not to say it's bad - it's the best on earth, hell - it's the best brain we know of in the entire universe. It's just limited. I like knowing that what we can know, shrinks exponentially in comparison to what we cannot know
Hollow words that ring true with just as much importance as any irrational ego defense.
Suffice it to say, I always find it ironic when two people of VASTLY differing perspectives on some given thing can equally (or presumably equally) appreciate some thing related to the very division that stands between them. Sometimes those divisions are characterized by an "identified patient" malignancy- to put it in blunt terms, someone thinks the other is just the scum of the Earth, or some such nonsense -yet they still want EXACTLY the same thing as what said scum wants. Yet they never stop to contemplate what it could possibly mean or imply that such a contradiction is taking place. It's a striking revelation, just as striking as their inability to make that recognition.
To use an easy example, drug dealers (perceived as "evil" in a simplistic, black-and-white sense) and anti-drug moralists BOTH want drugs to remain illegal. One side (the drug dealers) have a very good, rationalized reason for their decision and preference, and the other side (the anti-drug moralists) do not, and in most cases are COMPLETELY oblivious to the fact that they're in support of the choices and wants of the very party subject to their most intense ire. There's importance in making this understanding, but choosing not to and continuing down this path of contradiction remains the status quo.
