Religion/Spirituality Theism Discussion (Abrahamic Religions, Religious Philosophy, etc.)

[Poitier]

And that is admirable, Napoleon. Like I said, I love science and it is definitely a more sound rationale underlying it but at the end of the day, anything short of omniscience is incapable, correct?

I use evidence because it is relevant to my reality. I do not think evidence is stipulation for anything beyond that. Anyone who thinks evidence is THE criteria for anything absolute is foolish.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You're putting faith in the idea that data = truth.

NO ONE EVER CLAIMED THAT.

Thats what statistics is.

Take a philosophy class.

Thats what motherfukkers spent HUNDREDS of years thinking about until someone came along with the wherewithal to start testing some hypotheses. Philsophy has dealt with this for a long.

Epistemology. Existence. Problems of induction.Burden of proof etc.

We're WAY past that.

Data is simply an attempt at achieving accuracy!!!

You can get as meta with it as you want and say that the more macro we get the more the data tends to warp and this becomes useless. Meaning, the data we have now works with our shared interpretation of reality in this universe but our universe could be contained by infinite larger structures where our "truths" break down. You're putting faith in big data when it could really just be an aberration of us being microscopic in nature.

Bruh. Its how we get better.

Its like using google in 1998 as opposed to yesterday.

Optimization gets better.

 

[Poitier]

Who said omniscience was the goal?

The goal is to know what we didn't know yesterday. Whether that be everything or a little less than that, thats just fine.

What the hell are you saying?

its like you want to contribute to this conversation by suggesting that sitting around and circle-jerking about your thoughts and feelings to "the universe/gaia/cheerios" enables you to understand more about the laws of the universe.

its sheer sophistry and scraping the barrel of intellectual insight.

What the hell are you saying? Your knowing will always be relative unless you're are all-knowing.

"Laws of the Universe" = lol . The Universe is in all probability small in scale. It's Laws are cool for my reality but it definitely doesn't mean anything beyond that, especially when you want to discuss absolute reality.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Everything you just described is faith. Your trust in empiricism and data is faith. You speculate to let you know how helpless and ignorant you are in this thing called reality. Anything short of omniscience deserves humility.

No one truly trusts in empiricism. They rely on its sheer consistency, but even the most intellectually consistent are willing to account for abrogations and outliers.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Expansion doesn't speed up. That's a fact

I'm just trying to understand here, do you think you're somehow an intellectual rebel for disagreeing with over 15 years of scientific evidence and scrutiny? Do you sit around your crib measuring the red shifts of distant supernovas and galaxies and somehow came up with completely different data than every astronomer and physicist of the past 15 years? Please show me your evidence that the expansion is not accelerating.

 

[Poitier]

NO ONE EVER CLAIMED THAT.

Thats what statistics is.

Take a philosophy class.

Thats what motherfukkers spent HUNDREDS of years thinking about until someone came along with the wherewithal to start testing some hypotheses. Philsophy has dealt with this for a long.

Epistemology. Existence. Problems of induction.Burden of proof etc.

We're WAY past that.

Data is simply an attempt at achieving accuracy!!!



Bruh. Its how we get better.

Its like using google in 1998 as opposed to yesterday.

Optimization gets better.

I believe the guy I was responding to said data = truth.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Belief in the sacred and vague. That which cannot be proved by scientific process.

if you're not DEFINING anything then we're talking about NOTHING.

Thought that does not exclude intuition.

Sure. But thought doesn't equate to objectivity.

Getting so caught up in trying to find the sequence of how everything thing came about is just the hope of satisfying our infinite quest for more, more in an existence that is boundless if not only by life and death itself. If science is the only thing a person believes, than that person is lost... thats just my opinion/definition

So achieving accuracy of how things works to a functional level that can be manipulated...is pointless?

I guess we should give up on cancer research.

 

[Poitier]

No one truly trusts in empiricism. They rely on its sheer consistency, but even the most intellectually consistent are willing to account for abrogations and outliers.

I agree with majority of what you're saying but you aren't arguing what others in this thread are saying. Accuracy and progressing as a race is not what people in this thread are arguing. They are talking about absolute truth and reality, which short of omniscience, is pointless to discuss.

Philosophy isn't truth, nor could any human being be capable of thinking about absolute truth

 

[samtalksradio]

Atleast the hole is Black

The Black hole god take that, take that cacs

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I'm just trying to understand here, do you think you're somehow an intellectual rebel for disagreeing with over 20 years of scientific evidence and scrutiny? Do you sit around your crib measuring the red shifts of distant supernovas and galaxies and somehow came up with completely different data than every astronomer and physicist of the past 20+ years?

Not trying to be a rebel. Just staying true to the scientific process. You are supposed to question things. When theories have holes you are supposed to want to fill them.

Astronomers and physicists will be the first to tell you that the there is a lot more research to be done about the Big Bang.

 

[Chris.B]

The way you know soap cleans your hands is as much "science" as the manner that we create synthetic polymers or bacteriophage viruses as newer forms of vaccines.



No. Dumbass.

Its a theory because its supported by evidence.

Theories are merely ideas that can be tested.




According to whom? The bible?

Are you saying scientific theories are never subject to change?

Ask yourself why they never call it "evolution fact" but "evolution theory"

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Man, short of being omniscient all of this is pointless.

What the fukk is wrong with you? No one claimed to know it all...

Yall love talking about "objectivity, "knowing" and "truths" but those are just terms to display human's pompous nature.

Bruh.

Penicllin works by inhibiting the beta-lactam ring in bacterial cell walls to form. Is that omniscience or is that our best approximation of what biochemistry has to offer in 2013?

It's all relative to us and our microscopic reality.

so?

I can't understand why atheist don't admit that they will never know.

because this implies that I know what I will never know.

You want atheists to not speak on things they don't know...so what are you doing?

if you truly don't know something...THEN YOU DO NOT KNOW TO ONE DEGREE OR ANOTHER!!!

I SIMPLY DO. NOT. KNOW!

Thats the difference.

I don't know if theres a god (agnostic) but based on the inability to by anyone to support the claim that a god exists ( I do not believe in a god)

I'm not saying that there is no god.

I can't say that.

No one can say that.

I can't prove a negative. Its the fukking problem of induction. Read some philosophy (theres a reason I keep suggesting this to you).

I

love science because it strives for perfection but some of you don't realize perfection isn't obtainable and that is the problem.

the pursuit of perfection doesn't mean perfection.

In some cases, accuracy may not mean always getting it right, but learning how to prevent getting it WRONG. Look up how computer optmization is working.

On the other hand, I love the aspect of deism that highlights our infantile nature. Religion is mostly junk but it's has historical merit.

You mean moving the goalposts?

Lets see what deism has to say in 200 years.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

so... just because someone is starting to reveal how a magic trick was done. thats some how supposed to now make the audience disbelieve their was ever a magician involved?

What.

The.

fukk?

Do you SERIOUSLY believe in miracles?

TL;DR: I'm associated with biochem/medicine/research. Thats as far as I'll go. That being said...

When patients come in and say that its a miracle little steve lived...is that really a miracle? Or was there a biochemical intervention that they don't understand that helped saved this kid's life?

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Not trying to be a rebel. Just staying true to the scientific process. You are supposed to question things. When theories have holes you are supposed to want to fill them.

Astronomers and physicists will be the first to tell you that the there is a lot more research to be done about the Big Bang.

Questioning things is okay. You can question stuff. It's hilarious that you act like I'm against questioning shyt, if I was I wouldn't have become an atheist in middle school and I'd still believe in Santa Claus. Using the red shifts of distant supernova's you can measure the fact that they're getting further away from us at an ACCELERATED rate. Why am I going to take anything you have to say seriously when you told me that the universe isn't expanding at an accelerated rate and that it was a "fact" that it wasn't. Do you care to explain what your huge beef with the Big Bang theory is? Or does it insult you to think that we actually know what the conditions of the early universe were like? I don't mean to bring religion into this, but are you religious? I only ask because the only people I've ever talked to that disagree w/the big bang theory have been religious folks.

 

[Chris.B]

This is a topic of great debate. Look at the experiments one at CERN.

I can give you some information about the current thinking on the topic but its up to you to suspend your clinging to the "god" thing to interpret the data.

There are some things that we just don't know right now...but that doesn't mean we can't try to figure it out, nor that we won't get the answer. Its the pursuit that matters.

Remember, we've barely been into this shyt for 100 years and we've already figured a lot of this out. Give it some time.

But my question to you is... if you want to know who created the "higher-dimension," why does it have to be "god?" If so, who created that god?

And if you answer: Well god always existed, then why can't the universe have always existed?

I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm asking you to embrace new information and see how it makes you feel.

Its ok to not know things, but to reject them without UNDERSTANDING them is a flaw in its own.

All this stuff just re-enforces my faith in Yahweh.
Until we can have irrefutable evidence of the creation of the universe...it can be assumed God created it.