Some atheists seems to have no fundamental reasons for their atheism other than maybe their resentment of an imagined grievance of some sort toward God. They seem to be for the most part almost bitterly antagonistic to God, perhaps out of fear that God just might shine His good light upon their sins and change them.
And some Christians have an imagined grievance toward Thor, are bitterly antagonistic to Apollo and quake in fear that Aphrodite might shine her light on them and change them.
Yes, it must be so easy and comforting to believe there’s no purpose and when you’re dead you’re dead.**If we believe we are purposeless, then that saves us from having to face the question, “Why are we here?” **
But it might raise another question: “Why do I prefer to think we are purposeless?”
Scientists methodically observe and measure, and they form and then test hypotheses against empirical evidence. They’re not in the proving game.They’re all scientists who are famous and pontificate, quite unlike the vast majority of scientists.
Well, it is if you delete the content…
I’m saying that Gamma Ray data is just that. I’d suggest it gives us many clues, and tells us quite a bit about cosmic events, but, as with much evidence and our interpretation of it, I suspect any claim that we know for sure what it’s telling us, or even to whatever % degree of certainty… with this one, you’ve got visual, and figured out that the elephant appears to have 4 humors, just like a chimpanzee
All very well blaming it on the ancient Greeks, but humorism survived the enlightenment and into the heart of the super-rationalist 19th century. The Scientific Method did not contradict the theory of the humors - if anything, I suspect it supported it… why not? Until a more effective theory appears, with nothing to top it, the 4 humor theory was doubtless known to be validated
Many scientists are religious; but I suppose you to mean anti-religious scientists.
I guess you could always add the following to your signature so you don’t keep forgetting:Wrong tool unless you want to blind and then incinerate said elephant. Ultrasound might do the trick though.
I’d guess you don’t need electrons to exist for computers to work - you just need the reactions we’ve calculated as being attributable to the behaviour of electrons to occur reasonably efficiently
Your computer couldn’t possibly be designed, let alone work, without a complete and detailed knowledge of the behavior of electrons.
Wrong tool unless you want to blind and then incinerate said elephant. Ultrasound might do the trick though.
If you’re suggesting that nothing is known until everything is known, it must get awful lonesome on that mountain top, watching the rest of the world pass you by.
Sure, if you want to call the little critters offilumps they won’t mind.I’d guess you don’t need electrons to exist for computers to work - you just need the reactions we’ve calculated as being attributable to the behaviour of electrons to occur reasonably efficiently
Errrrrm …
God made a big mistake for giving us the capacity for abstract reasoning?Nope - what I object to is the casual demand for the evidenced-by-the-skin-of-its-teeth and/or “known” 5 degrees removed to be treated as if it’s something we know as well as, well, elephants
Not sure why you’d think there’s an all or nothing approach, or what scientific conventions you’re referring to. All I can suggest to help is give up your computer, TV, cell phone, fridge, automobile. No longer take antibiotics or any other scientific health care. You’ll be bored, unhealthy and ignorant, but at least you won’t be worrying no more.The fact such as yourself and hecd2 can’t see past an all or nothing belief approach to scientific conventions is the kind of worrying attitude that I’m probably referring to!
Yes, especially if they don’t exist
Well, they can’t possibly exist then, since we do not have a complete and detailed knowledge of the behavious of electrons. Since they apparently do, however, this statement is a lie! I refer you to my revised version in the earlier post
Nope - I think it’s man (or rather, certain men) who make a mistake in putting severe limiters on how to abstractly reason, and get all upset when others don’t
If you give me something resembling a reason to do so, I will, but you just seem to expect me to deny myself because of, what, a lack of faith? Perhaps there’s a scientismic version of confession where I can admit my skepticism, and be again allowed communion with what I subsequently deny are technological devices we don’t neccesarily understand every iota of the physical ins and outs of to the nth degree?Not sure why you’d think there’s an all or nothing approach, or what scientific conventions you’re referring to. All I can suggest to help is give up your computer, TV, cell phone, fridge, automobile. No longer take antibiotics or any other scientific health care. You’ll be bored, unhealthy and ignorant, but at least you won’t be worrying no more.
Let’s see here:Yes, especially if they don’t exist
Perhaps you could read the Wikipedia summary of what we know about electrons along with its 176 references, and point out why our knowledge is so deficient we must question their existence.Well, they can’t possibly exist then, since we do not have a complete and detailed knowledge of the behavious of electrons. Since they apparently do, however, this statement is a lie! I refer you to my revised version in the earlier post
I can only take this as you criticizing yourself for questioning the limits of abstract reasoning.Nope - I think it’s man (or rather, certain men) who make a mistake in putting severe limiters on how to abstractly reason, and get all upset when others don’t
Why faith? Your computer contains chips that could only be designed and fabricated with a detailed knowledge. The fact it works shows we possess the knowledge and that the knowledge is correct. You know this with a huge degree of certainty, no faith required. But sure there are limits to knowledge, probably always will be, no argument there.
and unsurprisingly, I find I’ve said neither of these things… still, make things up all you will!Let’s see here:
- Electrons sustain all atoms but because they’re invisible they don’t exist.
- God sustains all creation but because He’s invisible He does exist.
I’ve been pointed here there and everywhere, as if a sheer glut of scientific positivism will drive me to believePerhaps you could read the Wikipedia summary of what we know about electrons along with its 176 references, and point out why our knowledge is so deficient we must question their existence.
…I’m sure they said the same kind of thing about the 4 humors, to anyone who doubted them, as well… “how can you doubt such incredible research? Unless you’ve read all these 76 volumes of Medica Humica and the notes of Dr. Scrote, you are clearly too uneducated to comment…plus, I recommend you don’t bother lighting that gas lamp, if you don’t believe in humorology - it’s verified by the same principles of scientific investigation, sirrah!” Etc. If that’s all you can do, well, that’s all you can do :tiphat:I can only take this as you criticizing yourself for questioning the limits of abstract reasoning.
THEY WOULD HAVE SAID THE SAME ABOUT HUMOROLOGY!!! How often are you blindsighting this core issue of my argument?!? Humorology must have involved some understanding of treatment and response, and been effective enough to seem true, but nonetheless, was a far cry from what now appears to be true. Your self-limiting refusal to acknowledge these possibilities, not only to me, but to yourself, display a severe gap in your reasoning, and a problematic aspect of the very nature of scientific reasoning as employed by the modern mind
I hear a lot of this either/or from posters on CAF. The clearest exposition is here (I’m being sarcastic, he chose a background that makes it almost unreadable). Well yes, a coin has both heads and tails, God is both creator and father, so what? Natural science is deliriously happy to leave room for doubt and alternatives when it might be wrong and new evidence could be found tomorrow. This is the reverse of much of theology and philosophy where proofs and absolute certainties are often de rigueur.CLUE: Try and avoid limiting yourself to narrow absolute yes/no models of knowledge - or at least stretch yourself to realise that others don’t limit themselves in the same way
That’s not a good comparison though. In medicine it can be extremely hard to resolve cause and effect because we are so complex. Often, at best, all that can be determined is that one treatment appears more effective than another, and why it might work is left for later since these are matters of life and death. But a computer chip either works or it doesn’t, it’s yes or no, and it can only be yes if the designer knows exactly what she’s doing.THEY WOULD HAVE SAID THE SAME ABOUT HUMOROLOGY!!! How often are you blindsighting this core issue of my argument?!? Humorology must have involved some understanding of treatment and response, and been effective enough to seem true, but nonetheless, was a far cry from what now appears to be true. Your self-limiting refusal to acknowledge these possibilities, not only to me, but to yourself, display a severe gap in your reasoning, and a problematic aspect of the very nature of scientific reasoning as employed by the modern mind
But that’s the funny thing, isn’t it? If natural science is “deliriously happy to leave room for doubt and alternatives when it might be wrong and new evidence could be found tomorrow” how come you and hecd2 blow your tops when pseudo/inferential knowledge is called into question for being so assumptive? :ehh:
At least we can test which bits exist with medicine using more methods than 1! Computers may be digital, but why should that matter to electrons?That’s not a good comparison though. In medicine it can be extremely hard to resolve cause and effect because we are so complex. Often, at best, all that can be determined is that one treatment appears more effective than another, and why it might work is left for later since these are matters of life and death. But a computer chip either works or it doesn’t, it’s yes or no, and it can only be yes if the designer knows exactly what she’s doing.
CLUE: Try and avoid limiting yourself to narrow absolute yes/no models of knowledge – much of computers is digital but much of medicine is analog.