A Christian Framework

[Orbit]

Wololo, the only definition of consciousness you're going to get is from the dictionary. Neuroscience cannot yet explain the exact nature of consciousness--which is not to say that it never will be explained. You seem anxious to give us "-ists and -isms" and seem incapable of understanding that there are people who defy neat categories--this is what is preventing you from even getting started, and is why in your selective responses this is going nowhere.

[Wololo]

Wololo, the only definition of consciousness you're going to get is from the dictionary. Neuroscience cannot yet explain the exact nature of consciousness--which is not to say that it never will be explained. You seem anxious to give us "-ists and -isms" and seem incapable of understanding that there are people who defy neat categories--this is what is preventing you from even getting started, and is why in your selective responses this is going nowhere.

 

Good good. That's what I wanted to know then. We're going to use the dictionary definition. That means I can address it...but I still need to know.

 

Seems like you have faith in neuroscience.

[Orbit]

 

Wololo, the only definition of consciousness you're going to get is from the dictionary. Neuroscience cannot yet explain the exact nature of consciousness--which is not to say that it never will be explained. You seem anxious to give us "-ists and -isms" and seem incapable of understanding that there are people who defy neat categories--this is what is preventing you from even getting started, and is why in your selective responses this is going nowhere.

 

Good good. That's what I wanted to know then. We're going to use the dictionary definition. That means I can address it...but I still need to know.

 

Seems like you have faith in neuroscience.

 

Your line of reasoning is specious. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Science is knowledge based on evidence; it is not faith. Consult the dictionary.

[Wololo]

I've addressed this elsewhere. Faith is belief based on evidence. It requires a lack of complete certainty in order to be relevant. Science is a process by which we search for knowledge. Science is not an answer. You have faith based on the evidence that science is generally reliable. You have faith in the process.

[Orbit]

I've addressed this elsewhere. Faith is belief based on evidence. It requires a lack of complete certainty in order to be relevant. Science is a process by which we search for knowledge. Science is not an answer. You have faith based on the evidence that science is generally reliable. You have faith in the process.

So what you really want is a positivism vs. religion debate? Isn't that rather overdone?

[Wololo]

No. I would argue that positivism is but one method for learning. Antipositivism has its place as well. There is no 'vs religion'.

[Orbit]

No. I would argue that positivism is but one method for learning. Antipositivism has its place as well. There is no 'vs religion'.

So you are not religious. You are "anti-positivist" or anti-science. I'm sure you will get quite a debate now that you've finally explained what you want. As for me , science describes the natural world based on observed evidence from which we can formulate general laws that can then be tested.

I simply don't see the value of an anti-science epistemology, based on nothing, circular, and unfalsifiable. It's in the fairy story realm. Maybe someone else is willing to spend time on it, I'm not.

[Wololo]

Again, no. Science is a tool that should be used to keep us from fooling ourselves about physical things. It is not a set of answers, but rather a process of questions. It is not the only tool for discovering truth.

 

Science doesn't describe anything. It is a process to test what we see around us. It is never complete. It is never 100% certain. Scientific understanding 1000 years ago is a lot different from science now. In fact, our understanding from 100 years ago is vastly different.

 

Ah, the truth comes out though. You don't see the value of anything other than science. The problem is that science only works for things right now. It's a practical framework, but not necessarily one that speaks the only and ultimate truth. We cannot assume that science is the only reliable way of learning about the world, especially since discoveries made through science are never 100% certain.

 

Epistemology is not circular. EVERYTHING abides by logic (well...there are critiques of logic, but that's another story). You don't see the value because you don't understand it. At least be honest instead of raging at it and saying things that are false. If you don't see the value and don't understand it, then you have no room to speak of it.

[mymistake]

I've addressed this elsewhere. Faith is belief based on evidence. It requires a lack of complete certainty in order to be relevant. Science is a process by which we search for knowledge. Science is not an answer. You have faith based on the evidence that science is generally reliable. You have faith in the process.

 

 

You are using equivocation.  We know the process is reliable because science has produced all modern technology.  Faith is believing without evidence or in spite of the evidence.  When a priest talks about his faith he is talking about things for which he has no objective evidence and might be pure delusion.  You are not going to get very far around here when you use incorrect definitions.

[Wololo]

 

I've addressed this elsewhere. Faith is belief based on evidence. It requires a lack of complete certainty in order to be relevant. Science is a process by which we search for knowledge. Science is not an answer. You have faith based on the evidence that science is generally reliable. You have faith in the process.

 

 

You are using equivocation.  We know the process is reliable because science has produced all modern technology.  Faith is believing without evidence or in spite of the evidence.  When a priest talks about his faith he is talking about things for which he has no objective evidence and might be pure delusion.  You are not going to get very far around here when you use incorrect definitions.

 

 

Nope. We don't even agree on semantics. Again...Voltaire...define your terms. We can't agree on the semantics, it's impossible to discuss anything.

[mymistake]

Again, no. Science is a tool that should be used to keep us from fooling ourselves about physical things.

 

 

Yes, it allows us to see that fairy tails are not real.

 

 

 

It is not the only tool for discovering truth.

 

Interesting.  What other tools help us discover truth?

 

 

 

Science doesn't describe anything. It is a process to test what we see around us. It is never complete. It is never 100% certain. Scientific understanding 1000 years ago is a lot different from science now. In fact, our understanding from 100 years ago is vastly different.

 

Correct.  Science allows us to precisely calculate the uncertainty.  And science is self correcting.  These are very positive traits though you describe them as if they were negative.  These things are much better than a religion that is a wild guess that clings to it's old ideas long past the point where they are obviously disproven.

[mymistake]

. . . define your terms. We can't agree on the semantics, it's impossible to discuss anything.

 

 

Which terms do you need defined?

[florduh]

Science is a tool that should be used to keep us from fooling ourselves about physical things. It is not a set of answers, but rather a process of questions. It is not the only tool for discovering truth

 

The next proposition is that there exists a reality beyond the reach of natural science (the "supernatural") and that must therefore be taken on faith alone and we may posit anything we like about it since we are, by necessity, just making it up.

 

All of science has settled, and will eventually settle on certain specific, repeatable results and draw a conclusion; water boils at this temperature at this pressure, these traits are dominant and these others are not, etc. The "other tools for discovering truth" are what? Philosophy, meditation, prayer, anecdotes? Those other tools have not, in thousands of years, come to an agreement on any truth. So which is the reliable standard and discipline to discover what's really going on and what actually exists?

[Fernweh]

This thread has now reached the predictable point in its trajectory where definitions to common words need to be agreed upon. How typical. These people use the same tactics to control the discussion every time. It's almost as if there's some bot out there that randomly registers a new account on here and then follows the same script.

[Roz]

It's the only way they will win the logical arguments.  What did you expect?  If you have garbage data input to draw from, guess what comes out?  

[Orbit]

Again, no. Science is a tool that should be used to keep us from fooling ourselves about physical things. It is not a set of answers, but rather a process of questions. It is not the only tool for discovering truth.

 

Science doesn't describe anything. It is a process to test what we see around us. It is never complete. It is never 100% certain. Scientific understanding 1000 years ago is a lot different from science now. In fact, our understanding from 100 years ago is vastly different.

 

Ah, the truth comes out though. You don't see the value of anything other than science. The problem is that science only works for things right now. It's a practical framework, but not necessarily one that speaks the only and ultimate truth. We cannot assume that science is the only reliable way of learning about the world, especially since discoveries made through science are never 100% certain.

 

Epistemology is not circular. EVERYTHING abides by logic (well...there are critiques of logic, but that's another story). You don't see the value because you don't understand it. At least be honest instead of raging at it and saying things that are false. If you don't see the value and don't understand it, then you have no room to speak of it.

Science does precisely describe the world. You then go to an ad hominem attack, saying I don't value anything but science, which is ludicrous. I like a good meal, for example. It is not a problem that science self-corrects as new evidence comes to light. Anti-science, judged by the reasoning you have expressed so far in this thread is based on unfalsifiable assertions, and takes its premise as its conclusion, which is circular by definition. "Faith, ergo faith" is exactly how your position boils down. And it was Aristotle who first said "define your terms". Your logical problem is that you want people to accept an illogical definition of faith, which the dictionary says is belief in the absence of evidence.

[Overcame Faith]

Back to your original post on this thread.

 

This is why everyone I've ever discussed this with has had to draw the line at physical vs. nonphysical, because if they allow it to go further, God becomes quite plausible. If there are nonphysical concepts, then they need to originate from something and need to exist somewhere. If we were to concede that the human nonphysical mind is the originator of these concepts, then we would need to establish where we got them from, and where our mind comes from. All of this would have to be traced back to a beginning.

 

I agree that nonphysical concepts, which I would call ideas, must originate from something, and that something must be a sentient being. However, ideas need not exist for any specific time period. Rather, they exist no longer that the being who had the original idea and any others to whom the idea was passed. Ideas can die. For example, I may have an idea, or a nonphysical concept, never share it and it dies with me. Others may, of course, have an identical idea as mine but it was something they came up with independently. It was not that I had a universal idea; rather, it was just that two people came up with the same idea independently.

 

Therefore, I disagree that nonphysical concepts must exist somewhere. They can die and cease to exist.

 

This does not, in my view, bring us any closer to a god who must exist. However, not being an atheist myself, I concede the possibility of some sort of creator, just not the God of the Bible because as to that one, I am an atheist.

[Roz]

In all the philosophical mumbo jumbo, is it really just the Kalam cosmological argument?

 

Everything that began to exist must have a cause

The universe began to exist, therefore it must have a cause

 

To take it another way, ideas exist, therefore those ideas must've come from a mind.

 

Really, for all the word play, this is the end result?

[Roz]

I'll grant him all of his metaphysical assertions.  Ok, there is a god.  Prove that it is your christian god.  Prove that your god is the true god, and that it was really jesus.  

[thereisnoperfect]

Why on earth do you need to know what part of my brain creates meaning? What difference does that make? If I look that up and tell you, then what? If I look it up and the answer is "we don't know that yet," then what?

 

I get the feeling you think you have it All Figured Out, and that if you lead us through something we can't help but get to the same place you are. Knowledge doesn't work like that. I have great confidence in that statement, even if I can't say what part of my brain (or maybe my gut, the "second brain") came up with it.

[Wololo]

Why on earth do you need to know what part of my brain creates meaning? What difference does that make? If I look that up and tell you, then what? If I look it up and the answer is "we don't know that yet," then what?

 

I get the feeling you think you have it All Figured Out, and that if you lead us through something we can't help but get to the same place you are. Knowledge doesn't work like that. I have great confidence in that statement, even if I can't say what part of my brain (or maybe my gut, the "second brain") came up with it.

 

Ah, now perhaps we're getting somewhere. I need to know because most of you assert that there are only physical things, and that empirical evidence is the only evidence that is acceptable. It makes all the difference, because the first step in my argument is that there are nonphysical things. I posit that you have a nonphysical mind that does this. If you were to tell me "we don't know yet", then you are putting your faith in science. You are having faith that science will provide your answers, because...you don't know for sure. You're hoping that in the future, science will help us. To say you do know for sure, would be dishonest.

 

 

Again, no. Science is a tool that should be used to keep us from fooling ourselves about physical things. It is not a set of answers, but rather a process of questions. It is not the only tool for discovering truth.

 

Science doesn't describe anything. It is a process to test what we see around us. It is never complete. It is never 100% certain. Scientific understanding 1000 years ago is a lot different from science now. In fact, our understanding from 100 years ago is vastly different.

 

Ah, the truth comes out though. You don't see the value of anything other than science. The problem is that science only works for things right now. It's a practical framework, but not necessarily one that speaks the only and ultimate truth. We cannot assume that science is the only reliable way of learning about the world, especially since discoveries made through science are never 100% certain.

 

Epistemology is not circular. EVERYTHING abides by logic (well...there are critiques of logic, but that's another story). You don't see the value because you don't understand it. At least be honest instead of raging at it and saying things that are false. If you don't see the value and don't understand it, then you have no room to speak of it.

Science does precisely describe the world. You then go to an ad hominem attack, saying I don't value anything but science, which is ludicrous. I like a good meal, for example. It is not a problem that science self-corrects as new evidence comes to light. Anti-science, judged by the reasoning you have expressed so far in this thread is based on unfalsifiable assertions, and takes its premise as its conclusion, which is circular by definition. "Faith, ergo faith" is exactly how your position boils down. And it was Aristotle who first said "define your terms". Your logical problem is that you want people to accept an illogical definition of faith, which the dictionary says is belief in the absence of evidence.

 

 

Prove it. Prove to me that science does precisely describe the world. It's not an ad hominem attack actually. I'm showing that you're not interested in arguing. Prove me wrong, by all means. Show me that you do value more than science.

 

You misunderstand my position, and I don't know whether that's on purpose or because you just don't see it. My faith is based on evidence...both scientific and philosophical.

 

I don't care about the dictionary definition. The dictionary definition is simple and incomplete. It misses out on all the nuance. Just like consciousness, there are many different ideas for what consciousness is. The dictionary definition is just the simple one.

 

Second note, if you say you don't have faith, then you are not in a position to tell me what it is, because according to you, you don't have it.

[Orbit]

 

Why on earth do you need to know what part of my brain creates meaning? What difference does that make? If I look that up and tell you, then what? If I look it up and the answer is "we don't know that yet," then what?

 

I get the feeling you think you have it All Figured Out, and that if you lead us through something we can't help but get to the same place you are. Knowledge doesn't work like that. I have great confidence in that statement, even if I can't say what part of my brain (or maybe my gut, the "second brain") came up with it.

 

Ah, now perhaps we're getting somewhere. I need to know because most of you assert that there are only physical things, and that empirical evidence is the only evidence that is acceptable. It makes all the difference, because the first step in my argument is that there are nonphysical things. I posit that you have a nonphysical mind that does this. If you were to tell me "we don't know yet", then you are putting your faith in science. You are having faith that science will provide your answers, because...you don't know for sure. You're hoping that in the future, science will help us. To say you do know for sure, would be dishonest.

 

 

Again, no. Science is a tool that should be used to keep us from fooling ourselves about physical things. It is not a set of answers, but rather a process of questions. It is not the only tool for discovering truth.

 

Science doesn't describe anything. It is a process to test what we see around us. It is never complete. It is never 100% certain. Scientific understanding 1000 years ago is a lot different from science now. In fact, our understanding from 100 years ago is vastly different.

 

Ah, the truth comes out though. You don't see the value of anything other than science. The problem is that science only works for things right now. It's a practical framework, but not necessarily one that speaks the only and ultimate truth. We cannot assume that science is the only reliable way of learning about the world, especially since discoveries made through science are never 100% certain.

 

Epistemology is not circular. EVERYTHING abides by logic (well...there are critiques of logic, but that's another story). You don't see the value because you don't understand it. At least be honest instead of raging at it and saying things that are false. If you don't see the value and don't understand it, then you have no room to speak of it.

Science does precisely describe the world. You then go to an ad hominem attack, saying I don't value anything but science, which is ludicrous. I like a good meal, for example. It is not a problem that science self-corrects as new evidence comes to light. Anti-science, judged by the reasoning you have expressed so far in this thread is based on unfalsifiable assertions, and takes its premise as its conclusion, which is circular by definition. "Faith, ergo faith" is exactly how your position boils down. And it was Aristotle who first said "define your terms". Your logical problem is that you want people to accept an illogical definition of faith, which the dictionary says is belief in the absence of evidence.

 

 

Prove it. Prove to me that science does precisely describe the world. It's not an ad hominem attack actually. I'm showing that you're not interested in arguing. Prove me wrong, by all means. Show me that you do value more than science.

 

You misunderstand my position, and I don't know whether that's on purpose or because you just don't see it. My faith is based on evidence...both scientific and philosophical.

 

I don't care about the dictionary definition. The dictionary definition is simple and incomplete. It misses out on all the nuance. Just like consciousness, there are many different ideas for what consciousness is. The dictionary definition is just the simple one.

 

Second note, if you say you don't have faith, then you are not in a position to tell me what it is, because according to you, you don't have it.

 

Science measures light, temperature, neurons firing, science describes the motion of the planets, ocean currents, science describes the world--that should be obvious. The more I get to the heart of your argument, the angrier and more irrational you get. Let's hear some of your evidence for anti-science--that is what you said you were arguing for. So, define your terms in a way connected to your argument. You seem to be arguing for faith as an epistemology, but you aren't being very articulate about it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Wololo, could you please explain what you mean by the phrase "tool for discovering truth"?  Also, you say that science is just one such tool.  Could you provide examples of other such tools?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

In all the philosophical mumbo jumbo, is it really just the Kalam cosmological argument?

 

Everything that began to exist must have a cause

The universe began to exist, therefore it must have a cause

 

To take it another way, ideas exist, therefore those ideas must've come from a mind.

 

Really, for all the word play, this is the end result?

It's that married to the Prime Mover argument.

[Guest afireinside]

 

 

In all the philosophical mumbo jumbo, is it really just the Kalam cosmological argument?

 

Everything that began to exist must have a cause

The universe began to exist, therefore it must have a cause

 

To take it another way, ideas exist, therefore those ideas must've come from a mind.

 

Really, for all the word play, this is the end result?

 

Those who believe in that mumbo-jumbo only see that philosophy from God forward. Maybe they have to follow that logic and accept that Yahweh must be created and so it continues. If the universe can't come from nothing then God can't have either. It's a bullshit argument. Maybe Yahweh is a teenager with social problems and had to create humans to pick on something just like Zeus picked on him in the schoolyard, like kids who torture animals in their room.