Posts: 463
Threads: 18
Joined: May 6, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 2, 2016 at 12:50 pm
(March 2, 2016 at 12:41 pm)robvalue Wrote: You've ignored everything I've said about regression, and are making up examples, using your own rules, and then making up conclusions that don't even follow. You're not interested in honest debate. You weren't last time you came here, and you've not developed during your break. You just want to force your pre-drawn conclusions through to make your religious beliefs feel more justified. I won't be wasting any more time. Come back when you have something to say about actual reality that has any use at all.
I had given you a very decent example, which dishonesty you have found in there? If you have no argument left to protect your position then that is another story.
Posts: 66408
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 2, 2016 at 1:26 pm
(This post was last modified: March 2, 2016 at 1:28 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(March 2, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Harris Wrote: Logic always starts from observable and intelligible objects and then goes to metaphysical concepts. Your syllogism is not starting with a rational, intelligible, and observable object therefore it cannot be taken as logical. No, logic starts with a premise. Full stop. Let's run with it, though. You have just declared that any logic involving a god demands that the god premise be observable. Is this your intention, will you be satisfied with your demands when I ask to be made party to such an observation? How about I ask you to demonstrate that your god concept is even intelligible? Rational?
Do you intend to honor your own statements, however correct or incorrect they may be?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 13900
Threads: 262
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 2, 2016 at 1:32 pm
(March 1, 2016 at 4:38 am)robvalue Wrote: It was God shooting himself. He was really bored! He'd existed timelessly for an infinite amount of non-time.
The Big Bang theory, ladies and gentlemen.
It was the sneeze of the great green arklezeltzer.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 2, 2016 at 3:48 pm
(This post was last modified: March 2, 2016 at 3:53 pm by Alex K.)
(March 2, 2016 at 12:09 pm)Harris Wrote: (February 29, 2016 at 4:21 pm)Alex K Wrote: It's not quite that simple. They weren't "put in" to calculate interactions, they are a result of the same theory which describes the "real particles". But let me ask you: how do you detect a "real particle"?
I think this lecture would give anyone a good understanding about what particles are and how they can be detected. Please note, throughout the lecture you will not hear anything about virtual particles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q944yL8wSFE
But, Harris, I was going to play Socrates with you for a bit, and if you just reply by posting hour long Youtube videos, that's kind of lame and not conducive to a discussion
So, how does one detect a "real particle" in your opinion?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 28492
Threads: 114
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 2, 2016 at 4:54 pm
(March 2, 2016 at 12:12 pm)Harris Wrote: Do you think science is proficient enough to give an adequate explanation for phenomenal consciousness? No!
We're back to bare assertions. This is an argument from ignorance. You don't know what science is ultimately capable of explaining.
(March 2, 2016 at 12:12 pm)Harris Wrote: It is very logical to think that causes are not subject to infinite regress and without an uncaused cause there can be no cause.
Postulating an uncaused anything is not very logical. It's a leap of faith.
Posts: 815
Threads: 66
Joined: October 8, 2010
Reputation:
11
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 2, 2016 at 5:49 pm
(March 2, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Harris Wrote: (February 29, 2016 at 4:49 pm)little_monkey Wrote: Logic is a tool used to iron out inconsistencies. It may reflect reality, but not necessarily so. For instance, the following syllogism will illustrate my point:
- All fire-breathing dragons are mortal
- My pet is a fire-breathing dragon
- Therefore my pet is mortal.
Though the syllogism is correctly constructed, it doesn't reflect reality, unless I can prove that fire-breathing dragons do exist. Is logic important? Very important but by itself, it is not sufficient to guarantee that I have a set of statements that describes reality. I need to investigate empirically if the content of my statements have any reality basis - in this case, the existence of fire-breathing dragons.
Logic always starts from observable and intelligible objects
Yes, that was the point of the syllogism.
Quote:and then goes to metaphysical concepts.
You would need to prove that.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 3, 2016 at 3:04 am
(This post was last modified: March 3, 2016 at 3:05 am by robvalue.)
I wonder what it's like living in a world where the only two options are:
1) Current scientific theory explains everything 100%
and
2) My favourite book filled with magical stories is true
I'm quite content with option 3.
Posts: 869
Threads: 143
Joined: September 11, 2015
Reputation:
11
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 3, 2016 at 3:30 am
Seems as though a religious person has put for his religious views "Logical".
Oh boy.
Which is better:
To die with ignorance, or to live with intelligence?
Truth doesn't accommodate to personal opinions.
The choice is yours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is God and there is man, it's only a matter of who created whom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more questions you ask, the more you realize that disagreement is inevitable, and communication of this disagreement, irrelevant.
Posts: 30670
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 3, 2016 at 4:17 am
(March 3, 2016 at 3:04 am)robvalue Wrote: I wonder what it's like living in a world where the only two options are:
1) Current scientific theory explains everything 100%
and
2) My favourite book filled with magical stories is true
I'm quite content with option 3.
If only there were a term to describe such a logical fallacy... 
Posts: 7392
Threads: 53
Joined: January 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Natural Order and Science
March 3, 2016 at 4:33 am
(This post was last modified: March 3, 2016 at 4:35 am by I_am_not_mafia.)
(March 2, 2016 at 4:54 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: (March 2, 2016 at 12:12 pm)Harris Wrote: Do you think science is proficient enough to give an adequate explanation for phenomenal consciousness? No!
We're back to bare assertions. This is an argument from ignorance. You don't know what science is ultimately capable of explaining.
Besides, science is proficient enough to give an adequate explanation of consciousness. Scientists wouldn't be researching it and trying to recreate it otherwise.
Personally I don't see any great mystery regarding consciousness. The main difficulty seems to be self organised temporal sequence learning.
I like the idea of someone's consciousness being phenomenal rather than mediocre. I wonder what that would be like.
|
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
