(April 20, 2013 at 4:10 am)Love Wrote: A question for you. What is a scientific theory?

I cannot disagree with your distaste for wikipedia so let me answer your question.

A theory is an explanation for facts. Of course that means facts are limited to physical evidence.

The theory that explains the greatest number of facts is best. Not true or correct, merely best.

Feel better?

I'm quite certain Love doesn't want physical evidence.

(April 20, 2013 at 6:45 am)Love Wrote: Yes, I understand your perception of philosophy, which really just comes across to me as ignorant and lazy. Being dismissive about it will not help you when you're confronted by people who have studied philosophy, and the profound impact that it can have on how a person perceives reality. For example a PhD Philosophy student would probably instantly recognise that you're ignorant on the subject and, therefore, you will not be taken seriously in this kind of discussion. Every single argument you have made thus far has been from the perspective of rationalism, in which case I have to tailor my answers to suit your insistence on viewing everything "rationally". Please read about the history and philosophy of rationalism; I am sure you're capable of digesting the concepts involved.

Creed disingenuously plagiarised the passage regarding scientific theory from Wikipedia; he did not source it and simply passed it off as his own. Just because somebody has an Internet connection does not provide them with the divine right to "copy and paste" from another website.

Since you are so bloody full of yourself in the matter of philosophy please engage in full disclosure as to your studies in philosophy and name the universities which have recognized your learning and the years of recognition, i.e. you degrees in the subject. Hint: That is public information that a university will confirm or deny to anyone calling to inquire.

Why am I expecting you to respond by claiming university recognition is not required in your case?

(April 19, 2013 at 4:07 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: 2 points:

1. An 'atheist' worldview is a nonsense term, unless of course we're describing a world where everyone lacks a belief in a god or gods, in all their infinite forms. Atheism ascribes no meaning to socio-politics or economics, which is the usual connotation implied when people trot out the idea that an atheist's world view will lead to [insert whatever bad words you can think of].

2. Richard Dawkins is not the representative of 'atheism', mainly becuase there are none and never can be, and also becuase atheism has existed for thousands of years before Dawkins was even conceived and will continue to do so after he dies.

Points about using some non-descript transcendental 'sense' to understand the world we inhabit (specifically, a god) is rendered moot based in the fact that there is no evidence to support it.

Also, being resurrected from being dead is impossible. You can evidence this quite easily; go down to your local morgue and wait for one of the cadavers to 'resurrect'. When one does, then that'll be evidence that its possible. Indeed, knowing this to be the case, it leaves us with a few viable alternatives to explain the story:

1. It actually happened and was down entirely to non-physical [???] factors (no evidence to support it, infringes on the known laws of physics)
2. It actually happened and was down entirely to physical (and hence verifiable) factors (eg, it was a lie and he wasn't actually dead etc).
3. It's a story/allegory, either intend to indoctrinate to entertain, and never actually happened.

Now, of course, an absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence, but in this case, as the claim is clearly contrary to what we know be possible within the laws of physics, the only way we can default to option 1 is to have extraordinary evidence to support it. I am continually left wanting, hence my disbelief that it happened at all.

Sorry for the delayed response Fidel_Castronaut.

1) I can understand what you're saying concerning my statement that there is an "atheistic worldview". I suppose it depends how far you analyse the concept of atheism. If you're simply referring to: "denying the existence of the supernatural", then, of course, this does not constitute a worldview. However, I often think very deeply about these topics, and my view on atheism inevitably progressed to a worldview of existential nihilism, in that: (1) the universe is devoid of purpose or meaning; it simply exists (2) life is ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things. All that really exists is, as Richard Dawkins would say, "blind pitiless indifference".

2) Richard Dawkins is charismatic and eloquent, and I was certainly taken in by his charm and his rational pursuits of "the truth". Maybe he is not the "voice" of atheism; however, he has a vast following in the atheism community.

How did your atheism progress to existential nihilism? What would the belief in (or lack thereof) any god have to say on the matter? IOW, I think that -something else- probably led to this...although I have to admit..this is starting to sound like a pastors script to me.

(April 20, 2013 at 9:50 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:

(April 20, 2013 at 6:45 am)Love Wrote: Yes, I understand your perception of philosophy, which really just comes across to me as ignorant and lazy. Being dismissive about it will not help you when you're confronted by people who have studied philosophy, and the profound impact that it can have on how a person perceives reality. For example a PhD Philosophy student would probably instantly recognise that you're ignorant on the subject and, therefore, you will not be taken seriously in this kind of discussion. Every single argument you have made thus far has been from the perspective of rationalism, in which case I have to tailor my answers to suit your insistence on viewing everything "rationally". Please read about the history and philosophy of rationalism; I am sure you're capable of digesting the concepts involved.

Creed disingenuously plagiarised the passage regarding scientific theory from Wikipedia; he did not source it and simply passed it off as his own. Just because somebody has an Internet connection does not provide them with the divine right to "copy and paste" from another website.

Since you are so bloody full of yourself in the matter of philosophy please engage in full disclosure as to your studies in philosophy and name the universities which have recognized your learning and the years of recognition, i.e. you degrees in the subject. Hint: That is public information that a university will confirm or deny to anyone calling to inquire.

Why am I expecting you to respond by claiming university recognition is not required in your case?

Well, first of all, you do not know my name and I am sure as hell not going disclose it to you. Secondly, the information you have requested is actually none of your business; however, I will divulge my academic qualifications to you anyway.

I have not studied philosophy at academic level; it is a hobby in which I partake in my spare time. I hold a first class Master of Science (MSc) degree in Information Technology (2012), and I am a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) student studying Computer Science (2013-2017). The universities involved are none of your concern.

(April 20, 2013 at 8:45 am)Love Wrote: Indeed, in nuclear medicine an electron microscope can be utilised to analyse the synapses of individual neurons, in which the neurotransmitter system resides; correlations can be studied.

Not while the subject is alive. That negates what you appear to be saying.

Also neither would correctly involve nuclear medicine.

---

(April 20, 2013 at 9:44 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: I'm quite certain Love doesn't want physical evidence.

I am not sure he knows what physical evidence means. I also suspect he believes ideas have a metaphysical existence and are superior to physical reality.

Further I suspect he indulges in the rest of the gibberish of freshmen philosophy majors before they learn what philosophy is really all about and change their major to English Lit.

---

(April 20, 2013 at 10:10 am)Love Wrote:

(April 20, 2013 at 9:50 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Since you are so bloody full of yourself in the matter of philosophy please engage in full disclosure as to your studies in philosophy and name the universities which have recognized your learning and the years of recognition, i.e. you degrees in the subject. Hint: That is public information that a university will confirm or deny to anyone calling to inquire.

Why am I expecting you to respond by claiming university recognition is not required in your case?

Well, first of all, you do not know my name and I am sure as hell not going disclose it to you. Secondly, the information you have requested is actually none of your business; however, I will divulge my academic qualifications to you anyway.

I have not studied philosophy at academic level; it is a hobby in which I partake in my spare time. I hold a first class Master of Science (MSc) degree in Information Technology (2012), and I am a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) student studying Computer Science (2013-2017). The universities involved are none of your concern.

To which I reply, QED.

It must be an odd university that does not have doctoral candidates but doctoral students and has a fixed four year program for same. Similar concerns on a "first class" MS. Perhaps that is how it is done in England or Australia.

I dated a guy with a double major in computer sciences and philosophy. He was pretty full up on how he thought the world worked too. Had a big wallet and a big Johnson though. That was fun.

(April 20, 2013 at 10:11 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Not while the subject is alive. That negates what you appear to be saying.

Also neither would correctly involve nuclear medicine.

You are correct on this point; well spotted. I made a mistake and actually meant to write "Positron Emission Tomography" (PET) scanner. This is a nuclear medicine device, which can monitor neurotransmitter activity in the brain when the human subject is alive.

---

(April 20, 2013 at 10:11 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: To which I reply, QED.

It must be an odd university that does not have doctoral candidates but doctoral students and has a fixed four year program for same. Similar concerns on a "first class" MS. Perhaps that is how it is done in England or Australia.

So, in order to understand a subject, does this mean that one must hold a bachelor's degree or higher? Do you need a degree to understand evolutionary biology? Of course not. Furthermore, why don't you find a passage with which you disagree and discuss it instead of being pedantic and petty?

Again, I am not disclosing the location in which I reside. Whether or not you believe me about my qualifications and study is none of my business, although I will say that "first class" and "distinction" are used interchangably at the university from which I graduated.

To me, our method for understanding the world has gone from belief to philosophy to science. It seems like a natural progression in the advancement of knowledge. It is my contention that genuine belief stems from personal experience; philosophy was our first attempt to rationalise our beliefs; and science takes this further with a requirement for evidence. Surely, the most significant lesson we should take from science is that our beliefs are often wrong.

For me, religion is separate from this; more akin to a system of government. As such, it is something that is learned. It cannot be "known" from personal experience alone.

I can understand, Love, that after your personal experience you might truly believe in a deity. What I struggle to see is how you rationalise the Jesus/Christianity part? I presume it is the prevalent religion wherever you're from (I'd hazard a guess that it's the UK) and, for me at least, this would heighten my skepticism as it is clear that I could have been influenced by the environment in which I live. I also struggle to see how you can identify yourself as Christian without referring to the bible, as all Christian theology stems from it and the supposed historicity of Jesus is almost entirely limited to the bible.