Natural Order and Science

[Harris]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

[downbeatplumb]

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.

[Alex K]

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?

[Angrboda]

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.

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.

[little_monkey]

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.

and then goes to metaphysical concepts.

You would need to prove that.

[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.

[Heat]

Seems as though a religious person has put for his religious views "Logical".

Oh boy.

[Jackalope]

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...

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.