Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-02-2010, 09:11 AM
 
63,566 posts, read 39,855,129 times
Reputation: 7819

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex View Post
No, mystic, I have told you many times, everything we have empirically verified to exist falls under the label "nature". Thus we can say nature is demonstrable. God, known by the current definition in the dictionary has never been empirically verified.
And I have repeatedly told you that it is an artificial distinction that cannot be validated by science because its source and characteristics are inscrutable and certainly NOT limited to what science has discovered. You are relying on an ad populum acceptance of the distinction . . . NOT a scientific one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-02-2010, 09:26 AM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 4,158,378 times
Reputation: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
And I have repeatedly told you that it is an artificial distinction that cannot be validated by science because its source and characteristics are inscrutable and certainly NOT limited to what science has discovered. You are relying on an ad populum acceptance of the distinction . . . NOT a scientific one.
How is a demonstrable phenomenon an ad populum? Science does make predictions about phenomenon outside of our current demonstrable universe, but that is as far as we can go.

There is nature - which is everything. But nature has phenomenon that we know and not know of. What we know so far, does not fit our current definition of "god".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 09:45 AM
 
63,566 posts, read 39,855,129 times
Reputation: 7819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex View Post
How is a demonstrable phenomenon an ad populum? Science does make predictions about phenomenon outside of our current demonstrable universe, but that is as far as we can go.

There is nature
- which is everything. But nature has phenomenon that we know and not know of. What we know so far, does not fit our current definition of "god".
Stop being obtuse . . . demonstrable phenomena have nothing to do with the justification for the labels you are using. The ad populum refers to your "current definitions." . . . Your "does not fit" is NOT validated by science just BELIEF . . . as it applies ONLY to what we do NOT know. You BELIEVE it does not fit . . . theists BELIEVE it does. We BOTH can point to the same evidence that we KNOW about "it" (what you label "Nature" and I label God) . . . but the distinctions in the labels are strictly because of the things we DO NOT KNOW about it. They are artificial distinctions and were created because of the persecution of science by religious totalitarians and to protect religious dogma from science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 11:17 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,582,163 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
To make such a claim with your clearly inadequate philsophical understanding even of your own fallacious and self-defeating premises evinces an arrogance born of ignorance that is inexcusable. Your superficial misunderstanding of philosophical issues is debilitating and should be embarrassing.This is certainly true of your faith in "Nature" as some incontrovertible default that is itself logically proven to be irrational using the very attributes of the scientific methods and fruits of those methods that you laud.
I think what was embarrarrasing was the clear fallacies in the proposition - as presented by Matrix anyway, and both his and your inability to admit it.

Look, I don't mind or care whether you accept it or not. A fallacious assumption is a fallacious assumption and a proposition based on such is never going to be sound and anyone claiming any kind of expertise in philosophy should not need an admitted layman like myself to point out anything so basic.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-02-2010 at 11:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 05:37 AM
 
Location: NZ Wellington
2,782 posts, read 4,158,378 times
Reputation: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Stop being obtuse . . . demonstrable phenomena have nothing to do with the justification for the labels you are using. The ad populum refers to your "current definitions." . . . Your "does not fit" is NOT validated by science just BELIEF . . . as it applies ONLY to what we do NOT know. You BELIEVE it does not fit . . . theists BELIEVE it does. We BOTH can point to the same evidence that we KNOW about "it" (what you label "Nature" and I label God) . . . but the distinctions in the labels are strictly because of the things we DO NOT KNOW about it. They are artificial distinctions and were created because of the persecution of science by religious totalitarians and to protect religious dogma from science.
Science does not validate words

That's your problem. I say we suspend judgment on something we can no know about, and only concentrate on what we do know.

Nature appears to follow laws. So unless you are saying that your god is bound by these apparent laws, then we only disagree on the name.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 06:01 AM
 
12,595 posts, read 6,627,329 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex View Post
Science does not validate words

That's your problem. I say we suspend judgment on something we can no know about, and only concentrate on what we do know.

Nature appears to follow laws. So unless you are saying that your god is bound by these apparent laws, then we only disagree on the name.
"Nature" isn't "bound by laws"..."Nature" establishes the "laws" that are used to maintain and sustain that which it created/creates...we DO know that.

Hmmmmmm, isn't that the KNOWN attributes that are definitive of "God"?

You are right about the "name"...some have chosen to call God "Nature" (or "The Universe", or "All that Exists")...and then turn around and deny the existence of God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 08:11 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,582,163 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex View Post
How is a demonstrable phenomenon an ad populum? Science does make predictions about phenomenon outside of our current demonstrable universe, but that is as far as we can go.

There is nature - which is everything. But nature has phenomenon that we know and not know of. What we know so far, does not fit our current definition of "god".
I think that I can see what Mystic's getting at here. It is the oft heard argument about the validity of human knowledge. That, in fact, was one of the Matrix arguments and a false one because logic and empirical evidence is so consistently shown to be valid that it should now be considered to be the best tools to use to get at facts. The burden of doubt should be directed at those beliefs for which there is no logical or evidential support such as any and all the theisms. This was just one of the Matrix erors - 'doubt' was aimed the wrong way. Especially as the argument for flawed human perception was based on the findings of empirical evidence (1).

Thus the distinction made between validated science and what Mystic refers to as 'belief' is a largely artificial one. The evidence and logic indicates that the view of everything being down to natural forces (and I am not going to be drawn on semantic dickering about natural schmatural) is the evidentially supported view (or belief) and that unsupported belief based on no scientific validation that there is some intelligence behind it is not supported by any credible science. Nobody from Einstein to the Creationists have been able to adduce any logical of evidential support for that idea, and from all the posts I have seen neither does Mystic.

He has a very involved model for an intelligent cosmos if there is such a thing, but it does not do squat to show that there is and science does a lot of squat to show that that there isn't. All the chat about beliefs only serves to confuse the issue.

(1) if one was not going to accept the empirical findings one should logically assume that evolution would be likely to evolve reliable human perceptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 09:04 AM
 
Location: Western Cary, NC
4,348 posts, read 7,342,757 times
Reputation: 7276
Catholic Scientist seems like an oxymoron to me. The two just don’t mesh into reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 10:59 AM
 
12,595 posts, read 6,627,329 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by cncracer View Post
Catholic Scientist seems like an oxymoron to me. The two just don’t mesh into reality.
Better throw out that "Big Bang Theory" then! Since, according to you, anyone that would be so "unrealistic" to be Catholic, couldn't also ("don't mesh") be a scientist.

Me thinks your bias, and intolerance is showing! And the Atheists call the Believers "closed minded"! LOL!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 12:43 PM
 
Location: 30-40°N 90-100°W
13,809 posts, read 26,504,325 times
Reputation: 6785
Quote:
Originally Posted by cncracer View Post
Catholic Scientist seems like an oxymoron to me. The two just don’t mesh into reality.
You know that's not true. Examples were given, including examples of living scientists.

There's even a scientist who is a member of Opus Dei.

Ignacio Rodriguez-Iturbe - Robert E. Horton Medal and William Bowie Medal winner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:21 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top