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)
 
Old 01-05-2023, 05:18 PM
 
477 posts, read 127,579 times
Reputation: 70

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by myuen2 View Post
I am interested. Newton had his shot that I dismissed as an assumption. You rejected my contention offhand. Do you have a proof that masses attract each other? I don't think you understand what I am pointing out here.

No, I don't. That's the reason I asked you to clarify what do you mean by "proof".
It is very strange choice of word when it comes to science.
And since you did not answer my question, in my mind the jury is still out on whether or not you have a fair understanding how the science works.


Can you tell what do you mean by "proof" or not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-05-2023, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
51,218 posts, read 24,681,777 times
Reputation: 33227
Quote:
Originally Posted by myuen2 View Post
Take the natural phenomenon of falling snow I saw this morning, and the weight of the box of beer I felt as I carried it from my car. It's a natural mystery to me. I don't accept the naturalist's belief that the snow and the beer were attracted by the Earth.

Can you prove it? Give me your best shot. I am a Civil/Structural engineer by trade. I can handle the technical argument and the math.
I think I'm beginning to understand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2023, 08:43 PM
 
427 posts, read 130,737 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I do not think that's a fair characterization.

Methodological naturalism does not assert that "man controls everything" or that there is "no order in the world" or that order is created by man wishing upon a star. It simply observes and measures. Sometimes, thereby, man does gain a degree of understanding and therefore control over certain things. But it's not the goal or the inherent purpose of investigating the natural world. I think it's mostly curiosity and a desire to make the world a less harsh and unpredictable place to live in.

As to an existing order, I think it's self-evident that we exist in the context of natural laws and forces, and I don't see anyone denying that. We might disagree on from whence that emanates but not on its existence. Man finds himself in a circumstance and attempts to understand how that works / came to be / how it might be harnessed or predicted to the general welfare. I see nothing wrong or nefarious in that.

It sounds like you are forcing a false dichotomy into the mix here, and suggesting that one has to choose between understanding the natural world or honoring god. Or conversely, that one must honor god through willful ignorance of what is knowable about the natural world.

Naturalism has defined what you are: a human organism with a finite life span on planet Earth. This could change. Naturalists foresee advancement in technology that can usher in a transhuman and posthuman world which lends itself to absolute control of God knows what.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2023, 09:28 PM
 
427 posts, read 130,737 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonof View Post
No, I don't. That's the reason I asked you to clarify what do you mean by "proof".
It is very strange choice of word when it comes to science.
And since you did not answer my question, in my mind the jury is still out on whether or not you have a fair understanding how the science works.


Can you tell what do you mean by "proof" or not?

Ok, this is better. Look, what I am pointing out is bordering on the incomprehensible. This is not the first time I have done this on the internet. The most successful attempt was with academics (physics) who could follow my reasoning but couldn't bring themselves to accept it.

I assure you that I know how the science works. I design structures, supervise construction, review erection procedures for heavy lifts of 800 tons using 3000 ton cranes offshore. One wrong move and the center of gravity could tip the barge. Imagine being in the middle of that catastrophe with that mother coming down on you as you're loosing your balance on a heaving and swaying vessel.

Forget the proof. Thanks for thinking about it anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2023, 10:40 PM
 
477 posts, read 127,579 times
Reputation: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by myuen2 View Post
Ok, this is better. Look, what I am pointing out is bordering on the incomprehensible. This is not the first time I have done this on the internet. The most successful attempt was with academics (physics) who could follow my reasoning but couldn't bring themselves to accept it.

I assure you that I know how the science works. I design structures, supervise construction, review erection procedures for heavy lifts of 800 tons using 3000 ton cranes offshore. One wrong move and the center of gravity could tip the barge. Imagine being in the middle of that catastrophe with that mother coming down on you as you're loosing your balance on a heaving and swaying vessel.

Forget the proof. Thanks for thinking about it anyway.
I think, I'm beginning to understand...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2023, 03:33 AM
 
Location: Germany
16,878 posts, read 5,063,341 times
Reputation: 2134
Quote:
Originally Posted by myuen2 View Post
Yes, I do.

"Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes", they say. The phenomena may be natural (i.e. not man-made); however, the causes always are cooked up by the naturalists.
It is not that science limits itself to naturalism, it is that naturalism is a conclusion of science, because that is what the evidence tells us. The cause is not 'cooked up', the cause is never an intelligent super being because there is no evidence for that idea. In over 2000 years, it has never been a god did it, even when the research has been done by religious people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2023, 03:34 AM
 
Location: Germany
16,878 posts, read 5,063,341 times
Reputation: 2134
Quote:
Originally Posted by myuen2 View Post
Take the natural phenomenon of falling snow I saw this morning, and the weight of the box of beer I felt as I carried it from my car. It's a natural mystery to me. I don't accept the naturalist's belief that the snow and the beer were attracted by the Earth.

Can you prove it? Give me your best shot. I am a Civil/Structural engineer by trade. I can handle the technical argument and the math.
Can you explain it using your god hypothesis? Not just assert a god did it, explain it, as in how a god did it, how a god knew how do do it, and how you know about what this god knows?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2023, 04:06 AM
 
Location: Germany
16,878 posts, read 5,063,341 times
Reputation: 2134
Quote:
Originally Posted by myuen2 View Post
Ok, this is better. Look, what I am pointing out is bordering on the incomprehensible. This is not the first time I have done this on the internet. The most successful attempt was with academics (physics) who could follow my reasoning but couldn't bring themselves to accept it.

I assure you that I know how the science works. I design structures, supervise construction, review erection procedures for heavy lifts of 800 tons using 3000 ton cranes offshore. One wrong move and the center of gravity could tip the barge. Imagine being in the middle of that catastrophe with that mother coming down on you as you're loosing your balance on a heaving and swaying vessel.

Forget the proof. Thanks for thinking about it anyway.
And yet you want 'proof' that 'that masses attract each other'?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2023, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
20,221 posts, read 13,632,588 times
Reputation: 10091
Quote:
Originally Posted by myuen2 View Post
Naturalism has defined what you are: a human organism with a finite life span on planet Earth. This could change. Naturalists foresee advancement in technology that can usher in a transhuman and posthuman world which lends itself to absolute control of God knows what.
Transhumanism is a fringe tech bro thing. Most people understand how much we don't understand, and how manipulating human genetics and physiology could have all sorts of unintended consequences. Judging from how even modest interventions are problematic (e.g., testosterone maintenance as men age to delay aging / improve aspects of stamina is both no substitute for good diet / physical fitness and is a likely cancer risk increase) I see this kind of thing as a self-limiting problem. Wealthy clowns might only get these interventions, and that might actually be in everyone's best interest, since the interventions aren't likely to pan out and the rest of us won't waste our time and $.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2023, 12:40 PM
 
427 posts, read 130,737 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
It is not that science limits itself to naturalism, it is that naturalism is a conclusion of science, because that is what the evidence tells us. The cause is not 'cooked up', the cause is never an intelligent super being because there is no evidence for that idea. In over 2000 years, it has never been a god did it, even when the research has been done by religious people.

Precisely. Conclusions are all that naturalism can make based on observations of natural phenomena.

Take a simple example of naturalism's conclusion about itself as a belief that everything arises from natural causes. How does this belief arise? Is it a conclusion of science? What is the natural cause of the belief? What is the evidence upon which this conclusion is based?

Don't walk away from this conversation, Harry. You think religious people are idiots. I think naturalists are idiots also.

(Note: The word "idiot" is not being used here as a pejorative but in an objective sense equivalent to "coarse mind" affected by the primordial force of ignorance or avidya (sanskrit). I speak American.)
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.

© 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