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.
NO. NO NO NO NO NO! GUESSING WILL NEVER EQUATE TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
The huge difference is that science self corrects. UNLIKE your faith.
How does any of this dispute the part of my post you bolded? Truth is truth...because it's truth...and ONLY because it's truth. Your guess could come up with truth...while my testing comes up with false data because of errors. You need to get hip to that.
I wasn't combing through your old posts, I just remembered one from one of my old threads. You aren't rubbing off on me. If you were I should be declaring invisible yogurt is real.
Indirect and circumstantial evidence aren't the best at finding the truth. They're the best at finding personal truth, but not truth based in reality. Looking at fossils are empirical observations, not intuition.
The reality is that intuition and perception are subjective while the scientific method. You must like the word hip. Maybe it's time for you to get hip to the fact that empirical observation is the best way to find truth.
Invisible yogurt is real...if it IS real...if it isn't...it's not.
Fossils are indirect evidence of evolution...illustrating the point I was making.
Love that 1st sentence of the last paragraph...let me finish it:
...is nothing more than a way to try to test a hunch, and has many times resulted in erroneous information being presented as fact. Like that?! I do.
How does any of this dispute the part of my post you bolded? Truth is truth...because it's truth...and ONLY because it's truth. Your guess could come up with truth...while my testing comes up with false data because of errors. You need to get hip to that.
No, you are only guessing, science weeds out errors, your guessing doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Info gained by intuition and perception could turn out to be true---and info gained by the "scientific method"...could turn out to be false. And Visa-Versa. To dismiss one or the other...is ridiculous. To claim one begets truth, while the other is incapable of doing so...is ridiculous.
You are clearly trying to claim that guessing (intuition and perception) will give a 50/50 chance of success.
That is clearly not the case.
No, you are only guessing, science weeds out errors, your guessing doesn't.
You are clearly trying to claim that guessing (intuition and perception) will give a 50/50 chance of success.
That is clearly not the case.
Science attempts to weed out errors...sometimes it succeeds at that...sometimes it fails.
You are right...intuition and perception isn't a 50/50 right/wrong proposition....more like 99.9999/1 right/ wrong. This is based on averaging in the millions of "right" perceptions, and "correct" intuitive conclusions. Like, for example...my perception that the other 3 cars at the four-way stop sign intersection will let me pass and not just run into me. Or that the vehicle in the other lane won't cross over and hit me head-on. We can't prove stuff like that empirically...it's just based on our intuition--but it's holds true almost every time. I'm sure you catch my drift.
MOF real life is based on jillions of bits of info based on intuition and perception...adding up to the vast majority of the data we deal with, day in and day out...and a very tiny, infinitesimal bit of "empirically proved" data. But then, you already know this. Regardless, you will still make ridiculous claims of intuition and perception gained data being less than 50/50...like the typical absurd claim in your post. If you are going to put forth an argument...at least refrain from off-the-wall claims.
Science attempts to weed out errors...sometimes it succeeds at that...sometimes it fails.
Failures are found and corrected in science, unlike your intuition, never tested for a flat earth, but who cares, intuition says it is flat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You are right...intuition and perception isn't a 50/50 right/wrong proposition....more like 99.9999/1 right/ wrong. This is based on averaging in the millions of "right" perceptions, and "correct" intuitive conclusions. Like, for example...my perception that the other 3 cars at the four-way stop sign intersection will let me pass and not just run into me. Or that the vehicle in the other lane won't cross over and hit me head-on. We can't prove stuff like that empirically...it's just based on our intuition--but it's holds true almost every time. I'm sure you catch my drift.
Intuition has been a lousy way to understand the universe. From the earth was flat, too demons causing illnesses, intuition has failed at understanding, the nature, of nature.
Of course you can empirically verify that most people follow, for the most part the road rules!
That would be one of the most simplest test you could run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
MOF real life is based on jillions of bits of info based on intuition and perception...adding up to the vast majority of the data we deal with, day in and day out...and a very tiny, infinitesimal bit of "empirically proved" data. But then, you already know this. Regardless, you will still make ridiculous claims of intuition and perception gained data being less than 50/50...like the typical absurd claim in your post. If you are going to put forth an argument...at least refrain from off-the-wall claims.
Name one thing in your life you haven't tested before doing? Would you try and walk on liquid water? No, because you have independently empirically verify that the surface tension of water can not support your weight on earth.
YOU KNOW ALL THIS ALREADY BECAUSE YOU SPEND YOUR CHILDHOOD TESTING THE UNIVERSE AROUND YOU, AND LEARNING FROM OTHERS.
To even suggest you have enough knowledge at the moment to PRESUME the nature, of nature... just astounding... the level of denial you must have.
Name one thing in your life you haven't tested before doing? Would you try and walk on liquid water? No, because you have independently empirically verify that the surface tension of water can not support your weight on earth.
YOU KNOW ALL THIS ALREADY BECAUSE YOU SPEND YOUR CHILDHOOD TESTING THE UNIVERSE AROUND YOU, AND LEARNING FROM OTHERS.
To even suggest you have enough knowledge at the moment to PRESUME the nature, of nature... just astounding... the level of denial you must have.
Oh yeah, all the kids I ever knew, including myself, were running test after test...utilizing the Scientific Method, of course...to learn all about "the universe around us". We never used our intuition and perception...especially when forming friendships, and the like. I mean, com'on...we would never be so foolish to function without testing first!
I lived in a small town so we had a Regional Review Center that we submitted our findings to...the kids in the larger towns and cities had local, dedicated Review Centers. I still have the stacks of reports in boxes in the attic. Isn't it fun to pull them out and read them?!!
Einstein believed a God existed. That means he agreed with me...and didn't agree with you. And you never answered my question--Don't the theological conclusions of those scientists (Newton, Einstein, and Collins)...the finest of minds to employ critical thinking, and deductive reasoning...mean anything to YOU?
And if you believe these theological conclusions, you determine that god is either personal or impersonal, Christian unitarian, Christian trinitarian or metaphor for the mysteries of the universe. So basically god maybe exists in some form but no believers can agree on what that really means, and that's supposed to be convincing evidence that faith is a good way to figure things out? You're disproving your own ideas for us.
Dude, the existence of God is true...because it IS true
No it isn't, and I know this through intuition and perception. This is a valid way to figure out stuff about god, right? You've been telling us all along that it is so I think it's only fair we get to use it too. Unfortunately that just makes things devolve into a series of "is too" "is not" nonsense, but I guess dragging things down to that level is the only way faith can compete with the more mature ways of generating knowledge.
Quote:
I was just pointing out that some of the finest minds that ever existed...that I would venture to say were much better than you or I to apply critical thinking and deductive reasoning...determined that a God exists.
Would you stop believing if we found a scientist who was not a believer? If not, why do you think that pointing out a few who are believers means anything?
Quote:
One would have to say your most exalted of "scientists" are wrong to determine otherwise. I submit...the list of Newton, Bacon, Einstein, and Collins...trumps any other list you could put up.
Yep, Einstein's view on god should be accepted 100% : "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. "
You're telling us that an authority you respect on religious belief says your beliefs are childish. I'd agree, but somehow I'm not sure you meant to make that point. Again you do more damage to your own case than anyone else possibly could.
Anything in life can be accepted. There's no reason to think that God's means of creation IS evolution. There's no reason not to believe that God's "hands" are busy creating, and recreating, and recreating, NOW.
Seek other's opinions, but find your own answers. Seek God with no intermediary. God is YOUR personal one.
No it isn't, and I know this through intuition and perception. This is a valid way to figure out stuff about god, right? You've been telling us all along that it is so I think it's only fair we get to use it too. Unfortunately that just makes things devolve into a series of "is too" "is not" nonsense, but I guess dragging things down to that level is the only way faith can compete with the more mature ways of generating knowledge.
Would you stop believing if we found a scientist who was not a believer? If not, why do you think that pointing out a few who are believers means anything?
Yep, Einstein's view on god should be accepted 100% : "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. "
You're telling us that an authority you respect on religious belief says your beliefs are childish. I'd agree, but somehow I'm not sure you meant to make that point. Again you do more damage to your own case than anyone else possibly could.
KC!! What's up Buddy! I knew you'd come out of the woodwork...my cranking always draws you out. Kinda predictable though.
Check this out: Einstein & Faith - TIME And you say what of this?
I know that you guys hate it that Einstein believed God existed...but you'll just have to suck it up...and continue to march.
Pointing out that many of the greatest scientists of all time...in all genres...were Believers...is just to illustrate that ones productive use of the Scientific Method to determine the accuracy of data, and draw conclusions about things...does not proscribe belief in the existence of God. Their belief in God didn't make them "delusional" or prone to "faith in fairytales"...it was a compliment to all they discovered. It is typical of Atheists to purport that you can't put credence in something that can't be objectively verified...the belief of these men is merely an exclamation point to the fallacy of that concept.
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.
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.
Of Course
