TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- 'No God' Ads, Soon To Appear On TTC Vehicles, Spark Heated Debate
Pages (18): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 »

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan that's the whole point of phenomenons and supernatural events. it is not produceable at snap of finger well, i suppose you can get a bunch of imams and priests and 'demon possessed' people and stick them in a lab, but exactly what will that prove? (or disprove) ah yes. exploring the unknown. adventures of science!

Well, you're basically telling me that there is no way to scientifically justify a belief that these types of events are real. In other words, we can only "believe" them based on anecdotal evidence, which is often going to be wrong (whether or not the people performing the exorcism think it is real). To me, this does not constitute "belief". It is "faith", which means believing something without evidence. And this is precisely what I am so against. See scientific skepticism.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Well, do pink unicorns make sense? Maybe. I think people should be less inclusive in what they're willing to believe sometimes. Even defining belief is hard. But what science tells us is that if we have a model of the world and something comes around that is inconsistent with that model, then either it is false, or the model needs to be redefined. If the latter is true, we need to update our laws of physics to take ghosts and spirits into account (what kind of forces do they exert on the atoms and molecules in the brains of a human that is possessed? What forces cause these effects to vanish? etc.) We constantly do this; for example, some older models of quantum mechanics have been disproven experimentally in favour of quantum field theory. But to rewrite so much of physics to allow room for ghosts and spirits and exorcisms... this seems like an unlikely explanation.

it's going to be so hard for you to consider the possibility that without needing to rewrite science, stuff just... happens sometimes

�How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?�
-Sherlock Holmes

I wouldn't put so much faith (lol) into physics.

edit Just to clarify before all the physics nerds bust a vain that in no way am I trying to put down the field of physics since it is something that I find extremely fascinating (and mind-boggling) but just because "physics" can't explain something doesn't mean it's false. You can't with any certainty whatsoever say that our current day models explain everything through and through.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Well, you're basically telling me that there is no way to scientifically justify a belief that these types of events are real. In other words, we can only "believe" them based on anecdotal evidence, which is often going to be wrong (whether or not the people performing the exorcism think it is real). To me, this does not constitute "belief". It is "faith", which means believing something without evidence. And this is precisely what I am so against. See scientific skepticism.

I'd supporter your position, if you can prove to me that science is infallible, and has answers to all possible natural or in this case, supernatural phenomenons

quote:

Originally posted by infinity HiGH I wouldn't put so much faith (lol) into physics.

There is a fundamental difference at work here. I can go to a lab and test physics myself. I can do the experiments and convince myself that the laws of physics hold. This is not faith. This is observation and inductive reasoning, which form the cornerstone of all scientific investigation. Science is not faith. Science allows us to conclude things based on evidence, where concluding things based on faith, by definition, means accepting them as true WITHOUT evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot There is a fundamental difference at work here. I can go to a lab and test physics myself. I can do the experiments and convince myself that the laws of physics hold. This is not faith. This is observation and inductive reasoning, which form the cornerstone of all scientific investigation. Science is not faith. Science allows us to conclude things based on evidence, where concluding things based on faith, by definition, means accepting them as true WITHOUT evidence.

well, your position is that human perception is not credible enough source of evidence, but supernatural phenomenon has no other way to present evidence of its existence

kind of a hard sell, if you ask me

edit: elyot, if you were to observe one of these exorcisms or 'miracles' first hand, what would you think?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot There is a fundamental difference at work here. I can go to a lab and test physics myself. I can do the experiments and convince myself that the laws of physics hold. This is not faith. This is observation and inductive reasoning, which form the cornerstone of all scientific investigation. Science is not faith. Science allows us to conclude things based on evidence, where concluding things based on faith, by definition, means accepting them as true WITHOUT evidence.

So all the scientific fact as we know it is, and always has been, absolute? What we know today as truth and fact, has always been the same truth and fact? Will always be the same truth and fact?

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan I'd supporter your position, if you can prove to me that science is infallible, and has answers to all possible natural or in this case, supernatural phenomenons

The general argument that most people give in response to this is that science is the most pragmatic approach to the acquisition of "knowledge", whatever one defines that as. Specifically, science allows us to *make predictions* about the outcomes of future experiments. I can use the principles of science to calculate how strong the steel needs to be in order to build a tower. GPS wouldn't work without compensating for effects that can only be predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. Quantum mechanics lets us build transistors and quantum computers.

Science is the best possible tool we have for acquiring knowledge that can be used to make decisions. Faith makes no useful predictions.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot The general argument that most people give in response to this is that science is the most pragmatic approach to the acquisition of "knowledge", whatever one defines that as. Specifically, science allows us to *make predictions* about the outcomes of future experiments. I can use the principles of science to calculate how strong the steel needs to be in order to build a tower. GPS wouldn't work without compensating for effects that can only be predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. Quantum mechanics lets us build transistors and quantum computers. Science is the best possible tool we have for acquiring knowledge that can be used to make decisions. Faith makes no useful predictions.

not acceptable enough

if you're going to use science to disprove faith or supernaturals, science must be infallible, or else it's no better than someone using faith to disprove science
science has to be THE ultimate authority, and cannot be challenge

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie So all the scientific fact as we know it is, and always has been, absolute? What we know today as truth and fact, has always been the same truth and fact? Will always be the same truth and fact?

You're attacking a straw man here. I never claimed this. By *inductive reasoning*, as I mentioned, one can assume that if one throws a ball into the air 100 times and sees it fall each time, then one can assume with reasonable confidence that it will fall when thrown for the 101st time. But science is constantly changing and updating its models when experiments disagree with what current models predict. We've had this time and time again, with newton and einstein and quantum mechanics and so on... that's the beauty of science. When the experiment disagrees with the model, we update the model. Religion does know such thing. When people discover million year old dinosaur bones that disagree with the biblical explanation of creation, religious fanatics make up ridiculous excuses like "they were put their by god to test your faith" or "your carbon dating is flawed". Religion changes the explanation to support the model. Science changes the model to agree with the observations.

How convenient.

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan not acceptable enough if you're going to use science to disprove faith or supernaturals, science must be infallible, or else it's no better than someone using faith to disprove science science has to be THE ultimate authority, and cannot be challenge

Oh come on dude, that is a stupid thing to say.

Science is just best guess. Science does abide by the laws of logic, so it does not come out and say something is a 100, either positive or negative--we work on probability--we test against our standards.

I already mentioned this very clearly:

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Science does not need to be portrayed as an amoral, apathetic, or sometime cynical point of view; on the contrary, science takes great delight in attempting to answer intricate questions of life, and takes even more delight in hypothesizing what we have yet to unravel. It is a roller coaster ride--sometimes you're right, and sometimes you're wrong; science is always in a state of flux, scientists exult when they are proven wrong by other scientists, because that's all more motivation for them to work harder. In short, science is the study of the world, of life, of the unknown--and I much rather take pleasure in not knowing certain things, but rather having the confidence, that as we advance, we'll get a little closer to the answers; as opposed to having all supposed answers provided in holy scripture--doesn't leave much room for the imagination does it...

When you say stupid shit like what jennypie is saying above--all that nonsense of absolute truth--it shows that you do not understand how the scientific method works. Which actually I am positive about now, she sounds like an idiot trying to play with words--on the other hand, you're smarter than that Yohan, I shouldn't be hearing these sorts of remarks from you.

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan not acceptable enough if you're going to use science to disprove faith or supernaturals, science must be infallible, or else it's no better than someone using faith to disprove science science has to be THE ultimate authority, and cannot be challenge

I'm not using science to "disprove" faith. One can never disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns using science or otherwise. Science gives us good evidence that we can use to make predictions and therefore make decisions. The point is not to learn the "absolute" truth about anything, because the "absolute" truth doesn't even exist.

My point is that if science tells you to grow tomatoes because they will grow well in your climate and soil type, but your holy book tells you to grow petunias because your deity, upon seeing fields of petunias, will cause grilled steaks to rain from the sky, then you should believe science, because at the end of the day, science will feed more people.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Oh come on dude, that is a stupid thing to say. Science is just best guess. Science does abide by the laws of logic, so it does not come out and say something is a 100, either positive or negative--we work on probability--we test against our standards.

what your saying is that science is 'good enough', not 'perfect'

honestly. would you be satisfied with something that is 'good enough' and a 'best guess'?

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan what your saying is that science is 'good enough', not 'perfect' honestly. would you be satisfied with something that is 'good enough' and a 'best guess'?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you rephrase it?

Also this is not my opinion, these are the rules that science operates within. Any scientist will tell you that the scientific method is designed to give an approximation. Now, if that approximation is verified through standard and universal models, than we can put a probabilistic number on it--the number is never 100.

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan edit: elyot, if you were to observe one of these exorcisms or 'miracles' first hand, what would you think?

Just saw your edit. To be honest, I'd probably be REALLY skeptical. Maybe somebody put some drugs in my dinner. Maybe they are faking it. Maybe it's all a placebo effect. Maybe I'm dreaming.

At the end of the day, science tells me that I need to update the model to agree with the observations. There are a lot of really WEIRD natural phenomena that DO have scientific explanations if you look hard enough.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot Just saw your edit. To be honest, I'd probably be REALLY skeptical. Maybe somebody put some drugs in my dinner. Maybe they are faking it. Maybe it's all a placebo effect. Maybe I'm dreaming. At the end of the day, science tells me that I need to update the model to agree with the observations. There are a lot of really WEIRD natural phenomena that DO have scientific explanations if you look hard enough.

well, at least you're on your way to believing that supernaturals may actually exist

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan well, at least you're on your way to believing that supernaturals may actually exist

Well, it really boils down to whether it is more correct to say:
(a) Invisible pink unicorns probably don't exist.
(b) Invisible pink unicorns don't exist.

This really boils down to the fundamental definition of knowledge itself. Nobody agrees on that. When you're talking about supernatural behaviour that people care about (god, jesus, allah, etc), then wording (a) seems a little less offensive, hence why we see it on the bus signs.

But obviously if there were incredible evidence in favour of the existence of invisible pink unicorns, that would change anything. But until that happens, I'm not gonna build a fence around my crops to protect them from invisible pink unicorns. I'm not going to make any decisions based on the potential of them existing.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie So all the scientific fact as we know it is, and always has been, absolute? What we know today as truth and fact, has always been the same truth and fact? Will always be the same truth and fact?

Atleast Science gives you a mechanism to check / recheck all your "facts" and get them straight if they are wrong. And do this through a rigorous mechanism based on experimentation, where you are constantly trying to correct your theory by making predictions and matching them with observations through a universally agreed unambiguous mechanism. Plus your theory is open for debate and can be challenged and disputed if discrepancies are found.

And for most part, scientific facts get refined and not rejected. Fact is that Newton's laws do not correctly describe the universe. Einstein's laws and Quantum physics bring us closer to a true description of the universe. That doesn't mean that Newton's laws are wrong. They are a special case of relativistic physics and valid for a limited subset of conditions...as in, correct when trying to calculate your weight when you are standing on the ground. But you travel at 90% of speed of light and Einstein will tell you (correctly) that you have put on a lot of weight

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie When you say stupid shit like what jennypie is saying above--all that nonsense of absolute truth--it shows that you do not understand how the scientific method works. Which actually I am positive about now, she sounds like an idiot trying to play with words--on the other hand, you're smarter than that Yohan, I shouldn't be hearing these sorts of remarks from you.

Lol...no need to get personal.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you rephrase it? Also this is not my opinion, these are the rules that science operates within. Any scientist will tell you that the scientific method is designed to give an approximation. Now, if that approximation is verified through standard and universal models, than we can put a probabilistic number on it--the number is never 100.

to use an analogy, let's say god is on trial and science is the prosecutor. science has put together a good case and in most courts, science would win.
but there is still possibility of holes in science's case, hence why science's case is 'good enough' not 'perfect'
and why i give god the benefit of doubt for existence, because science might be wrong (plus bunch of seemingly convincing supernatural stuff which at least to me, is worth exploring)

if i was sitting in a jury, probably guilty doesnt ring a bell with me

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan to use an analogy, let's say god is on trial and science is the prosecutor. science has put together a good case and in most courts, science would win. but there is still possibility of holes in science's case, hence why science's case is 'good enough' not 'perfect' and why i give god the benefit of doubt for existence, because science might be wrong (plus bunch of seemingly convincing supernatural stuff which at least to me, is worth exploring) if i was sitting in a jury, probably guilty doesnt ring a bell with me

that's perfect dude--I have no argument with you there.

As I've mentioned, I've always allowed the probability that a supreme being might exist. It'd be illogical of anyone not to leave any room for this probability, or anything else for that matter, including flying pigs. In short, anything is theoretically possible, nothing can be completely ruled out--all science does is attempt to establish "x" by putting a probabilistic number on "x." That's it. So once again, we agree.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie that's perfect dude--I have no argument with you there. As I've mentioned, I've always allowed the probability that a supreme being might exist. It'd be illogical of anyone not to leave any room for this probability, or anything else for that matter, including flying pigs. In short, anything is theoretically possible, nothing can be completely ruled out--all science does is attempt to establish "x" by putting a probabilistic number on "x." That's it. So once again, we agree.

so, are you atheist or agnostic? lol

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan so, are you atheist or agnostic? lol

I am very much against the effects of organized religion--you can say I'm an anti-theist in this regard. However, I'm naturally an agnostic, when it comes to the actual question of a supreme being. Although, if I did have to attribute anything to do a divine power; my views would be pantheistic than anything else--influenced by the doctrine of Stoicism.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie I am very much against the effects of organized religion--you can say I'm an anti-theist in this regard. However, I'm naturally an agnostic, when it comes to the actual question of a supreme being. Although, if I did have to attribute anything to do a divine power; my views would be pantheistic than anything else--influenced by the doctrine of Stoicism.

ok. i thought you were atheist like elyot, hence why i was a bit confused to some of your responses

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.