| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
You poor ignorant wretch.  | ||
| Kenm123t |
AES Check out Hostage to the Devil by Malachi Martin You may find the section on The Rooster interesting The spirits you mentioned may be really Demons and they are LEGION! Look Up Malachi Martin on You tube a interesting man LOL Blake keep him on his toes | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/228088/movie -all-time-jonah-goldberg One of the great films. People will be discussing it's spiritual meaning for years. Verificationism as a world view has been universally rejected by philosophers since around the early 20th century when it was shown that the very foundational principles of science itself (the accuracy & reliability of human perception, the validity of logic and human reasoning) defy scientific verification. So..... philosophers reject science because it makes their "reasoned reality" subject to test? This isn't new. Aristotle wasn't real big on lab experiments either. You spend months, years, developing your magnum opus, the rationalization of all things, and with the dropping of a couple of balls, or actually observing the heavens, some peasant mechanic ruins it ALL!!!???? True, the "rationalization of all things" has long been a goal of science, since it's the bastard child of philosophy. Unified field theory anyone? The difference however is stark. I can argue about the whichness of when or the purpose of man. In the end, I may be considered great or a fool, My ideas may change the world, because of the actions of people who have heard them. But... If I make energy come out of a glass of water, I change the lives of millions who never heard of me. The Wright brothers were lowly bicycle mechanics. They didn't spend their lives contemplating the why of airplanes, they used experiment and reason to create the modern miracle that you can't catch because there's a storm in Chicago. | ||
| Blake |
>>> So..... philosophers reject science because it makes their "reasoned reality" subject to test? No, nothing of the sort. Philosophers did/do not reject science. They rejected verificationism, the view that science was the only source of knowledge. Verificationism was proved self-refuting, since science itself cannot be shown valid via science. We cannot use human perception and/reason to prove the validity or accuracy of same. Ditto for logic. At some point we are forced to trust. Absent that, nothing may be truly known beyond the observation of Sartre that Innes quoted, "I think, therefore I am." So in truth, virtually all of us operate on faith. | ||
| Aesquire |
 | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
So in truth, virtually all of us operate on faith. You'd better believe it!  | ||
| Aesquire |
The point of this thread is that just the numbers do not adequately describe reality. Verificationism (first time I'd heard that one) is a bit simplistic but wishing doesn't keep the airplane up. ( if it does a Lot of stuff needs a new look ) Otoh it looks like wishing might have something to do with tiny quantum things. Since all the bigger stuff depends on the little stuff............. Being rejected by philosophers, however, proves nothing except the crop of philosophers you survey are sheep. Atheists reject God. Communists reject capitalism. Ford fans reject Chevy. Or....in the immortal words of Plato. "I drank what?" | ||
| Aesquire |
My favorite teachers were persecuted for heresy. Plato Jesus Extra points for ID on this one "it still moves" | ||
| Blake |
>>> Being rejected by philosophers, however, proves nothing except the crop of philosophers you survey are sheep. Verificationism wasn't merely rejected by philosophers; it was proved fallacious due to self-contradictory reasoning. Verificationism was proved self-refuting, since science itself cannot be shown valid via science. We cannot use human perception and/reason to prove the validity or accuracy of same. Ditto for logic. But hey, if there isn't anything that proves anything, then saying that something doesn't prove a thing is quite meaningless, no? What do we know for certain (what can be truly proved true) and how do we know that? | ||
| Blake |
To clarify, Verificationism said that “a sentence is meaningless unless some finite procedure can conclusively verify its truth.” But there is no finite procedure that can conclusively verify the truth of that statement. Thus by it's own definition, Verificationism itself is meaningless. It's akin to the now popular Relativism, which states (paraphrasing) that "There is no absolute truth. Truth is relative to each person and their perspective." Well, is that absolutely true? LOL! You can't make this stuff up. Yet lots of folks fall for it. The absurd lengths to which some academics are willing to go in order to eliminate metaphysics from the realm of meaningful discussion is bewildering. It constitutes the "intellectual" version of plugging one's ears and loudly proclaiming "nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-..." to avoid having to consider other people's ideas. Interesting discussion. | ||
| Aesquire |
Sounds like verificationism is the invention of seriously uptight folk. I think I'll stand back at least one step from that. I'm good at the Missouri level. "show me". And at the core, faith is required to set your definitions of reality. I'm amused at folk that think Science is Settled or that we know everything. It happens every generation. The patent office was going to close because we invented everything. That was a century ago. They are always wrong. Show me a gravity generator. Explain why your prediction of eco-doom didn't happen. ( I often can tell THEM ) Where are the flying cars? I'm always interested in the edgier parts of science. The mainstream stuff, basic laws that work within common, earth normal conditions, are mostly not in dispute. Get fast, slow, cold, hot, small, or large, and it takes more than Newton to explain. My assertion is that experimental science, with it's method of testing a theory, and disproving the wrong ones, is a useful tool. Science never proves something absolutely, it just makes closer guesses to how things work. Classic Philosophy lacks the correction mechanism built into Science, so failed ideas just keep on going. ( alas, also true in bureaucratic science. Which is why NASA is now a Muslim Outreach Program ) See the Relativists, pretty obviously spoiled brats who hate limits on their personal indulgences. Many people have said over the years that the real reason people hate the Jews is they introduced feeling guilty for being bad. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic= 1856 | ||
| Blake |
Correction mechanism? You mean like the one employed by Michael Mann and friends? Seriously though, logic and reason are just as viable for falsifying philosophical ideas as empirical evidence or mathematics are for falsifying scientific theories. It's how Verificationism was debunked. Science is surely useful, a lot more so than probably most philosophers! | ||
| Aesquire |
 Instead of correction mechanism, I should have said "feedback", My bad. There's certainly an "establishment" in Science. When an elder expert tells you something is impossible, it might not be. Or it might. This belongs on a conspiracy thread.... but Cold Fusion looked like it might be real, and that the fuddy duddys were wrong. I still don't know the whole story, but there may be an unexplored little branch of physics worth exploring, or it may be misunderstanding of experimental results. What it might be is an example of "Reed Richards Is Useless". http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReedRichardsIsUseless http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSparkOfGenius If Someone can make palladium electrodes, and HIS did fusion, you'd have an example of Wizardry. Reality shaping. Which fits in with the subject at hand. Just speculation. | ||
| Midknyte |
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/m ysteries_of_the_universe/2014/02/what_if_we_ve_mis understood_our_place_in_the_universe_a_harvard_ast ronomer.html | ||
| Aesquire |
More and more folk are wondering if we are really missing some fundamental principals. Dark matter? Sure. Lots of not glowing stuff in th Universe. Dark energy? Really getting mixed results on experiments. The LHS is either not strong enough to make the particles they predict or the experiments are wrong or they don't exist. Interesting times in science. Not settled. We just went through one of the periodic "we know it all" phases and are back to more questions than answers. Which imho is how it should be. | ||
| Blake |
Neutrinos might be interesting to figure out. | ||
| Aesquire |
Lots of questions there. We've built detectors, usually huge tanks of fluid deep underground with arrays of photo detectors to pick up tiny flashes of light from the rare neutrino interactions. When we try and measure the output of the Sun, the numbers come out too low. So either the detector doesn't work so good, the theory on how many neutrinos the Sun puts out are wrong, or the Sun went out. All are possible. If Fusion processes in the Suns Core stopped, it would take a while for it to change the photon output on the surface. The Sun may start & stop all the time. BTFOM. Neutrinos are odd little buggers. http://what-if.xkcd.com/73/ | ||
| Daddio |
Seen around my town...  too lazy to go looking for one actually on a car. Lead, SD, home of the Sanford Underground Labs | ||
| Julie |
 Lol theism. If you believe in some magical super being ruling over the universe, well then, let me tell you about this bridge I have for sale. | ||
| Blake |
You may "LOL" as you wish, but deep down you indeed do know the truth, that God is real and does exist. On atheism, tell us how you can know anything about the external world, just one thing that you know for certain, and how you know it. On naturalism/materialism there is no free will, no mind, just a collection of matter obeying the natural laws. That is a poor basis for truth. | ||
| Hootowl |
Deeply flawed reasoning there. Non sequitur, really. It does not follow that because the universe is vast, God does not exist. | ||
| Sifo |
You may "LOL" as you wish, but deep down you indeed do know the truth, that God is real and does exist. You are dealing with someone who also claims that a baby in the womb doesn't meet the scientific definition of life. Sad that this comes from an MD. I only remember 2 of here 11 posts here at BadWeB, and both were full of BS. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I thought the cartoon was funny, but I thought it was funny because it poked fun at social conservatives that use the bible to control people. I think cartoons that make fun of that are almost as funny as cartoons that make fun of liberals that use social policy to try and control people. Two sides of the same coin, and more alike than either would like to admit. If you read scripture objectively, the sin of Onan wasn't self gratification, it was the fact that he failed to honor a cultural and legal obligation to his extended family. He was taking advantage of a widow during a time in history when women had almost no rights, and he was denying her the one path to some level of independence that was available to her (a pretty awful one, but better than her other options) It was evil for Onan to pretend to fulfill his legal obligations, but deny her what she was entitled to under the law. The other funny part of the cartoon on a deeper level is irony, particularly in this thread. Physics show that a quanta of light becomes either a wave or a particle depending if somebody is looking or not. Julie can accept that easily, but then declares it absurd that a universe full of things we can't even begin to explain might have been created by something with some level of consciousness. I guess I'm just easily amused.  | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I guess I'm just easily amused. About as easily I'm bored I reckon.  | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
If you think about it does any of it make sense? Existence is a riddle. How does something spring from nothing? How can there be no beginning or end? A God makes as much sense as anything else. However, I do believe religion has diminished God and made him out to be small and human-like. Some people actually believe the disciples drank Jesus blood at the Last Supper. God has been dumbed down for the infantile among us. There is speculation that the universe is one big "computer". That it is "alive" for lack of a better term. Does that not sound like God? | ||
| Blake |
I can appreciate the humor. The no masturbating command is quite funny. But that's not my god, so I guess you could say that Julie and I both don't believe in that god. Atheists typically try to invent their own version of God so that they can use it as a straw man. Anyone who has thoughtfully read the New Testament could never honestly accept the perverse characterizations of Jesus that God-hating atheists are willing to contrive. I was listening to Ravi Zacharias the other day and he related a great characterization of what sin is:
(Message edited by blake on March 11, 2014) (Message edited by blake on March 13, 2014) | ||
| Sifo |
If that's what someone gets from Christianity, they kind of missed the point. I'm guessing she's smarter than that though. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Blake Ravi is speaking here wed morning I am trying to rearrange a job meeting so I can go Do you remember his statement " That there exists no form of depravity sin or Corruption that you cannot find a Professor to defend" Some days I feel I am reliving the middle ages listening to the climate change idiots and the Planned Parenthood murderers running free | ||
| Aesquire |
If She weighs as much as a duck, She's a Witch! Now, was "thou shalt not masturbate" one of the Commandments Moses dropped in "History Of The World Pt1"? I think it was after "never draw to an inside straight" and before "never start a land war in Asia". |
