Origin of Earth

[Dr.Who]

Correct.

However, the ideas im talking about here are those that exist outside our own existence. We dont make them up. We only discern them.

Aha! Lightbulb goes on.

Yes yes I agree.

Ideas as external reality that we merely discover are purely non-subjective and also not dedendent on senses.

Thank you Numinus!!

 

[numinus]

Hmm? Im not so sure ideas have objective reality. To be objective several of us must observe it. And for several of us to observe it we must use our senses.

In fact a quick check on the definition of "objective" shows me that most definitions require that the object being considered be material. Thought are not material. Thought are also not dependent on the senses.

Thoughts may be, as you seem to be saying the only things that are not dependent on the senses. But since objective things are dependent on the senses thoughts would be uniquely free of dependence on senses - but only until they are shared with another.

No.

Remember pi? Anyone with a rudimentary intelligence would come up with the same value for pi by merely dividing the circumference of any circle with its diameter. Same goes with the base of the natural logarithmic function, e.

In fact, if some alien has only, say, three fingers -- the number system he would be inclined to use is the tertiary number system (unlike humans who have 10 fingers and are predisposed to the decimal system) and the values of pi and e (as well as any of the naturally occurring transcendental numbers) would be the same -- they would be expressed as a non-repeating, non-terminating rational number.

 

[numinus]

Aha! Lightbulb goes on.

Yes yes I agree.

Ideas as external reality that we merely discover are purely non-subjective and also not dedendent on senses.

Thank you Numinus!!

Oh....ok.

 

[clarkatticus]

What I meant was the experience itself is empirical.

Lets say two people listen to the same music at the same time. One was into it and the other god bored and slept the entire time.

Getting excited about music is an experience hence empirical. It goes with other measurable phenomena -- like increased heartbeat, adrenalin, etc. Getting bored is an experience, in the same way. So, there are two, entirely opposite experiences from the same stimuli.

Hence, an empirical phenomenon may not necessarily be sensory.



I disagree. Our senses is very subjective. Remember the wave-particle duality? Interpretation of wave and particle aspects of a phenomenon is explained from the subjective view of the observer.

Objective evidence or proof is possible only in the realm of ideas.

Clearly, the distinction goes to the heart of the question.

How did the conversation theology vs science end up with a discussion on Schrodinger's cat and Descartes (I think, therefore I am)? I think we are gilding the lilly here. Just because a person cannot understand the universe and it's meaning, constructing a diety for this purpose is no more an answer than fudging the results of a scientific test. Still, feel free to believe in what you will and understand just because I'm an athiest, I am not your enemy, I'm just another dude.

 

[Dr.Who]

How did the conversation theology vs science end up with a discussion on Schrodinger's cat and Descartes (I think, therefore I am)? I think we are gilding the lilly here. Just because a person cannot understand the universe and it's meaning, constructing a diety for this purpose is no more an answer than fudging the results of a scientific test. Still, feel free to believe in what you will and understand just because I'm an athiest, I am not your enemy, I'm just another dude.

We agree that we do not understand the universe. We also agree that creating a deity and fudging science are both not the answer.

An examination of both religion and science indicates that neither at their best claims to be created or fudged. Let us only examine arguments that claim to be genuine. Let us throw out those that do not make any claims to objective truth. Then with a sound rational for deciding what to accept and what to reject we can move on toward a more complete understanding.

 

[clarkatticus]

I agree with you method, but the answer is unattainable, all religion relies on faith, an ethereal thought process unique to each individual. All science relies on tests and known theorms and postulates, all of which can be proved wrong with the discovery of new facts or reintrepreted tests. Life goes on in the interrum, this is where I'm at.

 

[numinus]

How did the conversation theology vs science end up with a discussion on Schrodinger's cat and Descartes (I think, therefore I am)? I think we are gilding the lilly here.

When one asks for evidence to prove something, one necessarily has to qualify what sort of evidence one requires, no? Hence a discussion on epistemology.

Just because a person cannot understand the universe and it's meaning, constructing a diety for this purpose is no more an answer than fudging the results of a scientific test.

Correct.

The thing is, we are concerned about the fundamental nature of EXISTENCE. One can as easily assert, by logical commutation, the existence of a creator in much the same way that one can assert the existence of say, gravity.

Remember, the nature of gravity in classical mechanics is much, much different than that in relativity physics. One talks about an inverse square function in the former and a space-time curvature in the latter -- both interpretations accruing to (almost) the same experimental results.

Still, feel free to believe in what you will and understand just because I'm an athiest, I am not your enemy, I'm just another dude.

I am not denying your freedom to believe according to your conscience. I am merely wondering if your belief (along with a lot of others in this forum) have any logical or factual basis to begin with.

 

[Dr.Who]

I agree with you method, but the answer is unattainable, all religion relies on faith, an ethereal thought process unique to each individual. All science relies on tests and known theorms and postulates, all of which can be proved wrong with the discovery of new facts or reintrepreted tests. Life goes on in the interrum, this is where I'm at.

Not be be rude, honestly you simply fail to understand a concept that is rarely taught and is not often learned. I do not blame you nor think less of you in any way. Study the nature and philospophy of science and you will see that it too relies on faith. Then study religion and see if it too does not also have tests and theories that can be proved wrong.

 

[clarkatticus]

When one asks for evidence to prove something, one necessarily has to qualify what sort of evidence one requires, no? Hence a discussion on epistemology.



Correct.

The thing is, we are concerned about the fundamental nature of EXISTENCE. One can as easily assert, by logical commutation, the existence of a creator in much the same way that one can assert the existence of say, gravity.

Remember, the nature of gravity in classical mechanics is much, much different than that in relativity physics. One talks about an inverse square function in the former and a space-time curvature in the latter -- both interpretations accruing to (almost) the same experimental results.



I am not denying your freedom to believe according to your conscience. I am merely wondering if your belief (along with a lot of others in this forum) have any logical or factual basis to begin with.

You presuppose belief, I have none. If I need answers to questions, I simply look for methods of resolution. Why are we here? What does our life mean? Both questions I don't need to answer, if indeed they have an answer. In my youth I felt the group pressure to know these things, in finding no credible results, I asked the next question, what service would be provided knowing these things? Nada. In your quest to find self enlightenment and awareness to feed your drive, take comfort in the fact that I am a self-starter with no need to tilt windmills.

 

[clarkatticus]

Not be be rude, honestly you simply fail to understand a concept that is rarely taught and is not often learned. I do not blame you nor think less of you in any way. Study the nature and philospophy of science and you will see that it too relies on faith. Then study religion and see if it too does not also have tests and theories that can be proved wrong.

I would take exception to real science needing faith, I believe that is exactly what it's purpose is to overcome. Finding clues to targeted problems, using them to make concrete discoveries to better help our society. Constantly questioning these same discoveries and the clues that led to them instead of making dogma to be strictly followed under threat of eternal damnation-no, science is different than faiths.

 

[clarkatticus]

Before you start with the normal examples of how science has been wrong, misused, politicized, hold your fingers. Science is a human endeavor, such things happen, but true science aims at all truths, never satisfied with current belief, it keeps looking.

 

[numinus]

You presuppose belief, I have none. If I need answers to questions, I simply look for methods of resolution. Why are we here? What does our life mean? Both questions I don't need to answer, if indeed they have an answer.

But they do have answers. And you will live your life depending on your answer -- right or wrong. We ask these questions because we are rational individuals. As such, our actions need to have meaning -- a principle of volition. Otherwise, we are no more than animals who eat, sleep defecate and fornicate whenever we please.

In my youth I felt the group pressure to know these things, in finding no credible results, I asked the next question, what service would be provided knowing these things? Nada. In your quest to find self enlightenment and awareness to feed your drive, take comfort in the fact that I am a self-starter with no need to tilt windmills.

It serves a fundamental purpose. It gives the impetus to all our actions.

 

[numinus]

Before you start with the normal examples of how science has been wrong, misused, politicized, hold your fingers. Science is a human endeavor, such things happen, but true science aims at all truths, never satisfied with current belief, it keeps looking.

If truth is confined to the way objects work, then sure, you can say that science aims at all truths. There really is more to human existence than what science tells you.

 

[Dr.Who]

I would take exception to real science needing faith, I believe that is exactly what it's purpose is to overcome. Finding clues to targeted problems, using them to make concrete discoveries to better help our society. Constantly questioning these same discoveries and the clues that led to them instead of making dogma to be strictly followed under threat of eternal damnation-no, science is different than faiths.

Real science is indeed firmly rooted on a foundation of faith. I am not talking about the pop science we see on tv, but real science, science at its very best.

In your paragraph you are contrasting an idealized science against a demonized religious practice. In reality science is not so ideal as to be free of faith and religion is not so greatly biased as to be rightly characterized as dogma and threats.

 

[Dr.Who]

Before you start with the normal examples of how science has been wrong, misused, politicized, hold your fingers. Science is a human endeavor, such things happen, but true science aims at all truths, never satisfied with current belief, it keeps looking.

I agree. I has been wrong and abused by fallible people. Such things happen. It aims for truth. Are you going to be as gracious toward religion to say that the same is true?

Yes science does aim at truth, etc. It does so through a set of principles that guide it and hopefully reduce bias.

Do you know the difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning? Which provides proof and which is based on biased and human observations? On which is the foundation of science built?