Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An infinite series of finite causes.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by element771 View Post
    Science also deals in absolutes...they are called laws.
    The laws of science are not absolutes; they are observations that have been validated to such a degree that we can reasonably act as if they are true.

    And my argument doesn't fall apart, we then have to argue the science.
    Well your argument does fall apart because you are selectively making a scientific argument that currently appears to support the theological creatio ex nihilo dogma, whilst resisting any scientific argument that says otherwise. That’s not science, it’s theology masquerading as science to give it extra clout.

    Why do you care if the science might not support that point in the future?

    Its their argument that is undercut.
    Because science may not support the theological argument in the future, it is pointless to use it to support the argument in the present...especially as it may inhibit the search for scientific truth.

    Also, the multiverse is built on three layers of speculation. I understand that it is in the conversation but it does not yet pose a serious alternative to the above. But we can have that conversation which will then determine how convincing the argument is.
    Agreed that multiverse concept is not an accepted scientific theory at this stage, but it cannot be discarded just because it undercuts theological “truths” about the beginning of the universe. Multiverse theory arose because of developments in several fields of physics such as quantum physics, cosmological physics and others all of which lead to some form of a multiverse. Not enough show with reasonable certainty at this stage, but it's a compelling possibility.

    However, this has in no way proven that the science is being missused in any way.
    It has. It is using a discipline, which is continually evolving, to support a discipline that deals in absolute truths. Worse, it resists any scientific developments that undercut alleged alignments between science and religion. Resistance to multiverse theory is a case in point as you and other theists demonstrate. .
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      I am calling you out on basic foundation science at the freshman level of college.
      THE cardinal sin in science is falsification of data.

      http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rlier-universe

      Seems like you don't even know that you aren't supposed to falsify data / information.

      For you to lecture me on science is hilarious to the point of being pathetic.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by element771 View Post
        THE cardinal sin in science is falsification of data.

        http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rlier-universe

        Seems like you don't even know that you aren't supposed to falsify data / information.

        For you to lecture me on science is hilarious to the point of being pathetic.
        Resorting to Ad hominem does not satisfy the reasonable logical requirement for a coherent answer:

        Answer the question.

        . . . it is unethical to misuse science to support a theological/philosophical argument that is not grounded in objective verifiable evidence either from a theist or atheist perspective despite the fact that scientific findings are neutral to either belief.

        Still waiting for examples of 'scientific findings' that may be used to support theological/philosophical question.

        Tassman also is on board on this one, and you have not responded to him either.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          The laws of science are not absolutes; they are observations that have been validated to such a degree that we can reasonably act as if they are true.
          What is the speed of light? Does that change? Is that not an absolute?

          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Well your argument does fall apart because you are selectively making a scientific argument that currently appears to support the theological creatio ex nihilo dogma, whilst resisting any scientific argument that says otherwise. That’s not science, it’s theology masquerading as science to give it extra clout.
          You are conflating the two as usual. If you don't use the currently most accepted hypothesis in science, what should you use?

          Originally posted by Tassman View Post

          Because science may not support the theological argument in the future, it is pointless to use it to support the argument in the present...especially as it may inhibit the search for scientific truth.
          By this logic, you can never use any science to support anything. What if it changes?

          Originally posted by Tassman View Post


          Agreed that multiverse concept is not an accepted scientific theory at this stage, but it cannot be discarded just because it undercuts theological “truths” about the beginning of the universe. Multiverse theory arose because of developments in several fields of physics such as quantum physics, cosmological physics and others all of which lead to some form of a multiverse. Not enough show with reasonable certainty at this stage, but it's a compelling possibility.
          I think...It is only a compelling possibility to you because you like that it undercuts the theological argument. If it supported it, you would be crying that it was pseudoscience.


          Originally posted by Tassman View Post

          It has. It is using a discipline, which is continually evolving, to support a discipline that deals in absolute truths. Worse, it resists any scientific developments that undercut alleged alignments between science and religion. Resistance to multiverse theory is a case in point as you and other theists demonstrate. .
          Again you are assuming too much. My objections to multiverse are 100% scientific. I personally don't care if there was a multiverse. I have already explained the science behind the multiverse and why it is not actual science.

          Also, on what planet are you living on where you think that it resits scientific development. Do you really think that scientists would curtail their research because of theological concerns?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Resorting to Ad hominem does not satisfy the reasonable logical requirement for a coherent answer:

            Answer the question.

            . . . it is unethical to misuse science to support a theological/philosophical argument that is not grounded in objective verifiable evidence either from a theist or atheist perspective despite the fact that scientific findings are neutral to either belief.

            Still waiting for examples of 'scientific findings' that may be used to support theological/philosophical question.
            The reason that it is the cardinal sin is that no one can ever trust anything you say ever again. Does your experience in "doing science for a living" not cover that?

            You have already started obfuscating the truth in the beginning of this thread.

            If you can show that you are not lying about this then maybe we can continue.

            Where have you published?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by element771 View Post
              What is the speed of light? Does that change? Is that not an absolute?
              No, the speed of light may not be an absolute.

              Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=variable+speed+of+light&oq=variable+speed+of+light&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.24572j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


              Variable speed of light. A variable speed of light (VSL) is a feature of a family of hypotheses stating that the speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by c, may in some way not be constant, e.g. varying in space or time, or depending on frequency.

              © Copyright Original Source



              Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/28/theory-challenging-einsteins-view-on-speed-of-light-could-soon-be-tested



              Theory challenging Einstein's view on speed of light could soon be tested

              The newborn universe may have glowed with light beams moving much faster than they do today, according to a theory that overturns Einstein’s century-old claim that the speed of light is a constant.

              João Magueijo, of Imperial College London, and Niayesh Afshordi, of the University of Waterloo in Canada, propose that light tore along at infinite speed at the birth of the universe when the temperature of the cosmos was a staggering ten thousand trillion trillion celsius.


              It is a theory Magueijo has being developing since the late 1990s, but in a paper published on Monday he and Afshordi describe for the first time how scientists can finally test the controversial idea. If right, the theory would leave a signature on the ancient radiation left over from the big bang, the so-called cosmic microwave background that cosmologists have observed with satellites.

              “We can say what the fluctuations in the early universe would have looked like, and these are the fluctuations that grow to form planets, stars and galaxies,” Afshordi told the Guardian.

              The speed of light in a vacuum is considered to be one of the fundamental constants of nature. Thanks to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, it was stamped in the annals of physics more than a century ago at about 1bn km/h. But while general relativity is one of the cornerstones of modern physics, scientists know that the rules of today did not hold at the birth of the universe.

              © Copyright Original Source



              You are conflating the two as usual. If you don't use the currently most accepted hypothesis in science, what should you use?
              You are not presenting the current accepted hypothesis of science only what you choose to accept based on your religious agenda.

              By this logic, you can never use any science to support anything.
              No, only hypothesis and theories based on objective verifiable evidence.

              What if it changes?
              Science does change based on the basis of objective verifiable evidence.



              I think...It is only a compelling possibility to you because you like that it undercuts the theological argument. If it supported it, you would be crying that it was pseudoscience. [/quote]

              Compelling possibilities do not count for anything


              Again you are assuming too much. My objections to multiverse are 100% scientific. I personally don't care if there was a multiverse. I have already explained the science behind the multiverse and why it is not actual science.
              Many physicists, cosmologists, and other scientists consider the multiverse science. I do not consider your 'opinion' relevant in part, because of your none scientific use of '100% (?) and misuse of 'proof.'

              Also, on what planet are you living on where you think that it resits scientific development. Do you really think that scientists would curtail their research because of theological concerns?
              Religious conservative agenda in congress curtails funding for science, which is the real world. Tassman's got your number in his cross hairs, and his objections are justified.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-21-2018, 01:23 PM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by element771 View Post
                The reason that it is the cardinal sin is that no one can ever trust anything you say ever again. Does your experience in "doing science for a living" not cover that?

                You have already started obfuscating the truth in the beginning of this thread.

                If you can show that you are not lying about this then maybe we can continue.

                Where have you published?
                Resorting to Ad hominem does not satisfy the reasonable logical requirement for a coherent answer:

                Answer the question.

                . . . it is unethical to misuse science to support a theological/philosophical argument that is not grounded in objective verifiable evidence either from a theist or atheist perspective despite the fact that scientific findings are neutral to either belief.

                Still waiting for examples of 'scientific findings' that may be used to support theological/philosophical question.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  No, the speed of light may not be an absolute.

                  Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=variable+speed+of+light&oq=variable+speed+of+light&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.24572j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


                  Variable speed of light. A variable speed of light (VSL) is a feature of a family of hypotheses stating that the speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by c, may in some way not be constant, e.g. varying in space or time, or depending on frequency.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/28/theory-challenging-einsteins-view-on-speed-of-light-could-soon-be-tested



                  Theory challenging Einstein's view on speed of light could soon be tested

                  The newborn universe may have glowed with light beams moving much faster than they do today, according to a theory that overturns Einstein’s century-old claim that the speed of light is a constant.

                  João Magueijo, of Imperial College London, and Niayesh Afshordi, of the University of Waterloo in Canada, propose that light tore along at infinite speed at the birth of the universe when the temperature of the cosmos was a staggering ten thousand trillion trillion celsius.


                  It is a theory Magueijo has being developing since the late 1990s, but in a paper published on Monday he and Afshordi describe for the first time how scientists can finally test the controversial idea. If right, the theory would leave a signature on the ancient radiation left over from the big bang, the so-called cosmic microwave background that cosmologists have observed with satellites.

                  “We can say what the fluctuations in the early universe would have looked like, and these are the fluctuations that grow to form planets, stars and galaxies,” Afshordi told the Guardian.

                  The speed of light in a vacuum is considered to be one of the fundamental constants of nature. Thanks to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, it was stamped in the annals of physics more than a century ago at about 1bn km/h. But while general relativity is one of the cornerstones of modern physics, scientists know that the rules of today did not hold at the birth of the universe.

                  © Copyright Original Source





                  You are not presenting the current accepted hypothesis of science only what you choose to accept based on your religious agenda.



                  No, only hypothesis and theories based on objective verifiable evidence.



                  Science does change based on the basis of objective verifiable evidence.



                  I think...It is only a compelling possibility to you because you like that it undercuts the theological argument. If it supported it, you would be crying that it was pseudoscience.

                  Compelling possibilities do not count for anything




                  Many physicists, cosmologists, and other scientists consider the multiverse science. I do not consider your 'opinion' relevant in part, because of your none scientific use of '100% (?) and misuse of 'proof.'



                  Religious conservative agenda in congress curtails funding for science, which is the real world. Tassman's got your number in his cross hairs, and his objections are justified.
                  None of this was addressed to you.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Resorting to Ad hominem does not satisfy the reasonable logical requirement for a coherent answer:

                    Answer the question.

                    . . . it is unethical to misuse science to support a theological/philosophical argument that is not grounded in objective verifiable evidence either from a theist or atheist perspective despite the fact that scientific findings are neutral to either belief.

                    Still waiting for examples of 'scientific findings' that may be used to support theological/philosophical question.
                    I don't engage with people who fabricate information / data. How can I trust anything that you say?

                    Still waiting for your peer reviewed paper....otherwise, you have no business lecturing anyone on science given your history of sneaking your own conclusions into sources. And you think I am misusing science....that is laughable.

                    It is your religious agenda that prevents you from accepting the science.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

                      Meanwhile you cannot escape the relative/subjective moral chain:

                      1) You subjectively believe there is a god and subjectively value this god.
                      2) You subjectively decide to align your moral code to this god's moral code.
                      3) Lacking any direct revelation, you extract this moral code from the bible, which you subjectively interpret
                      Again, that does not disprove that God does not objectively exist, nor does it disprove universal moral truths.

                      You cannot escape subjective/relative moralizing. And each time you'll attribute your former "errored interpretation" to "sin," and assure everyone that you still follow an absolute/objective moral code. This dance has been engaged in for millenia. It will likely not stop in our lifetimes.
                      Again, my subjective view, nor moral disagreement, disprove universal moral truths.

                      I'm not going to waste my time trying to disprove these things exists. First, it's not possible. Second, it's a waste of time. Bigfoot believers will pretty much always believe in bigfoot. Moral absolutists/objectivists will always believe in moral absolutes/objectives - until they don't.
                      But you have made claims that subjectivism as a moral theory is a fact. That is not a position that can not logically defended.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Again, that does not disprove that God does not objectively exist, nor does it disprove universal moral truths.
                        I have made no claims about disproving the existence of god. I also do not set out to disprove the existence of every hypothetical proposed. I'd be doing that all day every day. If someone wants to claim "X exists," I suggest they make the case for X existing. If they don't, then others won't believe in them.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Again, my subjective view, nor moral disagreement, disprove universal moral truths.
                        It demonstrates that your moral framework is likewise subjective. You can claim "universal/absolute" moral frameworks until the cows come home. You cannot demonstrate that you have access to them, nor that you have correctly interpreted them. That makes your moral framework no more objective than mine, and your claim to "importance" no more "objective" than mine.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        But you have made claims that subjectivism as a moral theory is a fact. That is not a position that can not logically defended.
                        Yes, it is. I have outlined how it functions, what drives it, how differences are reconciled, etc. What I have described is what we see around us every day, in every place. It has been logically defended. You reject it because you have arbitrarily decided morality is objective/absolute, despite the fact that you cannot show one exists, you cannot demonstrate how you have access to it, and you cannot refute the subjective nature of your own moralizing.

                        At this point, Seer, you're kind of flailing. You down to "objective/absolutes" exist, but we can't know them objectively, cannot demonstrate their existence, and actual moral frameworks keep changing - apparently because of sin. And moral subjectivism is irrational because it's not objective (a tautology), it's no better than pizza toppings (trivialization) and those bad old Nazi's killed Jewish children and I cannot say they weren't right about it (outrage - plus tautology).

                        Unless you have more - I think we're finished.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Yes, it is. I have outlined how it functions, what drives it, how differences are reconciled, etc. What I have described is what we see around us every day, in every place. It has been logically defended. You reject it because you have arbitrarily decided morality is objective/absolute, despite the fact that you cannot show one exists, you cannot demonstrate how you have access to it, and you cannot refute the subjective nature of your own moralizing.
                          Nonsense Carp, we have been over this before. Subjectivity does not prove anything except that we act in a subjective manner.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                            Many physicists, cosmologists, and other scientists consider the multiverse science. I do not consider your 'opinion' relevant in part, because of your none scientific use of '100% (?) and misuse of 'proof.'
                            Out of the two of us, I am the only one qualified to have an opinion. And I disagree with them as they are changing what science is in order to put the multiverse under the umbrella of science. I do not consider your "opinion" because you don't understand science or much of anything.

                            What is "none scientific"? Also, I never said proof... See this is another instance of you just making things up. This is why no one takes you seriously.

                            Again, where do you publish and how do you "do science" for a living?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Nonsense Carp, we have been over this before. Subjectivity does not prove anything except that we act in a subjective manner.
                              Yes - we do.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                At this point, Seer, you're kind of flailing. You down to "objective/absolutes" exist, but we can't know them objectively, cannot demonstrate their existence, and actual moral frameworks keep changing - apparently because of sin. And moral subjectivism is irrational because it's not objective (a tautology), it's no better than pizza toppings (trivialization) and those bad old Nazi's killed Jewish children and I cannot say they weren't right about it (outrage - plus tautology).

                                Unless you have more - I think we're finished.
                                Flailing Carp? In your world there is nothing intrinsically wrong with incest, prostitution, having sex with a German shepherd, promiscuity, pornography, etc... Just lifestyle choices. And that Jewish child has no inherent worth, so off to the ovens. The Nazi is well within his epistemic rights to think and do so, if subjectivism is correct. Humans don't have unalienable rights, these are merely legal fictions that are invented with no grounding in the reality of your subjective world. And your choices, moral or otherwise, are just as trivial as you are by nature. Yet you live in a country, one of the greatest in human history, where the very freedoms you enjoy was founded on a principle of universal moral truths. Yep, and I'm flailing
                                Last edited by seer; 04-21-2018, 09:41 PM.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X