Why do you believe that there is a god?

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by Fade On You

Just wanted to give props to sillyputty and pleasurephd for dropping mad knowledge and info in this thread.

Gentlemen

 

[bboy1827]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Originally Posted by sillyputty


Thus the problem philosophy.
It panders to the possibilities rather than what can be proven.

I can hypothesis a connection between the fact hitler took a dump three days before he died to the notion that the price of milk is what it is tomorrow...but none of that would have any evidence so whats the point?

Philosophy is a dying craft. 

Science evolves. 

I appreciate it for its ability to reason out things clearly but it is failing because it refuses to evolve. It only exists to address what science hasn't been able to explain yet...

Look at the field of neuroscience...if it wasn't for people studying behavior, neuroscientists might not exist...in fact BECAUSE of neuroscience, things like psychology may no longer exist as we now know it

The pessimistic metainducton of science adresses this train of thought. You think when we thought the world was flat we knew it would be round? The whole point is the "absolutes" of science eventually fall by the wayside and the current generation thinks that their theories are correct. Gravity = Theory, Physical World = Theory.  I like philosophy because, as you said, it addresses things in which Science cannot address. Are we really here? Does this board actually exist, or is it some elaborate computer program to trick into believing there are other people on this board? A PhD stands for "Doctoris de Philosophea" which is a ode to the fact that we don't know anything, we assume a lot, we theorize a lot but we can't "prove" beyond the metaphysical boundary anything.  People +@@% on Philosophy but most have not had any Philosophy past 101. Argue with a true Philosopher and you, as a scientifically inclined mind would have to admit that there is no solid grounding in science. Top Scientist and Physicist i.e Steven Hawkin, admit that we see correlation as opposed to Causality, the latter is the basis of science.

That opinion takes into consideration HISTORY. Science and tech is NOT the same as it was even 10 years ago. It is an ever evolving and perfecting field that is growing at an exponential rate. You can't bring up historical facts of false information and try to say that discredits today's science information. Back then people didn't even test their theories you know what they did? Just pondered it.  And you know why?

BECAUSE BACK THEN SCIENTIST WERE PHILOSOPHERS. They weren't like scientists today. Science is not conducted the same way it use to be. This discredits your philosophical ideas because they only apply to old world science. They didn't test and use the scientific method. They just pondered.

Yes, its true that we could be wrong about somethings today, but we accept that, and are always trying to improve. Our technology limits us. And with our limited tech what we say is theory as of now is what fits best with our knowledge.

When do scientists ever say anything is absolute? Especially when discussing astrophysics?

Philosophy addresses it because science has rules that prevent us from spewing out BS, unlike philosophers who can say anything.

It's extremely idiotic to think that because some science back hundreds of years ago, which was untested, was wrong that science today, which is tested rigorously, is also wrong and only "correct to our generation"

And you know what? We can actually prove a lot of today's science. The very fact that your computer is working now, is proof. I agree that the far reaching things like quantum physics we can't but we'll get there. Don't you worry.

FYI I have a degree in phil too.

I think science "evolving" is proof that science isn't ever certain. You really want to be argumentative, but the fact remains.  Years ago, with all the technology they had back then, they thought that the world was flat, 50 years ago we thought the Atom was the smallest element in the Universe.

As I stated with every generation they "know" what they "know" but the next Generation changes it, with better technology etc.

How did you get a degree in Philosophy without having a solid understanding of Skepticism? I don't think you can get pass the "something from nothing" nor the "mind-body" distinction. Nor the fact that The future doesn't have to repeat the past, which science is based on. What proof do you have that when I throw a brick, that brick is the reason that the window broke? All you will be able to throw at me is complicated observations and even more complicated theories, which could always be false.  You preach certainty, I'm drawing up doubt.

Besides one of the most basic methodologies of Science (the Socratic Method) which is still taught in Physics and Biology classes alike, or at least it was taught in my Physics and Bio 101 n 102, gets it's name because it was the method by which a Philosopher, Socrates, conducted his thoughts. Thousands of years later, we still haven't found a better method of inquiry and analysis? Meaning that those "old world" philosophers were conducting experimentation in the very same methods as we use today.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Originally Posted by sillyputty


Thus the problem philosophy.
It panders to the possibilities rather than what can be proven.

I can hypothesis a connection between the fact hitler took a dump three days before he died to the notion that the price of milk is what it is tomorrow...but none of that would have any evidence so whats the point?

Philosophy is a dying craft. 

Science evolves. 

I appreciate it for its ability to reason out things clearly but it is failing because it refuses to evolve. It only exists to address what science hasn't been able to explain yet...

Look at the field of neuroscience...if it wasn't for people studying behavior, neuroscientists might not exist...in fact BECAUSE of neuroscience, things like psychology may no longer exist as we now know it

The pessimistic metainducton of science adresses this train of thought. You think when we thought the world was flat we knew it would be round? The whole point is the "absolutes" of science eventually fall by the wayside and the current generation thinks that their theories are correct. Gravity = Theory, Physical World = Theory.  I like philosophy because, as you said, it addresses things in which Science cannot address. Are we really here? Does this board actually exist, or is it some elaborate computer program to trick into believing there are other people on this board? A PhD stands for "Doctoris de Philosophea" which is a ode to the fact that we don't know anything, we assume a lot, we theorize a lot but we can't "prove" beyond the metaphysical boundary anything.  People +@@% on Philosophy but most have not had any Philosophy past 101. Argue with a true Philosopher and you, as a scientifically inclined mind would have to admit that there is no solid grounding in science. Top Scientist and Physicist i.e Steven Hawkin, admit that we see correlation as opposed to Causality, the latter is the basis of science.

That opinion takes into consideration HISTORY. Science and tech is NOT the same as it was even 10 years ago. It is an ever evolving and perfecting field that is growing at an exponential rate. You can't bring up historical facts of false information and try to say that discredits today's science information. Back then people didn't even test their theories you know what they did? Just pondered it.  And you know why?

BECAUSE BACK THEN SCIENTIST WERE PHILOSOPHERS. They weren't like scientists today. Science is not conducted the same way it use to be. This discredits your philosophical ideas because they only apply to old world science. They didn't test and use the scientific method. They just pondered.

Yes, its true that we could be wrong about somethings today, but we accept that, and are always trying to improve. Our technology limits us. And with our limited tech what we say is theory as of now is what fits best with our knowledge.

When do scientists ever say anything is absolute? Especially when discussing astrophysics?

Philosophy addresses it because science has rules that prevent us from spewing out BS, unlike philosophers who can say anything.

It's extremely idiotic to think that because some science back hundreds of years ago, which was untested, was wrong that science today, which is tested rigorously, is also wrong and only "correct to our generation"

And you know what? We can actually prove a lot of today's science. The very fact that your computer is working now, is proof. I agree that the far reaching things like quantum physics we can't but we'll get there. Don't you worry.

FYI I have a degree in phil too.

This very component of scientific theory and method is what makes it the best possible tool with which we can CURRENTLY investigate the world.
It allows for honest revelation and assessment to evolve. 

Its not the only tool and its not the absolute tool. Its the one that we've best been able to use up to this point.

Until a better system comes a long then this is where we are at now.

The very nature of the scientific method holds that it itself can be wrong until proven otherwise. 

Thats the point. 

Good point PleasurePhD

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by bboy1827

The pessimistic metainducton of science adresses this train of thought. You think when we thought the world was flat we knew it would be round? The whole point is the "absolutes" of science eventually fall by the wayside and the current generation thinks that their theories are correct. Gravity = Theory, Physical World = Theory.  I like philosophy because, as you said, it addresses things in which Science cannot address. Are we really here? Does this board actually exist, or is it some elaborate computer program to trick into believing there are other people on this board? A PhD stands for "Doctoris de Philosophea" which is a ode to the fact that we don't know anything, we assume a lot, we theorize a lot but we can't "prove" beyond the metaphysical boundary anything.  People +@@% on Philosophy but most have not had any Philosophy past 101. Argue with a true Philosopher and you, as a scientifically inclined mind would have to admit that there is no solid grounding in science. Top Scientist and Physicist i.e Steven Hawkin, admit that we see correlation as opposed to Causality, the latter is the basis of science.

That opinion takes into consideration HISTORY. Science and tech is NOT the same as it was even 10 years ago. It is an ever evolving and perfecting field that is growing at an exponential rate. You can't bring up historical facts of false information and try to say that discredits today's science information. Back then people didn't even test their theories you know what they did? Just pondered it.  And you know why?

BECAUSE BACK THEN SCIENTIST WERE PHILOSOPHERS. They weren't like scientists today. Science is not conducted the same way it use to be. This discredits your philosophical ideas because they only apply to old world science. They didn't test and use the scientific method. They just pondered.

Yes, its true that we could be wrong about somethings today, but we accept that, and are always trying to improve. Our technology limits us. And with our limited tech what we say is theory as of now is what fits best with our knowledge.

When do scientists ever say anything is absolute? Especially when discussing astrophysics?

Philosophy addresses it because science has rules that prevent us from spewing out BS, unlike philosophers who can say anything.

It's extremely idiotic to think that because some science back hundreds of years ago, which was untested, was wrong that science today, which is tested rigorously, is also wrong and only "correct to our generation"

And you know what? We can actually prove a lot of today's science. The very fact that your computer is working now, is proof. I agree that the far reaching things like quantum physics we can't but we'll get there. Don't you worry.

FYI I have a degree in phil too.

I think science "evolving" is proof that science isn't ever certain. You really want to be argumentative, but the fact remains.  Years ago, with all the technology they had back then, they thought that the world was flat, 50 years ago we thought the Atom was the smallest element in the Universe.

As I stated with every generation they "know" what they "know" but the next Generation changes it, with better technology etc.

How did you get a degree in Philosophy without having a solid understanding of Skepticism? I don't think you can get pass the "something from nothing" nor the "mind-body" distinction. Nor the fact that The future doesn't have to repeat the past, which science is based on. What proof do you have that when I throw a brick, that brick is the reason that the window broke? All you will be able to throw at me is complicated observations and even more complicated theores, which could always be false.  You preach certainty, I'm drawing up doubt.

I don't think you're getting it...
science says we can know things to an EXTENT...but what we know we can prove with evidence more so than other competing claims.

Thats what evidence does. Of all of the conclusions extrapolated from data, it supports the claims that push the evidence the farthest and most plausible direction. 

Thats it.

If science was absolute then it would not allow us to understand that atoms weren't the smallest parts of the universe when new evidence was introduced. 

 

[bboy1827]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

I don't think you're getting it...
science says we can know things to an EXTENT...but what we know we can prove with evidence more so than other competing claims.

Thats what evidence does. Of all of the conclusions extrapolated from data, it supports the claims that push the evidence the farthest and most plausible direction. 

Thats it.

If science was absolute then it would not allow us to understand that atoms weren't the smallest parts of the universe when new evidence was introduced. 

Don't think you get it, Science is based on Observations, observations can be wrong. So whats the real argument? Your argument doesn't prove the infallibility of science, in fact it personifies its fallibility. IDK what we are arguing, you seem to be saying science will always change, I'm saying because it always changes it's not reliable...Am I wrong?

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

I think science "evolving" is proof that science isn't ever certain.

No one disputes this.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by bboy1827

I don't think you're getting it...
science says we can know things to an EXTENT...but what we know we can prove with evidence more so than other competing claims.

Thats what evidence does. Of all of the conclusions extrapolated from data, it supports the claims that push the evidence the farthest and most plausible direction. 

Thats it.

If science was absolute then it would not allow us to understand that atoms weren't the smallest parts of the universe when new evidence was introduced. 

Don't think you get it, Science is based on Observations, observations can be wrong. So whats the real argument? Your argument doesn't prove the infallibility of science, in fact it personifies its fallibility. IDK what we are arguing, you seem to be saying science will always change, I'm saying because it always changes it's not reliable...Am I wrong?

I don't don't think i've ever asserted that science is infallible. 
If science changes to BETTER understandings how is that unreliable? 

Granted it may have been wrong to an extent but it is reliable up that extent as well.

Its the diff between newtonian and einsteinian physics. Newton didn't describe what happens at the atomic level as it relates to relativity...newton was right and therefore reliable...UP TO A CERTAIN POINT... einstein just went farther. 

Its not COMPLETELY reliable as no model can ever represent that which its modeling...but to say that its just NOT reliable is wrong. 

AGAIN YOU'VE GOTTEN US OFF TOPIC...

THE FALLIBILITY OF SCIENCE AND THE EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTS.

The point is...

HOW DOES ANYTHING YOU'VE SUGGESTED SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT A GOD EXISTS?

 

[troymcclure]

Personal beliefs should be kept as that, don't spread your stupidity around.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by bboy1827

The pessimistic metainducton of science adresses this train of thought. You think when we thought the world was flat we knew it would be round? The whole point is the "absolutes" of science eventually fall by the wayside and the current generation thinks that their theories are correct. Gravity = Theory, Physical World = Theory.  I like philosophy because, as you said, it addresses things in which Science cannot address. Are we really here? Does this board actually exist, or is it some elaborate computer program to trick into believing there are other people on this board? A PhD stands for "Doctoris de Philosophea" which is a ode to the fact that we don't know anything, we assume a lot, we theorize a lot but we can't "prove" beyond the metaphysical boundary anything.  People +@@% on Philosophy but most have not had any Philosophy past 101. Argue with a true Philosopher and you, as a scientifically inclined mind would have to admit that there is no solid grounding in science. Top Scientist and Physicist i.e Steven Hawkin, admit that we see correlation as opposed to Causality, the latter is the basis of science.

That opinion takes into consideration HISTORY. Science and tech is NOT the same as it was even 10 years ago. It is an ever evolving and perfecting field that is growing at an exponential rate. You can't bring up historical facts of false information and try to say that discredits today's science information. Back then people didn't even test their theories you know what they did? Just pondered it.  And you know why?

BECAUSE BACK THEN SCIENTIST WERE PHILOSOPHERS. They weren't like scientists today. Science is not conducted the same way it use to be. This discredits your philosophical ideas because they only apply to old world science. They didn't test and use the scientific method. They just pondered.

Yes, its true that we could be wrong about somethings today, but we accept that, and are always trying to improve. Our technology limits us. And with our limited tech what we say is theory as of now is what fits best with our knowledge.

When do scientists ever say anything is absolute? Especially when discussing astrophysics?

Philosophy addresses it because science has rules that prevent us from spewing out BS, unlike philosophers who can say anything.

It's extremely idiotic to think that because some science back hundreds of years ago, which was untested, was wrong that science today, which is tested rigorously, is also wrong and only "correct to our generation"

And you know what? We can actually prove a lot of today's science. The very fact that your computer is working now, is proof. I agree that the far reaching things like quantum physics we can't but we'll get there. Don't you worry.

FYI I have a degree in phil too.

1. I think science "evolving" is proof that science isn't ever certain. You really want to be argumentative, but the fact remains.  Years ago, with all the technology they had back then, they thought that the world was flat, 50 years ago we thought the Atom was the smallest element in the Universe.

As I stated with every generation they "know" what they "know" but the next Generation changes it, with better technology etc.

2. How did you get a degree in Philosophy without having a solid understanding of Skepticism? I don't think you can get pass the "something from nothing" nor the "mind-body" distinction. Nor the fact that The future doesn't have to repeat the past, which science is based on. What proof do you have that when I throw a brick, that brick is the reason that the window broke? All you will be able to throw at me is complicated observations and even more complicated theories, which could always be false.  You preach certainty, I'm drawing up doubt.

3. Besides one of the most basic methodologies of Science (the Socratic Method) which is still taught in Physics and Biology classes alike, or at least it was taught in my Physics and Bio 101 n 102, gets it's name because it was the method by which a Philosopher, Socrates, conducted his thoughts. Thousands of years later, we still haven't found a better method of inquiry and analysis? Meaning that those "old world" philosophers were conducting experimentation in the very same methods as we use today.

1. With the tech they had back then? What tech was that? How did they test the world was flat? THEY DIDN'T! Individuals only speculated. UNLIKE today where we speculate AND TEST. CAN'T YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE? If you can't then you're hopeless.

With every generation, things become more clear. They have rarely changed lately even though tech and science knowledge has grown exponentially. Back then to now things changed because now we actually test our hypothesis. An Atom is still an atom is still one of the elements is still really small, nothing has changed, but we ADDED to our knowledge and CLARIFIED, NOT CHANGED, that there are smaller things. SO how is that funny? Please link the peer reviewed article where a scientist claims that atoms are the smallest things and that is final, absolute, and 100% certain.

2. I understand it smart one, and I'm telling you those philosophical opinions don't invalidate or even truly apply to today's science. Especially when there are differing opinions.  How can you pass judgment on something without even having a solid validated background in your argument? Isn't that what you're trying to say?  Yet, you are doing that say thing bringing up unverified philosophical opinions.

Seriously, go jerk off to the matrix with all that mumbo jumbo brick talk. I've also discussed that same exact example with my modern phil class.

WHEN DO I PREACH CERTAINTY? PLEASE LINK IT. GD. And you are not bringing ANY doubt. You are asking questions that although interesting, don't invalidate any of my or many others' scientific findings.

3. Umm... no. First off the scientific methodology used today was taken mostly from the workings of Galileo. Back then although similar, being it's origination, is very different then today. Again, I ask you to not just spew out BS but post some information on how these philosophers tested their hypotheses. How did they test the world was flat? They didn't and couldn't. Today we can, but we know our limits. So we only make theories based on tested information. I don't know what *** backwards school you went to, but I was not taught the Socratic method of just basically critiquing others opinions and "discovering science facts" using only verbal discussion. We have these places called laboratories where I studied at. Also, our scientific inquiry (different than methodology) is based off Aristotle's work and other individuals depending on the style of inquiry you are using, not Socrates'.

So you took physics 101 and bio 101 and 102 and you think you're an expert? You have the right to judge and discredit the scientific method and inquiry used today for all of our discoveries that have benefited you tremendously?

AGAIN:

 

[bboy1827]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Originally Posted by sillyputty


I don't think you're getting it...
science says we can know things to an EXTENT...but what we know we can prove with evidence more so than other competing claims.

Thats what evidence does. Of all of the conclusions extrapolated from data, it supports the claims that push the evidence the farthest and most plausible direction. 

Thats it.

If science was absolute then it would not allow us to understand that atoms weren't the smallest parts of the universe when new evidence was introduced. 

Don't think you get it, Science is based on Observations, observations can be wrong. So whats the real argument? Your argument doesn't prove the infallibility of science, in fact it personifies its fallibility. IDK what we are arguing, you seem to be saying science will always change, I'm saying because it always changes it's not reliable...Am I wrong?

I don't don't think i've ever asserted that science is infallible. 
If science changes to BETTER understandings how is that unreliable? 

Granted it may have been wrong to an extent but it is reliable up that extent as well.

Its the diff between newtonian and einsteinian physics. Newton didn't describe what happens at the atomic level as it relates to relativity...newton was right and therefore reliable...UP TO A CERTAIN POINT... einstein just went farther. 

Its not COMPLETELY reliable as no model can ever represent that which its modeling...but to say that its just NOT reliable is wrong. 

AGAIN YOU'VE GOTTEN US OFF TOPIC...

THE FALLIBILITY OF SCIENCE AND THE EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTS.

The point is...

HOW DOES ANYTHING YOU'VE SUGGESTED SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT A GOD EXISTS?

As it is fallible, Science doesn't prove God exists, but also doesn't disprove God.

And it doesn't have anything to support the notion of God...I was quoted in this thread when I made a sidenote suggestion that the Science knots in this thread should read some Philosophical arguments that draw into the question the certainty of science. I further suggested that the Religion of Science may be just as wrong/right as the religion of Christianity...I used "religion" for a reason.

But on that note, Most Ancient Philosophers/Scientist were searching for the proof of God.

Question...how does Newtonian Physics even comment on Einstienen Physics, as Einstiens theory of relativity, as I udnerstood it and as the name "theory of "relativity" suggests (Yes, I've read a couple papers on it and don't fully understand it, so this is a serious non "trolling" questions) is a complex theory of subjectivity (which is an ancient philosophical  notion)? And in fact as a quick,  non-comprehensive, Google search shows it seems Einstiens theory broke Newtons theory. Where Newton thought Space as Static and that time was an even flow; Einstein thought neither space nor time were static but rather changing relative to whoever perceived them....don't reply in this thread, a DM would be sufficient.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by bboy1827

I don't think you're getting it...
science says we can know things to an EXTENT...but what we know we can prove with evidence more so than other competing claims.

Thats what evidence does. Of all of the conclusions extrapolated from data, it supports the claims that push the evidence the farthest and most plausible direction. 

Thats it.

If science was absolute then it would not allow us to understand that atoms weren't the smallest parts of the universe when new evidence was introduced. 

Don't think you get it, Science is based on Observations, observations can be wrong. So whats the real argument? Your argument doesn't prove the infallibility of science, in fact it personifies its fallibility. IDK what we are arguing, you seem to be saying science will always change, I'm saying because it always changes it's not reliable...Am I wrong?

Observation only the first step in the scientific method developed by Galileo, not Socrates. We also do physical tests, theoretical modeling, and mathematical testing.

NO HE IS NOT. He is not saying science will always change. He is saying it will be added to and become more clear. Somethings will change, but the majority will just be clarified or added too.

SO YES, YOU ARE WRONG IT ISN'T ALWAYS CHANGING AND THEREFORE ISN'T UNRELIABLE.

 

[bboy1827]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

That opinion takes into consideration HISTORY. Science and tech is NOT the same as it was even 10 years ago. It is an ever evolving and perfecting field that is growing at an exponential rate. You can't bring up historical facts of false information and try to say that discredits today's science information. Back then people didn't even test their theories you know what they did? Just pondered it.  And you know why?

BECAUSE BACK THEN SCIENTIST WERE PHILOSOPHERS. They weren't like scientists today. Science is not conducted the same way it use to be. This discredits your philosophical ideas because they only apply to old world science. They didn't test and use the scientific method. They just pondered.

Yes, its true that we could be wrong about somethings today, but we accept that, and are always trying to improve. Our technology limits us. And with our limited tech what we say is theory as of now is what fits best with our knowledge.

When do scientists ever say anything is absolute? Especially when discussing astrophysics?

Philosophy addresses it because science has rules that prevent us from spewing out BS, unlike philosophers who can say anything.

It's extremely idiotic to think that because some science back hundreds of years ago, which was untested, was wrong that science today, which is tested rigorously, is also wrong and only "correct to our generation"

And you know what? We can actually prove a lot of today's science. The very fact that your computer is working now, is proof. I agree that the far reaching things like quantum physics we can't but we'll get there. Don't you worry.

FYI I have a degree in phil too.

1. I think science "evolving" is proof that science isn't ever certain. You really want to be argumentative, but the fact remains.  Years ago, with all the technology they had back then, they thought that the world was flat, 50 years ago we thought the Atom was the smallest element in the Universe.

As I stated with every generation they "know" what they "know" but the next Generation changes it, with better technology etc.

2. How did you get a degree in Philosophy without having a solid understanding of Skepticism? I don't think you can get pass the "something from nothing" nor the "mind-body" distinction. Nor the fact that The future doesn't have to repeat the past, which science is based on. What proof do you have that when I throw a brick, that brick is the reason that the window broke? All you will be able to throw at me is complicated observations and even more complicated theories, which could always be false.  You preach certainty, I'm drawing up doubt.

3. Besides one of the most basic methodologies of Science (the Socratic Method) which is still taught in Physics and Biology classes alike, or at least it was taught in my Physics and Bio 101 n 102, gets it's name because it was the method by which a Philosopher, Socrates, conducted his thoughts. Thousands of years later, we still haven't found a better method of inquiry and analysis? Meaning that those "old world" philosophers were conducting experimentation in the very same methods as we use today.

1. With the tech they had back then? What tech was that? How did they test the world was flat? THEY DIDN'T! Individuals only speculated. UNLIKE today where we speculate AND TEST. CAN'T YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE? If you can't then you're hopeless.

With every generation, things become more clear. They have rarely changed lately even though tech and science knowledge has grown exponentially. Back then to now things changed because now we actually test our hypothesis. An Atom is still an atom is still one of the elements is still really small, nothing has changed, but we ADDED to our knowledge and CLARIFIED, NOT CHANGED, that there are smaller things. SO how is that funny? Please link the peer reviewed article where a scientist claims that atoms are the smallest things and that is final, absolute, and 100% certain.

2. I understand it smart one, and I'm telling you those philosophical opinions don't invalidate or even truly apply to today's science. Especially when there are differing opinions.  How can you pass judgment on something without even having a solid validated background in your argument? Isn't that what you're trying to say?  Yet, you are doing that say thing bringing up unverified philosophical opinions.

Seriously, go jerk off to the matrix with all that mumbo jumbo brick talk. I've also discussed that same exact example with my modern phil class.

WHEN DO I PREACH CERTAINTY? PLEASE LINK IT. GD. And you are not bringing ANY doubt. You are asking questions that although interesting, don't invalidate any of my or many others' scientific findings.

3. Umm... no. First off the scientific methodology used today was taken mostly from the workings of Galileo. Back then although similar, being it's origination, is very different then today. Again, I ask you to not just spew out BS but post some information on how these philosophers tested their hypotheses. How did they test the world was flat? They didn't and couldn't. Today we can, but we know our limits. So we only make theories based on tested information. I don't know what *** backwards school you went to, but I was not taught the Socratic method of just basically critiquing others opinions and "discovering science facts" using only verbal discussion. We have these places called laboratories where I studied at. Also, our scientific inquiry (different than methodology) is based off Aristotle's work and other individuals depending on the style of inquiry you are using, not Socrates'.

So you took physics 101 and bio 101 and 102 and you think you're an expert? You have the right to judge and discredit the scientific method and inquiry used today for all of our discoveries that have benefited you tremendously?

AGAIN:

You seem more argumentative than "smart"/ "informed". To say the Ancients didn't have "Tech" is to not understand "Tech." To say that the "Socratic Method" isn't the base method for science and philosophy the like is a fallacy. Galileo used the Socratic Method -_- google it/read a book. And to not understand that All Doctors/Scientits are "philosophers" since "philosophy" means "love of knowledge" and PhD, which is at the end of your Screename stands for "Doctoris Philosophea" or "Doctor of Philosophy" is a lack of knowledge.

You seem like the kid that talks %%+ on fox, but has only seen clips of Fox on MSNBC because MSNBC is always right. Not very smart, nor very Scientific.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Originally Posted by sillyputty


I don't think you're getting it...



science says we can know things to an EXTENT...but what we know we can prove with evidence more so than other competing claims.




Thats what evidence does. Of all of the conclusions extrapolated from data, it supports the claims that push the evidence the farthest and most plausible direction. 




Thats it.




If science was absolute then it would not allow us to understand that atoms weren't the smallest parts of the universe when new evidence was introduced. 

Don't think you get it, Science is based on Observations, observations can be wrong. So whats the real argument? Your argument doesn't prove the infallibility of science, in fact it personifies its fallibility. IDK what we are arguing, you seem to be saying science will always change, I'm saying because it always changes it's not reliable...Am I wrong?

I don't don't think i've ever asserted that science is infallible. 



If science changes to BETTER understandings how is that unreliable? 




Granted it may have been wrong to an extent but it is reliable up that extent as well.




Its the diff between newtonian and einsteinian physics. Newton didn't describe what happens at the atomic level as it relates to relativity...newton was right and therefore reliable...UP TO A CERTAIN POINT... einstein just went farther. 




Its not COMPLETELY reliable as no model can ever represent that which its modeling...but to say that its just NOT reliable is wrong. 




AGAIN YOU'VE GOTTEN US OFF TOPIC...




THE FALLIBILITY OF SCIENCE AND THE EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTS.




The point is...




HOW DOES ANYTHING YOU'VE SUGGESTED SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT A GOD EXISTS?

QFE

 

[b smooth 202]

Atheist with science background... checking in... 

Will be watching.

It's one thing not to believe, it's another to act like your 'scientific background' makes your opinion any more legitimate than anybody else's.

thats why different scientists believe different things and suggest different theories...if you surveyed the scientific community what % would be atheist? 

got +$%$$% in here rallying around Atheism posting pics of beer and #!$@

 

carry on..

 

[bboy1827]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Don't think you get it, Science is based on Observations, observations can be wrong. So whats the real argument? Your argument doesn't prove the infallibility of science, in fact it personifies its fallibility. IDK what we are arguing, you seem to be saying science will always change, I'm saying because it always changes it's not reliable...Am I wrong?

I don't don't think i've ever asserted that science is infallible. 



If science changes to BETTER understandings how is that unreliable? 




Granted it may have been wrong to an extent but it is reliable up that extent as well.




Its the diff between newtonian and einsteinian physics. Newton didn't describe what happens at the atomic level as it relates to relativity...newton was right and therefore reliable...UP TO A CERTAIN POINT... einstein just went farther. 




Its not COMPLETELY reliable as no model can ever represent that which its modeling...but to say that its just NOT reliable is wrong. 




AGAIN YOU'VE GOTTEN US OFF TOPIC...




THE FALLIBILITY OF SCIENCE AND THE EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTS.




The point is...




HOW DOES ANYTHING YOU'VE SUGGESTED SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT A GOD EXISTS?

QFE

For the Sake of Argument, Newton and Einstiens theories clash. And you didn't even qoute the next sentence, which states

"Its not COMPLETELY reliable as no model can ever represent that which its modeling...but to say that its just NOT reliable is wrong. "

To me, we can use science to cope with the "world", but there can never be meta-physical certainty, which is the standard Philosophers like to use.

The Cogito "I think, therefore I am" is the only "reliable" assertion ever made. If you are thinking, you are at least a "thinking-thing" Read a little philosophy, then come back at me. Until then I'm out.

Cogito, Transcendental Idealism, Pessimistic Meta-Induction of Science...Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Don't be "right" because in your "rightness" you'll never see you as being wrong. Believe what someone else tells you and end up like Quayle. Be a Scientist, a Lover of Knowledge. Otherwise, you will never know anything beyond what you know now.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Atheist with science background... checking in... 

Will be watching.

It's one thing not to believe, it's another to act like your 'scientific background' makes your opinion any more legitimate than anybody else's.

thats why different scientists believe different things and suggest different theories...if you surveyed the scientific community what % would be atheist? 

got +$%$$% in here rallying around Atheism posting pics of beer and #!$@

 

carry on..


Yes, then those scientists make observations, conduct experiments and attempt to provide proof of said theories

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by bboy1827

You seem more argumentative than "smart"/ "informed". To say the Ancients didn't have "Tech" is to not understand "Tech." To say that the "Socratic Method" isn't the base method for science and philosophy the like is a fallacy. Galileo used the Socratic Method -_- google it/read a book. And to not understand that All Doctors/Scientits are "philosophers" since "philosophy" means "love of knowledge" and PhD, which is at the end of your Screename stands for "Doctoris Philosophea" or "Doctor of Philosophy" is a lack of knowledge.

You seem like the kid that talks %%+ on fox, but has only seen clips of Fox on MSNBC because MSNBC is always right. Not very smart, nor very Scientific.

Sigh, I'm done with you.  I was asking for examples of their experiments used to decipher that the earth was flat, since this would be the only way that we could equate their scientific methodology used to ours that we use. If they DID NOT test then they are NOT using the same methodology.  Thinking is not conducting an experiment or running a test of the physical world.

I said they didn't have the technology to test their hypothesis and so they DIDN'T test them and therefore they AREN'T using the same methodology. I never said they didn't have technology you !%!!@%! %@%.  I know that having a wooden torch was still considered technology to them. GOD YOU'RE EFFIN ..............

I think you need to read a book. May be Galileo got some inspiration, but the Socratic Method only applies to the beginning stages of the scientific method which is basically asking a question or just the hypothesis. Yes, a very important part, but this does NOT invalidate my argument NOR does it strengthen yours.  The basis of my argument and the meat and potatoes of science research is TESTING and experimentation. This is what separates us from old world scientists.

I know what a having a PhD means. It was brought up in every damn phil class I had. AND I DON'T GIVE A DAMN. I DO NOT PLACE MYSELF ON THE SAME LEVEL AS YOUR PSEUDOSCIENTISTS. Not saying they are beneath me, just saying they are on a completely different scale.

YOU seem like a complete idiot. (I'm not calling you one, just saying that's the way it seems to me personally) Who thinks because he can question science that he is a genius. News flash an 8 year old can ponder and question the thought of not existing and whether or not a brick actually broke a window. Philosophers are basically anybody who questions anything. You're not special and I know dudes that trip on acid and get high on chronic that can put up a better philosophical argument than you.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Don't think you get it, Science is based on Observations, observations can be wrong. So whats the real argument? Your argument doesn't prove the infallibility of science, in fact it personifies its fallibility. IDK what we are arguing, you seem to be saying science will always change, I'm saying because it always changes it's not reliable...Am I wrong?

I don't don't think i've ever asserted that science is infallible. 
If science changes to BETTER understandings how is that unreliable? 

Granted it may have been wrong to an extent but it is reliable up that extent as well.

Its the diff between newtonian and einsteinian physics. Newton didn't describe what happens at the atomic level as it relates to relativity...newton was right and therefore reliable...UP TO A CERTAIN POINT... einstein just went farther. 

Its not COMPLETELY reliable as no model can ever represent that which its modeling...but to say that its just NOT reliable is wrong. 

AGAIN YOU'VE GOTTEN US OFF TOPIC...

THE FALLIBILITY OF SCIENCE AND THE EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTS.

The point is...

HOW DOES ANYTHING YOU'VE SUGGESTED SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT A GOD EXISTS?

As it is fallible, Science doesn't prove God exists, but also doesn't disprove God.

And it doesn't have anything to support the notion of God...I was quoted in this thread when I made a sidenote suggestion that the Science knots in this thread should read some Philosophical arguments that draw into the question the certainty of science. I further suggested that the Religion of Science may be just as wrong/right as the religion of Christianity...I used "religion" for a reason.

But on that note, Most Ancient Philosophers/Scientist were searching for the proof of God.

Question...how does Newtonian Physics even comment on Einstienen Physics, as Einstiens theory of relativity, as I udnerstood it and as the name "theory of "relativity" suggests (Yes, I've read a couple papers on it and don't fully understand it, so this is a serious non "trolling" questions) is a complex theory of subjectivity (which is an ancient philosophical  notion)? And in fact as a quick,  non-comprehensive, Google search shows it seems Einstiens theory broke Newtons theory. Where Newton thought Space as Static and that time was an even flow; Einstein thought neither space nor time were static but rather changing relative to whoever perceived them....don't reply in this thread, a DM would be sufficient.

Science never set out to prove god exists dude!



Thats how the scientific method works!...if you make a claim you must support it!




if the claim can't be supported with evidence then the claim is not accepted!

Science isn't a religion...its just the name we give to the collective body of "stuff" we know. Its much easier to say "science" than to call it: "empirical knowledge tested effectively to a degree of reliability over time through which additional discoveries are made"







So does LOOKING for something prove it exists? 




Newtons laws of physics don't predict how the world works at really fast speeds or in really small distances like those on the atomic level.




Thats the point...relativity accounts for the fact that at relativity slow and distances over which we "normally" encounter as humans that newton is right...but newton was right because he didn't know about atoms....or the speed of light. 




There is a reason that the MCAT only tests you using newtons physics and not einstein...newton was right...UP TO A CERTAIN POINT...most physics any of us will ever use are in this realm of Newton... the use of einstein is more beneficial when dealing with atomics or space travel etc... fast speeds and small items.




It doesn't say science itself is subjective...relativity only asserts that the perspective through which the observer gathers information is objective...the pursuit of knowledge however is not subjective because that knowledge must be supported by consistent and thorough evidence.




You're confusing the scientific method for the discoveries made by using the method.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Atheist with science background... checking in... 

Will be watching.

It's one thing not to believe, it's another to act like your 'scientific background' makes your opinion any more legitimate than anybody else's.

thats why different scientists believe different things and suggest different theories...if you surveyed the scientific community what % would be atheist? 

got +$%$$% in here rallying around Atheism posting pics of beer and #!$@

 

carry on..

Do you even know what google is???
The numbers have been fairly consistent.

http://pewforum.org/Scien...ientists-and-Belief.aspx







additionally:




Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer.

http://www.stephenjaygoul...g/ctrl/news/file002.html

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by sillyputty

I don't don't think i've ever asserted that science is infallible. 



If science changes to BETTER understandings how is that unreliable? 




Granted it may have been wrong to an extent but it is reliable up that extent as well.




Its the diff between newtonian and einsteinian physics. Newton didn't describe what happens at the atomic level as it relates to relativity...newton was right and therefore reliable...UP TO A CERTAIN POINT... einstein just went farther. 




Its not COMPLETELY reliable as no model can ever represent that which its modeling...but to say that its just NOT reliable is wrong. 




AGAIN YOU'VE GOTTEN US OFF TOPIC...




THE FALLIBILITY OF SCIENCE AND THE EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTS.




The point is...




HOW DOES ANYTHING YOU'VE SUGGESTED SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT A GOD EXISTS?

QFE

For the Sake of Argument, Newton and Einstiens theories clash. And you didn't even qoute the next sentence, which states

"Its not COMPLETELY reliable as no model can ever represent that which its modeling...but to say that its just NOT reliable is wrong. "

To me, we can use science to cope with the "world", but there can never be meta-physical certainty, which is the standard Philosophers like to use.

The Cogito "I think, therefore I am" is the only "reliable" assertion ever made. If you are thinking, you are at least a "thinking-thing" Read a little philosophy, then come back at me. Until then I'm out.

Cogito, Transcendental Idealism, Pessimistic Meta-Induction of Science...Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Don't be "right" because in your "rightness" you'll never see you as being wrong. Believe what someone else tells you and end up like Quayle. Be a Scientist, a Lover of Knowledge. Otherwise, you will never know anything beyond what you know now.

DON'T EFFIN COME IN HERE AND QUOTE KANT AND THINK YOU'RE DROPPING KNOWLEDGE, YOU MORON. I ALREADY POSTED INFORMATION ON HIS WRITING EARLIER ON IN THIS THREAD. AND, YOU LEARN THAT INFO IN LIKE THE FIRST PHIL CLASS YOU HAVE TO TAKE. IT'S LIKE SAYING I TOOK BIO 101, 102, AND PHYSICS SO I'M AN EXPERT.

Read some phil then come back to you? I told you one of my degrees is in phil.

Dis #!&&@ think he smart by quoting a line that just about everyone in the world knows, whether or not they have studied phil and/or know who Kant even is. "I think therefore I am" LOL you are criticizing and invalidating the reliability of scientific reasoning, logic, and methodology; yet you sit on your computer and type someones OPINION on our existence and think it's proven fact?

You think that's reliable?  LOL you just proved your argument wrong when earlier you said how can we ever know we even exist.

Guess what your metaphysics is being encroached on by physicists and one day we will be able to test and document theories in quantum mechanics and astrophysics. Then what are your philosophers going to talk about for metaphysics? They will move on to the next bs topic. that will be just out of sciences reach.

As for your last statement STHU please. 

 

[b smooth 202]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

Atheist with science background... checking in... 

Will be watching.

It's one thing not to believe, it's another to act like your 'scientific background' makes your opinion any more legitimate than anybody else's.

thats why different scientists believe different things and suggest different theories...if you surveyed the scientific community what % would be atheist? 

got +$%$$% in here rallying around Atheism posting pics of beer and #!$@

 

carry on..

Do you even know what google is???
The numbers have been fairly consistent.

http://pewforum.org/Scien...ientists-and-Belief.aspx







additionally:




Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer.

http://www.stephenjaygoul...g/ctrl/news/file002.html








 Note1 Discussion of the beliefs of scientists is based on a survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which partnered with the Pew Research Center on the survey. AAAS is the world's largest general scientific society and includes members representing all scientific fields. However, the survey of AAAS members may not be representative of all scientists in the USA.


What about scientists from the rest of the world? 

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

As it is fallible, Science doesn't prove God exists, but also doesn't disprove God.

It has nothing to do with being fallible. Science doesn't address the topic of god because god is within the realm of the supernatural. Science addresses natural phenomena.

 

[bboy1827]

http://withalliamgod.word.../galileo-galilei-on-god/

http://www.icr.org/article/newton/

http://www.blupete.com/Li...s/Science/Copernicus.htm

Just a Quick Google Search. As far as Newton, I disagree with you on that note that Einstein is a continuation of Newton. There is no "objective" knowledge, that would be what "God" knows. I can't argue with you guys, because you guys are always "right" as opposed to actually learning and thinking about things. My whole point with science, which had nothing to do with proving/disproving God, A) History is littered with "failed" scientfic theories, World used to be flat, Evolution is still a theory, in fact every facet of science is a theory. B) Science, at it's beginning was seen at as seeking Proof for God, I've read a lot about this. Almost all Scientist were "Christians" People try to say "They said that because they didn't want to get prosecuted" But in some of their personal memoirs they always acknowledged God. I question, theorize and argue even the most certain absolutes, as did these great scientists/philosophers


You guys can be right, about the nature of Science. Honestly your "rightness" doesn't answer any questions I present. A) where did we come from, by we I mean every living thing in the Galaxy. B) Why does the sun have to raise and set everyday? Isn't it conceivable that one day the sun didn't "rise and set"?

As for the Ancients methodology and research methods, you do realize that that some of the theories that they believed we still hold true today, so I would def stop #@*!$!#@ on their "tech" and "methodology"

#KanyeShrugs

And just Caught this "I think therefore I am" is actually a Cartesian Idea, i.e Renee Descartes idea, not Kant. Cogito Ergo Sum.....Kant wrote in German Descartes wrote in Latin. PleasurePhd I think you need to calm down a little, specially being wrong.

I pray that some lurkers are checking my facts, because the dudes I argue with are clearly not

 

[coryturner]

i must be the only person that does not care if god exist or not.or care what the next man think if god exist i just live my life 

 

[blackxme]

Evolution just a theory? Are you serious?