Groundhog's day

[Sternwallow]

Simoon wrote

That was some bad grammar, right there.

But I think the point was still made.

Yes, the point was made but it was not nearly windy enough.
How about:

"Science does not determine what exists, it discovers verifiable aspects of reality.

Believe or not as you wish because belief just doesn't matter.

[ILOVEJESUS]

zdave wrote

No, it's still a trust thing. Every query I have ever had about reality has been answered by science so far, so why would my trust end with things it currently doesn't understand.

It's fuel for the burning fire of inquiry rather than an abandonment of trust the first time it doesn't have an answer.

Since I was young, science has gone on to answer many questions which were previously unanswered, so there remains a bolstered trust, and I trust it will continue to reveal more and more about the world and universe I love so much.

I should also note, that I trust science will get it wrong from time to time, but I also trust that it will correct itself with enough observation. It is a self-correcting process.

Additionally, what does science have nothing to do with? Spirituality? Unreality? Anything which doesn't exist? We agree on that.

If religion were science it would have stopped at Newton, claiming the laws of the universe had been un ravelled, and yu would never have had Einstein.

[West491]

It's almost amazing how there are people of all different religions and cultures that come to this forum, but they always use the same arguments and are always wrong about the same thing.

[selliedjoup]

Sternwallow wrote

Certainly not! We do not believe nor claim that science has or ever can have answers to everything. The domain of science is materialistic reality. Theistic ideas that there are things outside of the boundaries of reality do not constitute meaningful questions for science to solve.

...and yet you continually imply that anything without scientific verification does not exist.

Theists love to pose a concept, love, for instance, then they challenge science to explain it. If science does not yet have an explanation, they sit back all smug that they have demonstrated something supernatural.

Love is as real as steam pressure and there is no indication that either of them has an existence outside of or beyond science and materialism. Spirit and supernatural things, on the other hand, have no indication that they exist anywhere outside human imagination. It is a testament to the power of human imagination that it can (within our brains) cause us to do things we would ordinarily find unthinkable

.

Measuring neuron movement to determine love is solely material is circular.

[selliedjoup]

Sternwallow wrote

"Science is the examination of things which exist." is not circular.

No it's not, but "Science is the examination of all things which exist" is.

"selliedjoup has only unreal answers to questions concerning unreal things." is also not circular.

Your implication of "unreal things" presumes anything that science has not proven is unreal. Which is... wait for it, circular. I know it shocked me too!

[selliedjoup]

Irreligious wrote

Yeah. So? Are you asserting that there is a means other than the scientific method of acquiring objective, knowledge-based information?

No I'm simply claiming the potential of unknowable things. Proposing it does not exist as science cannot prove it, dismisses the possibility of the unknowable. You use objective as a buzzword, science is objective, yeah so?

If so, what method would that be?

There is no method, this includes science. Any method involves a leap.

[selliedjoup]

Irreligious wrote

If science can't answer the question, what other method do you propose to use to come up with reliable information? That is, a method that actually answers the question? Idle speculation? Wishful thinking? Outright lying? How do these other methods stack up to the scientific method, in your opinion?

Well firstly your question is so pointlessly loaded I won't bother to answer it wiht the options you provide.

My answer is basic logic. If you don't have the answers for the existence of something, do you dismiss a cause as you don't have an answer? Seemingly here, many do.

[Sternwallow]

selliedjoup wrote

...and yet you continually imply that anything without scientific verification does not exist.

No I do not imply it, I state clearly that there is no reason to believe in the existence of anything for which there is no evidence. I do contend that things which have no effect in the world may exist but they have no meaningful reality. They do not exist in any practical meaning of the word.

Measuring neuron movement to determine love is solely material is circular.

Perhaps, but measurement of the physical correlates with love substantiate that love and other emotions, known to be mediated by hormones and, as patterns of activation, attached to the physical brain is strong evidence that love is as real as pain or a retinal image.

I do not know of anything that is not instantiated in physical terms and no one has yet shown me anything unexplainable, in principle, using physical terms. I confidently expect that there is a natural explanation for any unknown thing that forms a gap in otherwise naturally explained phenomena.

[Sternwallow]

selliedjoup wrote

No it's not, but "Science is the examination of all things which exist" is.

Where did you find someone saying that science does or can examine all things? That would be a false premise.

Your implication of "unreal things" presumes anything that science has not proven is unreal. Which is... wait for it, circular. I know it shocked me too!

Unreal things either do not exist or they exist in a way that has no effect of any kind on the world.

Either way they cannot be detected by any means whatsoever and so are not available for scientific study. Therefore there can be no valid conclusions or statements about them. A god who has no effect is indistinguishable from a God that does not exist.

This is not circular. Science is what science does, specifically, it develops explanations for things that can be observed or detected or measured.

[Sternwallow]

selliedjoup wrote

No I'm simply claiming the potential of unknowable things. Proposing it does not exist as science cannot prove it, dismisses the possibility of the unknowable. You use objective as a buzzword, science is objective, yeah so?

Everyone I talk to acknowledges that there are many unknown things and we cannot rule out existence of any unknowable things. We do know, however, that unknowable things become knowable, in principle, if they have any effect on the world.
Unknown things become less unknown if they have observable effects on the world.

Science is as objective as humanly possible because subjective data are biased and inaccurate and often false. Science accomplishes its objectivity through rigor, intellectual integrity and peer review. Its excellent record as the driving fuel of technology attests to its (not yet perfect) objectivity.

There is no method, this includes science. Any method involves a leap.

Well, science is a leap in the same sense that adding a column of figures and believing that the resulting number is the sum of those figures is a leap.

Unlike religion or personal revelation, science does not require you to believe anything on inadequate or missing or contrary information (or burn in Hell forever for your unbelief). Also unlike religion, science does not claim to have all the answers nor to have absolute truth.

As Richard Dawkins said "Subjective evidence is fine if you do not care whether your beliefs are true or not."

[Irreligious]

selliedjoup wrote

No I'm simply claiming the potential of unknowable things.

And what are you claiming to know about the alleged potential of the unknowable things that you allege?

selliedjoup wrote

Proposing it does not exist as science cannot prove it, dismisses the possibility of the unknowable.

Proposing what does not exist? What is this it that you're talking about? Can you even define this unknowable thing that you allege may or may not exist?

selliedjoup wrote

You use objective as a buzzword, science is objective, yeah so?

A buzzword for what? For something that is demonstrably real? What is your problem with that?

selliedjoup wrote

There is no method, this includes science. Any method involves a leap.

Precisely. And nobody here is willing to take that leap with you, because there is nothing substantive to be said about unknowable propositions, except that they are unknowable.

[Sternwallow]

selliedjoup wrote

My answer is basic logic. If you don't have the answers for the existence of something, do you dismiss a cause as you don't have an answer? Seemingly here, many do.

I am not one of those. If I have no evidence that something exists, then I don't believe that it exists, no matter how many people yammer that it really and truly does exist, really, truly.
IF there is evidence that it exists and I don't know how it came to be that way, I say "I don't know but I'll look into it"
If I find someone who says Quetzlcoatl made it that way so that the Sun would rise in the morning, I am entitled to reject that statement as evidence while still accepting the existence of the thing for whose existence there is evidence.

I dismiss a proposed cause if there is no evidence for its existence.

Suppose you tell me that God made Manna from Heaven and I later discover that Manna really did exist back then (maybe an Israelite illegally saved some in a jar and took it to his grave), Something like that would be evidence that Manna existed but it would not even slightly improve the claim that God made it or that God existed. Your wandering Jew might have made up the story about God doing it just to explain something he couldn't know at the time. Even if God existed then, that is not evidence that He still exists; He is supposedly capable of abandoning His creation.

[Irreligious]

selliedjoup wrote

Well firstly your question is so pointlessly loaded I won't bother to answer it wiht the options you provide.

Well, actually, you already answered my question in your post prior to this one, in which you clearly acknowledged that there is no method to confirm the alleged possible existence of this undefined and unknowable it that you're talking about. You cannot credibly claim that this alleged thing possibly exists when you don't actually know that it's possible for this alleged thing to exist.

Hence, it is reasonable to infer that you already know idle speculation, wishful thinking and outright lying are not reasonable substitutes for genuine knowledge.

selliedjoup wrote

My answer is basic logic. If you don't have the answers for the existence of something, do you dismiss a cause as you don't have an answer? Seemingly here, many do.

What we're dismissing is your idle speculation from abject ignorance. There is nothing logical about jumping to unsupported conclusions. Indeed, it is quite illogical to propose the possible existence of an alleged something that is inherently unknowable.

[zdave]

selliedjoup wrote

My answer is basic logic. If you don't have the answers for the existence of something, do you dismiss a cause as you don't have an answer? Seemingly here, many do.

You just complained about a loaded question, then deploy this piece of shit XD Hang on, let me fix this up.

If you don't have the answers evidence for the existence of something, do you dismiss it a because as you don't have any answer evidence?

The answer to this question is yes. The default position should be agnostic skepticism. It would be dishonest to assert anything else.

[Qlidnaque]

groundhog day indeed