Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neruz]

Oh wow.

Siquo, you do realise you just linked Wikipedia as a source for a debate?

It's still not real.  I know this is hard, but I'm pretty sure that there is always someone outside of your box. "Then my box increases in size to contain that!", well, there's still someone outside of your box. Ad Infinitum.

That's fine, then the system becomes infinite. The Universe being infinite is one of the many possibilities.

Neruz: You are (AGAIN!) confusing your own ideas with science. Read about reality, and how you use two of the zillions of definitions at the same time.

No, it's just the one definition, which Bauglir accurately clarified. That's the definition of 'the Universe' that scientists use.

Bauglir I'm saying that the scientific definition of the Universe excludes God, even though God can influence the Universe.

If God can influence the Universe, then by the very definition of the word, he is a part of it.



Seriously Siquo, if all you can do is plug your ears and say 'nonononono you're wrong' at this point then this conversation is over.

Unsurprisingly, you're never going to be able to use logical constructs like speech to try and describe illogical ideas like things being outside the Universe and still existing.

[Siquo]

We've been linking to wikipedia this entire thread...

Here goes:

Basic assumptions of science (Nachmias and Nachmias 1996, pp. 5-7))

1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure. Laws of nature describe order.

2. We can know nature. Individuals are part of nature. Individuals and social exhibit order; may be studied same as nature.

3. All phenomena have natural causes. Scientific explanation of human behavior opposes religious, spiritualistic, and magical explanations.

4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.

5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.

6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance. (See Sjoberg and Nett previous link)

These are one of many attempts to define the basic assumptions of science. Assumption meaning: There is no proof, but for practical reasons we believe these to be true and go from there.

God and the supernatural are clearly exempt, and I haven't seen you give any links or evidence to the contrary except rambling on about your own ideas, and shouting stuff about your own little perception of science that has nothing to do with the science that is practiced in universities worldwide.

Most other sets of assumptions also clearly define God to be out of scope. Some examples:
- Nature follows fundamental rules/laws
- Universe is primarily orderly
- The principles that define the universe can be discovered

Now I challenge you to come up with something else than "Nononono you're wrong" 

[Neruz]

We've been linking to wikipedia this entire thread...

You don't use Wikipedia as proof, you can use it to help explain ideas, but using it as a source for scientific proof is silly.

God and the supernatural are clearly exempt, and I haven't seen you give any links or evidence to the contrary except rambling on about your own ideas, and shouting stuff about your own little perception of science that has nothing to do with the science that is practiced in universities worldwide.

This is because you have made up the concept of 'supernatural' and thus claimed that Science doesn't cover it.

Of course Science doesn't cover it; you just made it up. Your concept conflicts directly with the third assumption, and your claim conflicts directly with the fourth. If you're going to fabricate conflicting bullshit, then don't run around going "HAY GUYS, THIS CONFLICTS WITH SCIENCE!" like it's something special, or something we should give a damn about.


Or, more accurately, you've gone "I have created a group of things called "Supernatural", these things are outside Science because i say they are. God is in this group because i say he is. Aren't i awesome?"

No, you're just wasting everyone's time. Unless you have a very good solid reason for assuming that God somehow exists outside of the Universe yet can still interact with it (despite this idea clearly violating any semblance of logic) then you are done here.

[Siquo]

I had hoped the wikipedia article could enlighten you, broaden your view on reality and the various definitions of it. I know what you're trying to say, I can see your viewpoint, I know where it all comes from, and it's not a bad viewpoint per se. I hold a different one, however. Attacking them vehemently is fine, but please don't blemish science while you're doing it, I like science the way it is.

I made up a group that is indeed by its definition outside of science, but because science says so, not because I say so.

You failed the challenge, and until you give this stuff some real thought, I am done.

[Neruz]

I am done.

Excellent, i'm just about sick of dealing with your irrational crap anyway.


Also, i did scan the article you linked, and it seems to confirm exactly what i'm saying: Reality is everything that is.

I'm not sure how it's supposed to support your rediculous notion that something can exist outside of the Universe, yet still interact with it.

[Doug52392]

On the subject of so-called "Atheism:"

As an American, I believe in the right to freely practice religion, and I don't mind when people exercise said right. I am a non-religious person, having been in a church only twice in my life for weddings, but I have read the entire Bible before and found it's literary value significant.

tl;dr I'm a non-religious person who can only sit here and laugh at the rage and irrationality behind discussions about "Atheism" and the bullshit arguments both sides will make to defend their positions while demanding that the entire world adopt said positions.

This is also my first post on this forum.

[Neruz]

tl;dr I'm a non-religious person who can only sit here and laugh at the rage and irrationality behind discussions about "Atheism" and the bullshit arguments both sides will make to defend their positions while demanding that the entire world adopt said positions.

Congratulations, none of us have done that. Go away.

[Ampersand]

This is also my first post on this forum.

You made a very poor choice for one.

[Jackrabbit]

Way to make a first impression.

[Areyar]

Many persons first post in this forum is on this topic recently, it is a sad sign of festering.
We must excise the cancer. *pushes report button*

I saw a rant on so called 'openmindedness' on youtube a while back.
Some people claim an open mind must mean you accept whatever they claim.... well fuck that.
I will believe what I want to believe.
If your claims are just not credible, don't blame another's mind of being closed.

Also, if you claim there is more than what is self evident, then the burden of evidence is on you, not on the person you are trying to push your epiphanies on. Ye cannot say "prove me wrong" and expect to win an argument.

[Neruz]

An Open Mind means you don't discount things simply because you don't like the idea or because you feel like it. It does not mean you have to instantly accept everything anyone says. An Open Minded person is fully within his right to demand reasons or evidence before accepting something, a Closed Minded person is a person who discounts something even if he has reasons or evidence to accept it.

[masam]

If at this point in time, science cannot help mankind determine just where we lie in the cosmic hierarchy, whether as lucky pattern of evolution, or placed here to discover purpose, wouldn't that be the place of faith in ourselves as beings to decide where we came from?  And if science at this point cannot prove the existance of, or the existance of something now gone, that swayed the cards in favor of humanity, wouldn't it's eventual goal be to show that there was something other than just our tenacity that helped us along?  So to say an immortal entity exists outside of science is...misinformed.  We just haven't gotten to that part of the equation that is the universe yet.  Because if the whole of the universe is quantifiable like the previous posters claim, than one of those quantities would be in the form of intelligent manipulator, Y/N?  So if science wants to be thorough, you really should start developing more.  So we can lay these nasty arguments to rest.  Loser buys the next round, sound fair?

Tl;DR  Science if it wants to truly quantify the universe will eventually have to face the question and find an answer to whether or not there was a major player in it's making aside from just odds.  And the side that's wrong brings the brewskis while we watch the game.

[Neruz]

It will be a very long time, but there is no reason to assume that we will not eventually learn all the secrets the Universe has to offer, given enough time.

[masam]

yea that's the problem with excluding all possibilities in the realm of science.  My opinion, and I say this to make sure no one tries to argue it because I'm not out to defend merely share my opinion, is that the bible tells us what happened.  Not how it happened.  That's why we have science to figure it the fuck out for ourselves.  I mean if god had wanted to give us a metaphysical lecture on how to make our own universes, he would've made us like we are now except much longer lived and made us sit through what would essentially be the quantum physics lecture from hell...er...heaven?

[Areyar]

...my opinion, is that the bible tells us what happened.  Not how it happened.  ... he would've made us like we are now except much longer lived...

The bible tells us what happened and also how it happened; God did it! It also tells us that man was created to live centuries and father dozens of children at age fivehundred, that building cities and gaining knowledge is wrong (babel). Read Genesis again and try to make sense of it.

The New testament isnt much better, each apostle has his own story of what J did and meant. Even recently they found more books by censured apostles. heh, at least it does not pretend to be a single story...or wait, probably it has been edited to appear more harmonious.