Is science inherently atheistic?

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by IanS

Yes. Certainly.

Take for example the entire broad field of astronomy, space science, and cosmology etc. - if you leave aside all scientific studies, which other disciplines do you think have ever given an accurate determination of space, stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, big bang etc.?

You are surely not trying to claim that philosophy has ever done that?

Or take anything else ever explained by science, eg take Evolution - are you really trying to claim that science has not provided us with our most accurate knowledge of evolution? You are surely not going to claim that philosophy has taught the world accurately about evolution?

QM? GR? and all of the vast mass of information obtained from those branches of science - are you suggesting that science has not given us the most accurate picture of all that?

What about the whole of chemistry? Are you unaware that the accurate explanations in chemistry have come from the science of "chemistry", and not from alchemy or philosophy or theology?

And the Hausdorff paradox?

Is half an orange really congruent to a third of an orange?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Trakar

You appear insightfully (or is that incitefully? ) direct and correct in your assessment, ...at the least, from my biased and highly subjective perspective!

So you think his straw man is direct and correct?

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So you think his straw man is direct and correct?

I find his statements congruent to my own impressions. If you feel his arguments are straw, it is up to you to present the evidence you feel compellingly supports your understandings. Please proceed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Your words are something in between a light, quick, shallow and erroneous reading of other's posts and a "strawmanization". Your perceived non sequiturs are a natural consequence of that.

You just have been making a false argument about science having to have definitive answers to everything just in order to be science. You seem to need science serving an agenda that humiliates those non-scientist that live their lives in peace, in such a way that inexistence of god not only is a conclusion arrived by method but an ukase scolding those who fail to comply and show contrition about their previous errors. Your agenda is something blurry called science triumphing over bloody theists, so indeed science is not the subject you're talking about, no matter you name it constantly and envelop what you say with logical vestments.

I'm not the only person who noticed you were arguing with invented positions I don't hold.

Using the scientific process to evaluate the evidence that surrounds us is the most successful way to understand the Universe.

What does that philosophical position have to do with "an agenda that humiliates those non-scientist that live their lives in peace, in such a way that inexistence of god not only is a conclusion arrived by method but an ukase scolding those who fail to comply and show contrition about their previous errors"?

From where I stand it is you who is choosing to be insulted because I don't believe the things you or others believe in. Who is it that is scolding people for what think here? I suggest you consult a mirror for that answer.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Trakar

I find his statements congruent to my own impressions. If you feel his arguments are straw, it is up to you to present the evidence you feel compellingly supports your understandings. Please proceed.

Hint: note the words that follow "agenda" in aleCcowaN's statement and find something matching that in mine. How is my view of the scientific process an agenda to humiliate god believers?

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Hint: note the words that follow "agenda" in aleCcowaN's statement and find something matching that in mine. How is my view of the scientific process an agenda to humiliate god believers?

And the use of the word "agenda" is not unique to aleCcowaN is this thread.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Trakar

I find his statements congruent to my own impressions. If you feel his arguments are straw, it is up to you to present the evidence you feel compellingly supports your understandings. Please proceed.

Since SG never made the statements attributed to her why does she have to defend them?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

And the Hausdorff paradox?

Is half an orange really congruent to a third of an orange?

I'll give you that we only think what language allows us to. But that can be explained using the scientific process. Philosophy doesn't explain it at all.

A simpler example is to ask yourself if animals think in images or symbols. It's an interesting thing to contemplate but it is only science that can really reveal what it means in terms of conscious thought.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

And the Hausdorff paradox?

Is half an orange really congruent to a third of an orange?

Well this is quite good, why don’t you read this -

http://books.google.co.uk/books/abou...4C&redir_esc=y

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Hint: note the words that follow "agenda" in aleCcowaN's statement and find something matching that in mine. How is my view of the scientific process an agenda to humiliate god believers?

And the use of the word "agenda" is not unique to aleCcowaN is this thread.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by IanS

Well this is quite good, why don’t you read this -

http://books.google.co.uk/books/abou...4C&redir_esc=y

I know what the Hausdorff paradox is. I was asking you if it is physically representable and if the empirical demonstration of it physical non-representability entails its non-existence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

And the use of the word "agenda" is not unique to aleCcowaN is this thread.

And this relates to my posts, how?

I'm not saying I don't have an agenda. If you define agenda as what motivates us we all have one. My actual complaint is claiming that agenda is to humiliate anyone.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Hint: note the words that follow "agenda" in aleCcowaN's statement and find something matching that in mine. How is my view of the scientific process an agenda to humiliate god believers?

An "agenda" is not evident in the scientific process, but it does seem present in the manner in which some promote and attempt to stage opposition between the scientific observations, explorations and understandings of the universe and the beliefs and faiths of others. This isn't to say that there aren't opposing agenda, nor that those who vehemently attack and oppose the "godless" perspective are any better or less culpable for the actions they do in the name of their agenda, merely that neither does anything but bring the disgrace of reprehensible personal behavior to the name of their cause.

Science and religion are not, and never have been opposites or even in oppostion, despite the efforts and confusions of many who think of themselves in opposing camps on such issues. Sneetches all of them.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'll give you that we only think what language allows us to.

And how does that address my question about the Hausdorff.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

But that can be explained using the scientific process.

Really?

How can science demonstrate a statement that is not empirically falsifiable or that has been empirically falsified?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Philosophy doesn't explain it at all.

This is a very common rhetorical flourish of yours. When someone claims that science can't explain a phenomenon; you counter with the claim with that philosophy can't explain it either. While this is relevant in a thread discussing the contributions of philosophy, it is completely irrelevant in a thread discussing the limitations of science with respect to religious claims. In other words, what philosophy can or cannot explain when addressing what science can or cannot explain.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

A simpler example is to ask yourself if animals think in images or symbols.

Yes, it might be a simpler to ask that question but it is ultimately irrelevant to the question of the ontological reality of mathematical objects.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's an interesting thing to contemplate but it is only science that can really reveal what it means in terms of conscious thought.

Examining the relationship between existence and conscious perception is not the same as examining existence itself.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Trakar

An "agenda" is not evident in the scientific process, but it does seem present in the manner in which some promote and attempt to stage opposition between the scientific observations, explorations and understandings of the universe and the beliefs and faiths of others. This isn't to say that there aren't opposing agenda, nor that those who vehemently attack and oppose the "godless" perspective are any better or less culpable for the actions they do in the name of their agenda, merely that neither does anything but bring the disgrace of reprehensible personal behavior to the name of their cause.

Because I believe the world would be better off with more critical thinkers and less fantasy believers does not mean I'd use humiliation to get there. Is a scientist humiliated because god believers exist?

Originally Posted by Trakar

Science and religion are not, and never have been opposites or even in oppostion, despite the efforts and confusions of many who think of themselves in opposing camps on such issues. Sneetches all of them.

Is science in opposition to a belief in homeopathy? Astrology? 911 Truthers? How do those beliefs differ from god beliefs when it comes to the scientific process?

Quote:

Sneetches with stars discriminate against and shun those without

I, as an atheist, have never felt offended by the visitors that knock on my door from time to time trying to convince me to believe in their god. There's no inherent discrimination and shunning involved in holding a different belief or philosophy. Discrimination and shunning take additional actions beyond simply what we believe.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

How can science demonstrate a statement that is not empirically falsifiable or that has been empirically falsified?

And here's the part of that people just keep not getting. Science simply dismisses things that aren't falsifiable because they are by definition non-entities. They don't exist by any practical meaning of the term.

I get that people that want to believe in Woo have latched onto this "unfalsifiable" copout, it seems on this board its really the only argument they have left, but the sad fact is believing in things without evidence really isn't any better then believing in things that have been proven false.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

And the use of the word "agenda" is not unique to aleCcowaN is this thread.

Though I am impressed with the growth and expansion of his english vocabulary over the last couple of years, this percieved use may be more a matter of lacking an appropriately large and more precise set of synonyms to use in this type of discussion than anything else.

In general, Americans tend to associate "agenda" with "hidden agenda," or ulterior motivations for actions and behavior. Reading this strictly into his words may be giving more credit to his english usage than is neccessarily appropriate, but I will allow him to address such specifics.

I understood his argument to be more in the line of some using their own beliefs and preferences to instill an antagonistic opposition to issues of science and religion that are not objectively inherent in those fields of understanding. Not so much an agenda (as in a secreted plan of action) but rather a subjective perspective/world-view that shapes and molds their understandings and information to a substantive degree.

[aleCcowaN]

Oh, the good ol' he-said-I-said, "who's on first" !

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm not the only person who noticed you were arguing with invented positions I don't hold.

Good to know it.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Using the scientific process to evaluate the evidence that surrounds us is the most successful way to understand the Universe.

Exactly what I think, and live on. Besides, if this should matter for the sake of future arguments, I don't think there are gods, ghosts, souls nor deep distant background intelligences. I'm proudly post-theist and I hope people may become this in the future, surely before my cease-to-exist.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What does that philosophical position have to do with "an agenda that humiliates those non-scientist that live their lives in peace, in such a way that inexistence of god not only is a conclusion arrived by method but an ukase scolding those who fail to comply and show contrition about their previous errors"?

Your sudden lane changes may answer that to you. Are you of those who think that because they depart from a valid clause they're always on track?

In fact, what has to do what we both "think", if anything at all, with science being inherently atheist or not.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

From where I stand it is you who is choosing to be insulted because I don't believe the things you or others believe in. Who is it that is scolding people for what think here? I suggest you consult a mirror for that answer.

You chose to answer my first post in the thread -a post addressing the subject- and just one line after starting you dropped "Name a god belief that a scientific analysis actually has nothing to say about...". So "science has something to say" -is this a strawman "yet"? - and you will tell us what it is ...

I won't repeat myself just to be misread again. My first replies were questions, mostly "are you implying...?" (You could simply answer "No, but thanks for asking"), "what has to do ----?" (You could simply answer that or explain why you think you didn't say ----), and "would I be ....?" (You could simply answer "I don't no", or "No" or any simple thing. )

I ignored Dinwar's blatant retort, that shares with yours not answering my questions because you know, questions are alien to the scientific method and just mere tricks to catch you wrong, so you follow Dinwar's bad example and answer some ghastly notion I was supposed to be implying according to your pen. You did that after not replying my real questions, then don't you dare later to call strawman anything.

Following that, it's just joy -from the point of view of practising English- as you chose not to argue with me, in spite you quote my posts. I don't govern your fantasies so I went on with the general topic before quoting yours as you seem no caring about what other poster say, or whether it is addressed or speak of you or not. It just looks better doing it that way instead of continue to explain our own ideas with posters quoting one owns to immediately misquote you in their answers.

ADDENDUM:

Reading last posts, my opinion is that you and other pals here need to eat a lot of soup, milk and vegetables before having an agenda -one that you may be aware of-, so it wasn't addressed to you in the first time.

You're just another case of "if I don't understand it, it must have been whatever I fancy it was", specially with English as a second language

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

And how does that address my question about the Hausdorff.

Are you not trying to define reality using the language of math?

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Really?

How can science demonstrate a statement that is not empirically falsifiable or that has been empirically falsified?

We've had this discussion before and you make the same claims then never address challenges to them. As is evidenced by your next comment:

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

This is a very common rhetorical flourish of yours. When someone claims that science can't explain a phenomenon; you counter with the claim with that philosophy can't explain it either. While this is relevant in a thread discussing the contributions of philosophy, it is completely irrelevant in a thread discussing the limitations of science with respect to religious claims. In other words, what philosophy can or cannot explain when addressing what science can or cannot explain.

Explain what? Gibberish? Fiction? Something that has nothing to do with understanding the Universe?

You aren't talking about understanding the Universe, you make up statements then decry the statement which asks no question is not falsifiable. Of course not. My dinner last night isn't falsifiable. What does that have to do with anything we are talking about?

BTW, science does a fine job addressing religious claims, so I reject your underlying premise outright.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Yes, it might be a simpler to ask that question but it is ultimately irrelevant to the question of the ontological reality of mathematical objects.

What do you discover contemplating a concept?

Ontology^WP

Quote:

the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality as such, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations

I repeat, what do you learn about the Universe by contemplating the philosophical nature of being?

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Examining the relationship between existence and conscious perception is not the same as examining existence itself.

You are just defining "examine" to include Universe contemplating but you can't describe what one discovered during such contemplating.


Philosophy might be an enjoyable exercise. It doesn't lead to discovery in any different way than contemplating evidence and having a eureka moment about a relationship does.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

...I, as an atheist, have never felt offended by the visitors that knock on my door from time to time trying to convince me to believe in their god. There's no inherent discrimination and shunning involved in holding a different belief or philosophy. Discrimination and shunning take additional actions beyond simply what we believe.

There is no harm in finding specific behaviors and actions inappropriate or inconsiderate. The harm is in attributing the actions and expressions to be the result of the external belief-systems rather than the internal interpretations and personal expressions of that individual's behavior. IOW, blame the specific theist/atheist for their individual actions, not the belief system that they claim to represent.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Oh, the good ol' he-said-I-said, "who's on first" !

This makes exactly zero sense.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

.... You chose to answer my first post in the thread -a post addressing the subject- and just one line after starting you dropped "Name a god belief that a scientific analysis actually has nothing to say about...". So "science has something to say" -is this a strawman "yet"? - and you will tell us what it is ...

And this leads to "humiliation", how?

I don't see the point in replying to stuff that makes no sense to me. You may carry on if you wish.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Trakar

There is no harm in finding specific behaviors and actions inappropriate or inconsiderate. The harm is in attributing the actions and expressions to be the result of the external beliefs rather than the internal interpretations and personal expressions of that individual's behavior. IOW, blame the specific theist/atheist for their individual actions, not the belief system that they claim to represent.

I can only go back to the evidence to reply to this. There is overwhelming evidence all god beliefs are human invented fiction. There is no evidence any god beliefs are the result of actual encounters or actions of real gods.

How do I deal with that evidence based conclusion and not address the theist belief system?

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Trakar

I understood his argument to be more in the line of some using their own beliefs and preferences to instill an antagonistic opposition to issues of science and religion that are not objectively inherent in those fields of understanding. Not so much an agenda (as in a secreted plan of action) but rather a subjective perspective/world-view that shapes and molds their understandings and information to a substantive degree.

Thank you a lot, pal. You really DO read. It was pretty much that. At the risk of stretching my English too far, I was referring to this and the posterior enrapturement about our own ideas and reasoning to quickly start crusades "for the sake of good and against evil". One good hint of it is not reading what they apparently quote and are answering.

It all makes to the quarrel-like aspect of almost all threads in these fora, and basically these not being a place to look for enlightenment.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The scientific process is not a crusade. Nor is it responsible that there is no evidence of gods.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This makes exactly zero sense.


And this leads to "humiliation", how?

I don't see the point in replying to stuff that makes no sense to me. You may carry on if you wish.

Nice try, but ... err ... no!

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I can only go back to the evidence to reply to this. There is overwhelming evidence all god beliefs are human invented fiction. There is no evidence any god beliefs are the result of actual encounters or actions of real gods.

How do I deal with that evidence based conclusion and not address the theist belief system?

You're simply not replying to that quote, but going back to your theme.

If you wanted to discuss that, then you just need to open a thread about that. You have done it before, so you know the drill. You even may address scientifically the theist belief system.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with science being inherently atheist or not and it's alien to this thread.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The scientific process is not a crusade. Nor is it responsible that there is no evidence of gods.

Nor it's a water heater ... nor a gecko.

Did you decide you're going on using other people's words randomly to simulate you're addressing the subject?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I don't see the point in replying to stuff that makes no sense to me. You may carry on if you wish.

Your intended self-restraint lasted, what? 9 minutes.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Trakar

There is no harm in finding specific behaviors and actions inappropriate or inconsiderate. The harm is in attributing the actions and expressions to be the result of the external belief-systems rather than the internal interpretations and personal expressions of that individual's behavior. IOW, blame the specific theist/atheist for their individual actions, not the belief system that they claim to represent.

What if the belief system says kill all those who don't agree with the belief system?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Thank you a lot, pal. You really DO read. It was pretty much that. At the risk of stretching my English too far, I was referring to this and the posterior enrapturement about our own ideas and reasoning to quickly start crusades "for the sake of good and against evil". One good hint of it is not reading what they apparently quote and are answering.

It all makes to the quarrel-like aspect of almost all threads in these fora, and basically these not being a place to look for enlightenment.

Looks like you're looking for enlightenment in all the wrong places.

(I, the talking snake in the grass, offer you enlightenment for $1000 PM me for details)

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

And here's the part of that people just keep not getting. Science simply dismisses things that aren't falsifiable because they are by definition non-entities. They don't exist by any practical meaning of the term.

So science dismisses math?

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

I get that people that want to believe in Woo have latched onto this "unfalsifiable" copout, it seems on this board its really the only argument they have left, but the sad fact is believing in things without evidence really isn't any better then believing in things that have been proven false.

Can you divide up a round, physical object in such a way that half of it is congruent to a third of it?

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

What I'll never understand is why people choosing usernames like TimkerbellTities or Crofulator,

It's irrelevant to the topic at hand, or indeed to anything. It's just a handle, not naming the next messiah. Even as ad hominem circumstantial arguments go -- which is literally what you're doing here: you're doing comments about the poster, instead of the actual things being discussed -- this one has got to be one of the silliest ever.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

choosing cartoons and puppets as avatars,

Ok, I stand corrected. This one is even sillier and more irrelevant. How is an icon relevant to whatever is being discussed? Does having a tesseract icon next to it make a post more or less right than if it has a kitten next to it, or what?

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

reading superficially other members' posts

Which may well be the case, but surely if your point is grossly misunderstood, you can at least try to meet them half way and explain what you meant, before doing such irrelevant trolling. I mean, really, how does this lashing out about forum handles and icons count as better? Superficial or not, SG was at least answering to what she understood from your message. Whereas your wild speculations about how you imagine other forum members, are just irrelevant, content-free noise and no signal.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

and arguing in a chalk-on-blackboard screeching way,

You mean like lashing out about forum icons and handles when you can't support your points?

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

for instance, about science and religion as the ultimate battle between good and evil with such a commitment

How someone imagines a debate is irrelevant to whether a side is right or wrong.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

that it's difficult not imagining them wearing biblical beards,

How you imagine other people is between you and your psychiatrist, and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Do you have any point that's on topic? Yes? No? Maybe?

But seriously, while the lashing out about such fully irrelevant stuff as icons and forum handles was picking on stuff that was merely irrelevant, here you get into how you imagine others, i.e., something that exists only in your imagination. Which is a new low.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

they become later so mad about some not taking them 100% seriously.

Again, whether you imagine people getting mad when you've said something dumb, is between you and your psychiatrist, and irrelevant to anything being discussed. I mean, seriously, I'm not interested in your coping mechanisms.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

About the lengths some people go or don't, well, being on the Internet nobody can argue that cathodic whirlwinds stranded them in these shores, can't they? Everybody know that you're not never farther that five clicks away from the Vatican's site or some juicy hard core pornography site. Yay!

Umm... so? Given that then everyone is just as far away from those, including you, I should think it evens out to a non-factor.

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

I come here to practise some English (passionate debate favours me thinking "natively").

You do know that posting just to stir a passionate debate is by definition trolling, right? I never understood why a certain kind thinks that backing out into "I'm just trolling" somehow makes it better or is an excuse...

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

What's your excuse?

Actually being interested in the topic being discussed.

So if you'll kindly stop drowning the useful signal in content-free noise, I would be much grateful. I'm not opposed to your learning English or anything else, but surely one would need to be pretty sociopathic to not care about inconveniencing any number of people -- and even lashing out with such silly ad hominems -- just for that purely personal goal. I'm not paid to help you learn English, you know? If you can do it in a way that doesn't bother others, go for it, but otherwise, shall we say, go forth and multiply, but not in those exact words

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

...choosing cartoons and puppets as avatars...

I suppose it would be better if we all choose pretentious self important douche nozzles that managed to get themselves killed by doing something incredibly stupid for no adequately explained reason as our avatars.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

So science dismisses math?

*Sighs* I'm gonna regret this but in what possible way is math non-falsifiable?

And before you respond I mean non-falsifiable in a way that doesn't appeal to solipsistic nonsense.

Quote:

Can you divide up a round, physical object in such a way that half of it is congruent to a third of it?

I'm sure you have some grand "gotcha" for this but no. 1/3 and 1/2 are different values.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by tsig

Looks like you're looking for enlightenment in all the wrong places.

(I, the talking snake in the grass, offer you enlightenment for $1000 PM me for details)

Thanks for that, nice snake. But I was looking for practising my English in quarrelsome fora. Internet is as a good place to look for enlightenment as Hollywood is a good place to illustrate history.

It was hipforums or these ones. At hipforums, the hippie and marijuana talk didn't bother me, but the language level was elementary school drop-out and -as one critic said- if you searched the database for c*m, it fetched more than a thousand threads. At least here people use to speak of subjects more suitable to my knowledge and education so I can exercise getting myself translated into English.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

I suppose it would be better if we all choose pretentious self important douche nozzles that managed to get themselves killed by doing something incredibly stupid for no adequately explained reason as our avatars.

Of course it would be better.

It would connect with the human in yours.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Are you not trying to define reality using the language of math?

Uh...you could have asked me that instead of assuming that was what I was saying.

No, I am saying that there are mathematical ideas that have no physical instantiation and that their closest physical instantiation falsify their physical existence but that nonetheless are true mathematical statements.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

We've had this discussion before and you make the same claims then never address challenges to them. As is evidenced by your next comment:

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

This is a very common rhetorical flourish of yours. When someone claims that science can't explain a phenomenon; you counter with the claim with that philosophy can't explain it either. While this is relevant in a thread discussing the contributions of philosophy, it is completely irrelevant in a thread discussing the limitations of science with respect to religious claims. In other words, what philosophy can or cannot explain when addressing what science can or cannot explain.

Explain what? Gibberish? Fiction? Something that has nothing to do with understanding the Universe?

Why do you think that statements that don't explain the universe are gibberish?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You aren't talking about understanding the Universe, you make up statements then decry the statement which asks no question is not falsifiable.

No, that's only what you mischaracterize me as doing.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Of course not. My dinner last night isn't falsifiable. What does that have to do with anything we are talking about?

Nothing because you have just presented yet another straw man.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

BTW, science does a fine job addressing religious claims, so I reject your underlying premise outright.

Since I said nothing about religious claims, you are simply flinging straw about.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What do you discover contemplating a concept?

Ontology^WP

Quote:

the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality as such, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations

I repeat, what do you learn about the Universe by contemplating the philosophical nature of being?

[/quote]

Oooooo.....you repeat. It must be important if you repeat it.

Why is learning about the universe the only worthy pursuit of knowledge?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You are just defining "examine" to include Universe contemplating but you can't describe what one discovered during such contemplating.

Because, whenever you have asked this question, it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Philosophy might be an enjoyable exercise.

This would be relevant is I were talking about philosophy.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It doesn't lead to discovery in any different way than contemplating evidence and having a eureka moment about a relationship does.

So you assert.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

*Sighs* I'm gonna regret this but in what possible way is math non-falsifiable?

How is math falsifiable?

You assume that math is falsifiable, so produce evidence that it is.

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

And before you respond I mean non-falsifiable in a way that doesn't appeal to solipsistic nonsense.

Were Hausdorff, Banach, and Tarski solispsits?

Was their work non-sense?

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

I'm sure you have some grand "gotcha" for this but no. 1/3 and 1/2 are different values.

Did you read the article about the Hausdorff paradox?

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I can only go back to the evidence to reply to this. There is overwhelming evidence all god beliefs are human invented fiction. There is no evidence any god beliefs are the result of actual encounters or actions of real gods.

How do I deal with that evidence based conclusion and not address the theist belief system?

By using empiric evidences in and for the purposes they were designed to best address (simplistically, questions of "how, when and where") and leaving the purposes (simplistically, questions of "why" and the valuations of the answers to those questions) of other studies (philosophy and theology) to those fields of study?

If you wish to propose that science as an integrating branch or tool of the philosophy of naturalism, that is certainly one route to take, though then you do relegate yourself to the promotion of a belief system and all which that entails, not merely the lack of a belief.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Did you read the article about the Hausdorff paradox?

A mathematical paradox exists therefore math is unfalsifiable therefore there is some mysterious magical unknown beyond our understand therefore Woo.

A mathematical paradox just means there is something in our understanding of a mathematical process that we got wrong, use incorrectly, apply wrong, aren't looking at correctly or otherwise need to refine. There's no need to jump to Woo.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Thank you a lot, pal. You really DO read. It was pretty much that. At the risk of stretching my English too far, I was referring to this and the posterior enrapturement about our own ideas and reasoning to quickly start crusades "for the sake of good and against evil". One good hint of it is not reading what they apparently quote and are answering.

It all makes to the quarrel-like aspect of almost all threads in these fora, and basically these not being a place to look for enlightenment.

Without marvelling too much on the texture and shadings of the lint I extract from my belly-button: sometimes it is by observing and considering the various ways we all entrap and obsfucate ourselves that we find the paths toward clarity and common understanding (light at the end of the tunnel).



Now that's a tangled web to read!
I apologize to all for my beguiled mangling of the language.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

A mathematical paradox exists therefore math is unfalsifiable therefore there is some mysterious magical unknown beyond our understand therefore Woo.

That's not what I said.

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

A mathematical paradox just means there is something in our understanding of a mathematical process that we got wrong, use incorrectly, apply wrong, aren't looking at correctly or otherwise need to refine. There's no need to jump to Woo.

And I didn't.