100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evidence for a Designer... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
More of the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 11/10/09 09:39 AM
|
|
I think he did exactly that. Amazing read. It's part of it that I was missing. When you really think about it, it had to begin somewhere. Even if you are making the claim that it is all "nature" or all "natural process." Even the natural process has to have a way of arising from nothingness into three dimensional space and time. It did not just pop into existence without some kind of process. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imagination rules the world. Emotions have power. These are things that make humans special. For anyone to thumb their nose at these attributes of humanity shows their ignorance of what humanity is. Some scientists are prudes unimaginative dudes looking down their haughty nose denying truth of moods They don't recognize humanity and claim it's just insanity for it doesn't fit the logic of their pointless barren vanity They put their faith in numbers and in little tiny strings they reject the grand hypotheses of the poets and the kings Determined to be nothing more than happenstance and fluke they reject imagination and emotions they rebuke They claim they have an answer and demand that it's quite serious With stringy things that act like springs and their dimensions aren't delirious! Multiple dimensions! That no one's ever seen! And now they hold that they're so cold they think emotions are obscene  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you really think about it, it had to begin somewhere. Even if you are making the claim that it is all "nature" or all "natural process." Even the natural process has to have a way of arising from nothingness into three dimensional space and time. It did not just pop into existence without some kind of process. Well, truly, it doesn't take a genuis to recognize that all science can ever do is describe what already exists. This is the very nature of the Scientific Method of investigation. To deny that is to show a complete ignorance of the scientific method of inquiry. Anyone who thinks that science will ever be able to say anything at all about the true nature of reality has got to be totally blind. That's would be placing faith beyond faith, in a man-created method of inquiry. Putting it on a pedestal and worshiping it as a god in its own right. It becomes a 'religion' of science. And that's what it has become to many people. Just another religion to proselytize. Science creates the monsters known as scientific fundamentalists.  It's ALIVE! It's ALIVE!  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I argued is that happenstance fails, therefore the only thing left is design. False Dichotomy. Your full of fallacies bud. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 11/10/09 11:36 AM
|
|
What I argued is that happenstance fails, therefore the only thing left is design. False Dichotomy. Your full of fallacies bud. Then, all knowing one, please tell us neophytes the answer to the puzzle. If you say "Nature" or "Naturalism" then please explain what exactly that is and what that means and where that arises from. Oh... and how it arises. What is the process? You seem to think you know. If you don't know, then do you have any ideas? Or are you afraid to express "ideas?" After all, this IS a philosophy forum as well as a science forum. Do you philosophize? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I argued is that happenstance fails, therefore the only thing left is design. False Dichotomy. Your full of fallacies bud. Then, all knowing one, please tell us neophytes the answer to the puzzle. If you say "Nature" or "Naturalism" then please explain what exactly that is and what that means and where that arises from. Oh... and how it arises. What is the process? You seem to think you know. If you don't know, then do you have any ideas? Or are you afraid to express "ideas?" After all, this IS a philosophy forum as well as a science forum. Do you philosophize? The science worshippers fail to see the limitations of science. I LOVE science.  I truly do! But I also realize what it is, and what it isn't. These people who hold science up as the "god of knowledge" can't seem to recognize its limitations. I love Ferraris too. But I wouldn't try to sail one on the ocean. It's a fallacy that science "explains" anything. It doesn't. It merely observes and reports the behavior of what ultimately can never be explained. That's what science does. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn't understand the scientific method of inquiry. And they suggest that I'd make a poor science instructor?  They don't even acknowledge the limitations of the discipline. At least I teach the truth and don't try to pass it off as 'the ultimate religion'.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well my point is when they dismiss philosophy and ideas (even laughing at them) in favor of their own lack of answers I have to wonder why they think they know more than others.
So I ask again, to those who have said that everything is "natural" or "naturalism" to please explain what that is and how that works, and more importantly, from what/where/how did it arise?? What was the process for the beginning of naturalism, three dimensional mass, time and space, and life. Don't shoot down ideas until you have one better that works. I keep asking and you don't have the answers. Stating what science has observed is stating the obvious. It does not solve the ultimate puzzle. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well my point is when they dismiss philosophy and ideas (even laughing at them) in favor of their own lack of answers I have to wonder why they think they know more than others. So I ask again, to those who have said that everything is "natural" or "naturalism" to please explain what that is and how that works, and more importantly, from what/where/how did it arise?? What was the process for the beginning of naturalism, three dimensional mass, time and space, and life. Don't shoot down ideas until you have one better that works. I keep asking and you don't have the answers. Stating what science has observed is stating the obvious. It does not solve the ultimate puzzle. You run into the same brick wall with creationism- if everything had a cause what caused the first cause as nauseum. People are merely saying that, fo them, science answers more questions than religion. Somethings remain unknown and probably should remain unknowable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Somethings remain unknown and probably should remain unknowable. And in between there are doors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Somethings remain unknown and probably should remain unknowable. And in between there are doors. doors of perception? Some math will demonstrate no designer, for example if you are skipping along a creek and you happen to find a stone and a marble, which one would you assume was created- the perfectly round marble of course |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 11/10/09 12:31 PM
|
|
Well my point is when they dismiss philosophy and ideas (even laughing at them) in favor of their own lack of answers I have to wonder why they think they know more than others. So I ask again, to those who have said that everything is "natural" or "naturalism" to please explain what that is and how that works, and more importantly, from what/where/how did it arise?? What was the process for the beginning of naturalism, three dimensional mass, time and space, and life. Don't shoot down ideas until you have one better that works. I keep asking and you don't have the answers. Stating what science has observed is stating the obvious. It does not solve the ultimate puzzle. You run into the same brick wall with creationism- if everything had a cause what caused the first cause as nauseum. People are merely saying that, fo them, science answers more questions than religion. Somethings remain unknown and probably should remain unknowable. In general I agree, for us, as humans, yes you are probably right, a lot of things "should" remain unknowable, because we couldn't handle the truth. (It might be like giving a toddler a loaded gun.) But I don't agree that "some things are unknowable" on the larger scale. Subjectively, if a thing is truly unknowable, then it does not exist. It would all depend on the individual who is doing the KNOWING and how advanced or evolved they are, and what the knowledge was used for. It could be on a "need to know" basis. Beings, advanced beings, perhaps beings or an advanced race that went before us lowly humans, might be at a level where they would know things we could not know. Or beings living in another dimension might be privy to knowledge we could not even understand. But as a spiritual entity, I see that there is no end to what I might learn or know beyond this physical existence if there is a way to exist beyond the physical life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted, all things are possible, however some things are more probable than others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More of the same I agree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 11/10/09 01:44 PM
|
|
I still see no answers. If you can't answer my questions why bother to make your holier than thou remarks?
What is this thing you call "Nature" or "naturalism" and how does it actually work? Where did it come from, or how did it arise from nothing? "Mother nature did it" is not an answer so "Nature" or "naturalism" is not an answer either. EVEN IF IT IS: Okay even if that is your answer.. Then explain how this thing you call "nature" actually evolved? Or just tell me WHAT YOU MEAN BY NATURE. or How did three dimensional space arise from a no-time and no-space condition? At least we have ideas. You have no ideas -- and you pretend you do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ideas are great. Sometimes they are even logical too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 11/10/09 02:01 PM
|
|
See this is what this thread is about..
The O.P. is putting the burden of proof on anyone who dares to go beyond known science and scientific observation with an idea or theory they don't approve of collectively. (Agree on.) But they cannot or will not see beyond a certain point and they have drawn a line between what they have decided is "real" and what is not 'real' and what they will accept (as if they and they alone are the authority on that.) They appear to feel that they (mainstream science) is/are the authority on what is or is not valid 'evidence' within their strict physical observation point. They are an institution. (As if they are the people WE need and MUST convince.) As long as they refuse to venture beyond their point of what they deem is "real" they will forever remain in third density realities and the physical universe and they will never find solutions to the mysteries of the universe and this world. Until then, real scientists like Bohm and others who dare to step outside of their little realm of scientific inquiry are not take seriously. It's their loss in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See this is what this thread is about.. The O.P. is putting the burden of proof on anyone who dares to go beyond known science and scientific observation with an idea or theory they don't approve of collectively. (Agree on.) But they cannot or will not see beyond a certain point and they have drawn a line between what they have decided is "real" and what is not 'real' and what they will accept (as if they and they alone are the authority on that.) They appear to feel that they (mainstream science) is/are the authority on what is or is not valid 'evidence' within their strict physical observation point. They are an institution. (As if they are the people WE need and MUST convince.) As long as they refuse to venture beyond their point of what they deem is "real" they will forever remain in third density realities and the physical universe and they will never find solutions to the mysteries of the universe and this world. Until then, real scientists like Bohm and others who dare to step outside of their little realm of scientific inquiry are not take seriously. It's their loss in my opinion. and yet you do all that you listed here yourself 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ideas are great. Sometimes they are even logical too. When considering existence as a whole, logic is irrelevant. The mere fact that anything at all exists is already illogical. So when considering existence as whole logic obviously can't even be applied or we wouldn't even be here to apply it. So it's a given that the secrets of this universe are not going to be restrained by our mundane ideas of what's "logical". So why keep demanding such a silly thing? You make fun of people for considering intuitive ideas and acuse them of 'clinging' to emotional hopes and dreams. But your addiction to the idea that things must always be logical is no different. You're just 'clinging' to your emotional hopes and dreams that things will turn out to be 'logical'. What's the difference in the end? There is none. You cling to the idea that "God" is logic. We cling to the idea that "God" goes beyond our ideas of logic. It's a religious ideal either way. Don't kid yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 11/10/09 03:19 PM
|
|
See this is what this thread is about.. The O.P. is putting the burden of proof on anyone who dares to go beyond known science and scientific observation with an idea or theory they don't approve of collectively. (Agree on.) But they cannot or will not see beyond a certain point and they have drawn a line between what they have decided is "real" and what is not 'real' and what they will accept (as if they and they alone are the authority on that.) They appear to feel that they (mainstream science) is/are the authority on what is or is not valid 'evidence' within their strict physical observation point. They are an institution. (As if they are the people WE need and MUST convince.) As long as they refuse to venture beyond their point of what they deem is "real" they will forever remain in third density realities and the physical universe and they will never find solutions to the mysteries of the universe and this world. Until then, real scientists like Bohm and others who dare to step outside of their little realm of scientific inquiry are not take seriously. It's their loss in my opinion. and yet you do all that you listed here yourself No I do not. I am simply asking for their ideas. I know they have no proof. Now its quite obvious they have no ideas either. |
|
|
|
|
