Common misconceptions

[MarAzul]

Now this is philosophy.

By asking "why," you're ascribing meaning to nature. "Meaning" is a human invention; it is an entirely subjective product of our consciousness. Mother nature doesn't care about our philosophical meanderings. The universe moves on with or without us.

What is beyond the veil of our observational abilities is unknown. The astounding advance of technology has led us to some pretty deep understanding of the universe in a short period of time. The further we stretch our observational abilities, the more we discover and the fewer questions are left to philosophy.

Since the invention of the telescope, we have documented and understood realm after realm once probed only by philosophy. Over and over again, each level of understanding we have gained has taught us one central thing: Everything obeys the laws of nature. And over and over again, what we have discovered in each new layer of nature we uncover is entirely unlike what any philosophy had once preached. Humans love to make meaning where there is none.

So here we are, up against the limits of our observational abilities once more.

What makes the most sense in this situation:

a. Predicting that what is beyond the our current limit of understanding will follow the fundamental laws of nature, or
b. Assuming that what is beyond that our current limit of understanding will not follow the fundamental laws of nature.

Wow! "the more we discover and the fewer questions are left to philosophy"!!!!
That has to be as close to bull shit as any man could ever post.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

This is a dangerous slippery slope brother. The reason is clearly this...

If nature holds no discrimination, then why wouldn't hilter's mass genocide be warranted? Like you suggested, army ants don't care if you are human, they will eat you just the same. What does it matter if we deployed all our bombs and wipe out life on this planet? It wouldn't matter to the grand scheme of the universe right?

The Earth could fall into the sun tomorrow and nothing would change.

Meaning is a product of human consciousness. It only exists so much as we think it does. Once we're gone, our version of meaning is gone as well. And time marches on.

 

[magnifier661]

Okay, so I would love to keep this up all day, but I'm afraid this is going nowhere.

Please go back and look at the original posts that started this conversation. You handed me an argument I wasn't making and then ran with it. I even told you that I wasn't arguing what you said I was arguing and I tried to get back to what my original and only question was, but you wouldn't let me.

Whatever you say brother. As you already pointed out, the connection of your idea of evolution must require abiogenesis. In fact you've explained this a few times in our debate.

So when I say "evolution" in regard to a naturalist pov, it would be entirely safe to assume that abiogenesis would be "you egg" theory of the existence of life. And this is your opinion, which we are debating.

So regardless if you think this debate is going nowhere, I believe it is. I argued that creation can be used as scientifically as evolution (described better, naturalist evolution), using the naturalist's tool of abiogenesis.

 

[magnifier661]

The Earth could fall into the sun tomorrow and nothing would change.

Meaning is a product of human consciousness. It only exists so much as we think it does. Once we're gone, our version of meaning is gone as well. And time marches on.

Yet I disagree. The purpose of the sun is to help give life to our planet. Purpose is how and why I believe there is a conscience in this universe. The fact that you and I are debating is purpose and that is no mistake nor chance.

You choose to debate me, I choose to respond. The lion chooses to eat the gazelle, the volcano chooses to erupt. I am a firm believer that everything in this universe is a choice and they are doing so purposely.

 

[julius]

So is the purpose of the sun to blast insane radiation and heat at Mercury and blast off whatever atmosphere it had (or Mars)? And to just pump Venus up with green house gasses?

Sounds like an ass hole, that sun.

 

[magnifier661]

So is the purpose of the sun to blast insane radiation and heat at Mercury and blast off whatever atmosphere it had (or Mars)? And to just pump Venus up with green house gasses?

Sounds like an ass hole, that sun.

Have you ever watched "world war z"? It's a silly movie, but there was a line made by the scientist in the plane.

I'm summarizing but He said "Mother Nature is the most creative and destructive serial killer in history"

 

[MarAzul]

The Earth could fall into the sun tomorrow and nothing would change.

Meaning is a product of human consciousness. It only exists so much as we think it does. Once we're gone, our version of meaning is gone as well. And time marches on.

Geez man! If understanding of the the physical world is everything and the philosophy developed from the composite of human experience means nothing, then perhaps you have
been reading the wrong writings. Given that measure, the Bonobo might have made as much progress in the the quest of knowledge has his cousin the man.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I'm summarizing but He said "Mother Nature is the most creative and destructive serial killer in history"

Clearly that guy was an atheist.

 

[magnifier661]

Clearly that guy was an atheist.

I would agree

 

[Minstrel]

What does THAT mean? If you mean the majority of people misuse it, how is that "adaptation"?

As the rest of my post explained, we have a new way of dealing with someone who predicates a claim on questionable givens (i.e. the adaptation) so we don't necessarily need "begging the question" to mean what it used to. It can evolve to a new meaning with no catastrophic loss to our communication.

Also, I was largely bantering rather than making a serious argument. I have no strong opinions on this, though I do tend towards the "language is a living thing" argument and don't feel too concerned about meanings changing over time.

 

[crowTrobot]

The fundamental question is why does anything exist?

why not?

(to quote Sean Carroll) On what are you framing your expectations that it shouldn't?

 

[crowTrobot]

And since the universe created time, then everything already happened. Anything that had or will happened has happened.

Actually that's an idea lots of quantum physicists take seriously. But it's not just everything that you will experience in the future that has "already happened" (exists in some sense concurrently with your "now"), but everything that could POSSIBLY happen. Your consciousness is just traversing one particular set of existing possibilities.

Smoke something and think about that!

 

[magnifier661]

why not?

(to quote Sean Carroll) On what are you framing your expectations that it shouldn't?

An unconscious singularity doesn't need to expand. It doesn't even need to exist.

As the saying above, the sun can consume the planet earth and the universe wouldn't skip a beat. Then again, maybe it would?

I look at this universe as a deeply fragile state, that even the most minute change, could be the difference the universe being entirely different. I see purpose in existence and get a feeling that there was a design.

 

[magnifier661]

Actually that's an idea lots of quantum physicists take seriously. But it's not just everything that you will experience in the future that has "already happened" (exists in some sense concurrently with your "now"), but everything that could POSSIBLY happen. Your consciousness is just traversing one particular set of existing possibilities.

Smoke something and think about that!

I know man! It's crazy to think being a theist or atheist! The common thinking is the time map has already been laid out like a rug. Our existence has already arrived the moment the Big Bang expanded.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Whatever you say brother.

Go back and look for yourself. I tried to stick to the question I was asking you, but you keep dragging me into your "debate."

As you already pointed out, the connection of your idea of evolution must require abiogenesis. In fact you've explained this a few times in our debate.

I don't think I said that. In fact I said several times that abiogenesis and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

So when I say "evolution" in regard to a naturalist pov, it would be entirely safe to assume that abiogenesis would be "you egg" theory of the existence of life. And this is your opinion, which we are debating.

We're debating my opinion? What did you decide my opinion was again? "You egg"? I'm getting the feeling you're deeper down the rabbit hole than I thought.

So regardless if you think this debate is going nowhere, I believe it is. I argued that creation can be used as scientifically as evolution (described better, naturalist evolution), using the naturalist's tool of abiogenesis.

And I argued that creation has no scientific merit or backing and asked you to explain why you thought so. Remember?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Geez man! If understanding of the the physical world is everything and the philosophy developed from the composite of human experience means nothing, then perhaps you have
been reading the wrong writings. Given that measure, the Bonobo might have made as much progress in the the quest of knowledge has his cousin the man.

Perhaps.

I didn't say philosophy meant nothing. It means a whole hell of a lot. Many things do. But only to us.

I know you think that humans are something special and are part of some Grand Plan, so let's just agree to disagree.

 

[magnifier661]

Go back and look for yourself. I tried to stick to the question I was asking you, but you keep dragging me into your "debate."



I don't think I said that. In fact I said several times that abiogenesis and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

Bro, abiogenesis IS absolutely necessary for you to believe evolution with chance. Unless, of course, you have some other theory that supports that claim?

We're debating my opinion? What did you decide my opinion was again? "You egg"? I'm getting the feeling you're deeper down the rabbit hole than I thought.

Well yeah because "your opinion" has being tossed around like fact. Just read back bro! Hahaha

And I argued that creation has no scientific merit or backing and asked you to explain why you thought so. Remember?

And I responded that it's as scientific as using abiogenesis as the theory on the start of evolution.

But let's be real here. You don't believe philosophy isn't a tool for science either.

 

[magnifier661]

Perhaps.

I didn't say philosophy meant nothing. It means a whole hell of a lot. Many things do. But only to us.

I know you think that humans are something special and are part of some Grand Plan, so let's just agree to disagree.

Newsflash, you wouldn't have your science without philosophy.

And the even funnier thing is you explain we are only humans. Yes, humans that now can split an atom. Just imagine were we will be in a million years?!

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Bro, abiogenesis IS absolutely necessary for you to believe evolution with chance. Unless, of course, you have some other theory that supports that claim?

Evolution as a theory doesn't speculate on how life first began. If life had been created by a higher power, it could have then started to evolve naturally from there. I'm assuming that is what you believe. So, no, abiogenesis is not necessary to the theory of evolution.

Well yeah because "your opinion" has being tossed around like fact. Just read back bro! Hahaha

Man, I've been going back and reading all the old posts every time you respond, desperately trying to figure out where the hell you're getting your arguments from. I'm still perplexed.

And I responded that it's as scientific as using abiogenesis as the theory on the start of evolution.

You saying that doesn't give it any credibility. You haven't given any evidence that there's any science to creationism.

I pointed out that abiogenesis is based on actual science, and you said that no scientist alive would agree with me.

But let's be real here. You don't believe philosophy isn't a tool for science either.

I don't believe that philosophy isn't a tool for science either? The rare triple-negative statement... I would answer that but I have zero idea why you're making that statement, so I'll just let it go.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

• Nowhere in the Bible does it say exactly three magi came to visit the baby Jesus, nor that they were kings, rode on camels, or that their names were Casper, Melchior and Balthazar. Matthew 2 has traditionally been combined with Isaiah 60:1–3.

Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you. 2For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but the Lord will arise upon you, and his glory will be seen upon you. 3And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.
​

Three magi are supposed because three gifts are described, and artistic depictions of the nativity have almost always depicted three magi since the 3rd century.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-324 The wise men in the biblical narrative did not visit on the day Jesus was born, but they saw Jesus as a child, in a house as many as two years afterwards (Matthew 2:11

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Newsflash, you wouldn't have your science without philosophy.

You're saying that as if it means anything to what I said. What am I supposed to say? "Oh, he's right! Modern science DID stem from the philosophy of previous generations! I've been a fool! I guess there really is a grand plan!"

And the even funnier thing is you explain we are only humans. Yes, humans that now can split an atom. Just imagine were we will be in a million years?!

Probably dead, due to the fact that we can split atoms.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

A fatwā is a non-binding legal opinion issued by an Islamic scholar under Islamic law; as such, it is commonplace for fatwās from different authors to disagree. The popular misconceptionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-341 that the word means a death sentence probably stems from the fatwā issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran in 1989 regarding the author Salman Rushdie, who he stated had earned a death sentence for blasphemy. This event led to fatwās gaining widespread media attention in the West

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Abner Doubleday did not invent baseball.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I would agree

Whereas, of course, you believe that GOD is the most creative and destructive serial killer in history. In case you missed the point of my original comment.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

A penny dropped from the Empire State Building will not kill a person or crack the sidewalk.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-303 The terminal velocity of a falling penny is about 30–50 miles per hour (48–80 km/h), and the penny will not exceed that speed regardless of the height from which it is dropped. At that speed, its energy is not enough to penetrate a human skull or crack concrete, as demonstrated on an episode of MythBusters. As MythBusters noted, the Empire State Building is a particularly poor setting for this misconception, since its tapered shape would make it impossible to drop anything directly from the top to street level.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Abner Doubleday did not invent baseball.

I used to love rounders. We played it in primary school before they made us play cricket once we hit 11. Baseball is boring, but it's got nothing on cricket, trust me.

 

[magnifier661]

Evolution as a theory doesn't speculate on how life first began. If life had been created by a higher power, it could have then started to evolve naturally from there. I'm assuming that is what you believe. So, no, abiogenesis is not necessary to the theory of evolution.

How convenient! Lol

Well since you and I both agree that evolution exists, what are we arguing? Reading back, I see you defending that abiogenesis is more scientific than theistic concepts, which is tripping me out.

We come "full circle" with the argument. Do you or do you not think abiogenesis is more scientific than theistic views?

Man, I've been going back and reading all the old posts every time you respond, desperately trying to figure out where the hell you're getting your arguments from. I'm still perplexed.

Same here! You were the one that think creation belief is unscientific, yet fully support abiogenesis as truly scientific.

And what started it all? You said "you must be able to observe it naturally". I guess it doesn't matter to the things you believe in huh?

You saying that doesn't give it any credibility. You haven't given any evidence that there's any science to creationism.

I pointed out that abiogenesis is based on actual science, and you said that no scientist alive would agree with me.

Are you saying there is zero evidence that God exists?

I don't believe that philosophy isn't a tool for science either? The rare triple-negative statement... I would answer that but I have zero idea why you're making that statement, so I'll just let it go.

Simple, you said "philosophy isn't science"

 

[magnifier661]

Whereas, of course, you believe that GOD is the most creative and destructive serial killer in history. In case you missed the point of my original comment.

No, I believe that "free will" is the most destructive serial killer.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

When an event with equally probable outcomes comes out the same way several times in succession, the other outcome is not more likely next time. For example, if a roulettehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-285 ball ends up on black many times in a row, and not once on red (as reportedly happened 26 times on August 18, 1913, in the Monte Carlo Casinohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-286), the next ball is not more likely to land on red; red is not "due".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#cite_note-roulette-287 For a fair wheel, neither is red less likely. This misconception is known as the gambler's fallacy; in reality statistical independence holds, and red is just as likely or unlikely on the next spin as always—sometimes expressed as "the system has no memory". If the event is physically determined, and not perfectly random, the repeated outcome may be more likely. For example, a die that has rolled a six ten consecutive times might be loaded or controlled by hidden magnets, and would be more likely to roll another six.