Philosophical question?

[TripTango]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

"Metaphysics" is like physics in the same way a "witch doctor" is like a doctor.

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=449

The fact that there are similarities between how historians and scientists do their jobs does not make them the same. From that same page:

"Historians are getting much better these days at examining their own biases, but sometimes more of their claims are impossible to prove conclusively (history cannot be repeated under controlled conditions, usually, in order to find out what really happened a long time ago, while physics experiments can always be redone)."

 

[magnifier661]

it can be RESPECTED on a scientific level. It doesn't make history a science, though. Or philosophy.

Okay, lets say I give you the "RESPECTED" answer. So the Bible can't be respected though? Why is that?

 

[RR7]

Is Craig offering to fund the testing? How do you test the big bang being off? How do you find out infinity isn't probable?

 

[TripTango]

I wonder why scientists don't discredit these wild metaphors like they do with the Bible? Instead they embrace the thinking and incorporate it with science. Why can't they use the philosophy; as crazy as the literal definition; for their motives in science? What's the difference?

You've lost me here. Plato is not arguing that he ACTUALLY stuck some prisoners in a cave, and nobody believes he did so! What is to discredit??

 

[magnifier661]

"Metaphysics" is like physics in the same way a "witch doctor" is like a doctor.


The fact that there are similarities between how historians and scientists do their jobs does not make them the same. From that same page:

"Historians are getting much better these days at examining their own biases, but sometimes more of their claims are impossible to prove conclusively (history cannot be repeated under controlled conditions, usually, in order to find out what really happened a long time ago, while physics experiments can always be redone)."

Okay let me rephrase my question. Do you think that scientists haven't been influenced by the data or theory Historians used to explain the past for further research?

 

[magnifier661]

Is Craig offering to fund the testing? How do you test the big bang being off? How do you find out infinity isn't probable?

He actually agrees with the big bang. I guess that proves you really didn't watch the debates. Oh well, how can I agree with someone that isn't even respecting the side which I stand.

 

[RR7]

Okay, lets say I give you the "RESPECTED" answer. So the Bible can't be respected though? Why is that?

A scientist can respect an historian the same way a scientist can respect a theologian, I suppose. But respect for the bible, what, as scientific text? What reason is there for it to be?

 

[magnifier661]

You've lost me here. Plato is not arguing that he ACTUALLY stuck some prisoners in a cave, and nobody believes he did so! What is to discredit??

There isn't discredit. But it is a metaphor. And many Christians have been mocked on what some believe are metaphors. Just because there are some that literally believe word for word actual events taking place; doesn't generalize the entire culture of Christianity.

 

[MadeFromDust]

A scientist can respect an historian the same way a scientist can respect a theologian, I suppose. But respect for the bible, what, as scientific text? What reason is there for it to be?

Just wanted to note what I said earlier: The Bible never claimed to be a science book. It tells us what we need to know, not want to know. If it told us what we wanted to know it would be inexhaustible.

 

[RR7]

He actually agrees with the big bang. I guess that proves you really didn't watch the debates. Oh well, how can I agree with someone that isn't even respecting the side which I stand.

Him agreeing with it has nothing to do with what I said. I said how do you prove if it was off, we'd all be dead?
Can you read what I write? No, I didn't watch a two hour debate. I said that. That you needed proof other than me saying I was not going to watch them, well, I dunno. I can respect your side, and not have to sit through a 2 hour debate from William Craig. You told me he believes in the big bang. I got that without wasting 2 hours of my life on a video I am not at all interested in. If I post 9 or 10 2 hour videos in here on evolution, you're watching them all? Awesome.

 

[TripTango]

There is no physical evidence to observe of God because He's not a physical being, He's Spiritual. I think there's enough observable evidence in the universe to make a powerful case for a designer. There's a reason secular scientists scrambled to make up a multiverse theory.

That's fine and good -- and unscientific!

Also, I'm baffled as to why you think the multiverse hypotheses were proposed to discredit god.

 

[RR7]

Just wanted to note what I said earlier: The Bible never claimed to be a science book. It tells us what we need to know, not want to know. If it told us what we wanted to know it would be inexhaustible.

I understand, and I understand. I know it is not claiming to be. Mags seems to want it to be respected as such by scientists, or something, i don't really know. I guess he wants them to all refute it with science, however that happens.

 

[magnifier661]

A scientist can respect an historian the same way a scientist can respect a theologian, I suppose. But respect for the bible, what, as scientific text? What reason is there for it to be?

No! As a philisophical map or maybe looking deeper in the meaning of why what was written and pursued direction on what angle to seek it. Maybe God does exist? Maybe there is a planner. Maybe it isn't the Hebrew God. But ignoring God exists is arrogant and dangerous.

 

[TripTango]

There isn't discredit. But it is a metaphor. And many Christians have been mocked on what some believe are metaphors. Just because there are some that literally believe word for word actual events taking place; doesn't generalize the entire culture of Christianity.

"Metaphor" implies "not literally true"... Am I missing something here? We were talking about young earth creationism, which assumes a literal interpretation of Biblical events, weren't we?

 

[MadeFromDust]

That's fine and good -- and unscientific!

Also, I'm baffled as to why you think the multiverse hypotheses were proposed to discredit god.

Oh sorry, maybe you should provide some guidelines as to what's "scientific" and "unscientific". It seems like whenever I approach the Creator zone suddenly I'm "unscientific". Might want to clear that up for me. And yes, the multiverse theory was made up to counter the teleological argument, since so much precision and design is observed in the universe.

 

[TripTango]

That infinity really isn't a probability. That even the "Big Bang" being slightly off 10 to the power of 600 can make or break life. That the solar systems we can see are constantly fixing themselves. Have you seen Craig's request on his theory? Do you really, with an open mind; believe it isn't called to be tested?

I promise I will watch that video tonight. Cross my heart!

 

[RR7]

No! As a philisophical map or maybe looking deeper in the meaning of why what was written and pursued direction on what angle to seek it. Maybe God does exist? Maybe there is a planner. Maybe it isn't the Hebrew God. But ignoring God exists is arrogant and dangerous.

Well, I would say it has been used as a philosophical map,a nd been philosophized about for years and years. Why would a chemist, biologist, whatever use a philosophical map?

 

[magnifier661]

Him agreeing with it has nothing to do with what I said. I said how do you prove if it was off, we'd all be dead?
Can you read what I write? No, I didn't watch a two hour debate. I said that. That you needed proof other than me saying I was not going to watch them, well, I dunno. I can respect your side, and not have to sit through a 2 hour debate from William Craig. You told me he believes in the big bang. I got that without wasting 2 hours of my life on a video I am not at all interested in. If I post 9 or 10 2 hour videos in here on evolution, you're watching them all? Awesome.

He was explaining it in his debate. You may not have interest; but I really ask you, hell even plead you to watch the debates and how he explains these things. I am not a physicist, and I don't even think I'm smart. But I love to learn. I absorb things like a sponge. I just don't have the discipline to follow through. Just watch one of the debates and get back to me. I don't have the answers scientifically; because I'm not qualified to answer them. If you are; then I would love to ask you what I question. Maybe you can answer them.

 

[magnifier661]

"Metaphor" implies "not literally true"... Am I missing something here? We were talking about young earth creationism, which assumes a literal interpretation of Biblical events, weren't we?

Yes, I haven't disagreed with the age of the Earth, saying it could be literally 10,000 years old. But I still haven't dismissed it either. I seek truth and hopefully science can pave the way for that truth.

 

[RR7]

I really don't care to waste my time with it, sorry. No disrespect to you, or your position. I just don't care. I wouldn't watch a 2 hour video of Dawkins talking either.
As for his suggestions of the big bang being off, and life not existing, again, I guess if there is some way to test that, then he can offer to fund a scientist to test it for him. I'm positive someone would take his money for it. Of course, I can challenge the scientific community to prove something unprovable, and then call them cowards or biased when they refused to do it.

 

[TripTango]

Oh sorry, maybe you should provide some guidelines as to what's "scientific" and "unscientific". It seems like whenever I approach the Creator zone suddenly I'm "unscientific". Might want to clear that up for me. And yes, the multiverse theory was made up to counter the teleological argument, since so much precision and design is observed in the universe.

Scientific evidence is testable, objective, and reproducible. Everything else is unscientific.

I don't know much about the origins of the multiverse hypotheses, but in physics it is mentioned as a possible explanation for certain weird quantum mechanical behavior. Note that it is not scientific either, strictly speaking, since it cannot be tested! This is why it is not called a "theory".

 

[RR7]

Yes, I haven't disagreed with the age of the Earth, saying it could be literally 10,000 years old. But I still haven't dismissed it either. I seek truth and hopefully science can pave the way for that truth.

But science HAS, and when it doesn't fit with your 10,000 year belief, it is discredited science to you. What does science have to say? We've tested bones millions of years old. Nope, you're wrong. Ok, well then there is literally nothing short of giving you a time stamped picture of god opening his arms and creating the earth that will likely be accepted. Why ask science to prove something to you when you don't trust them, their methods, or their tools to do so?

 

[MadeFromDust]

Scientific evidence is testable, objective, and reproducible. Everything else is unscientific.

So you're ruling out evolution then?

I don't know much about the origins of the multiverse hypotheses, but in physics it is mentioned as a possible explanation for certain weird quantum mechanical behavior. Note that it is not scientific either, strictly speaking, since it cannot be tested! This is why it is not called a "theory".

Maybe you should read up on it, it's one of the reasons I'm not an atheist.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

All of your questions will be answered if you all take a few moments and watch this - http://www.starz.com/originals/spartacus/Videos/#/episode-201

 

[magnifier661]

But science HAS, and when it doesn't fit with your 10,000 year belief, it is discredited science to you. What does science have to say? We've tested bones millions of years old. Nope, you're wrong. Ok, well then there is literally nothing short of giving you a time stamped picture of god opening his arms and creating the earth that will likely be accepted. Why ask science to prove something to you when you don't trust them, their methods, or their tools to do so?

Are you talking about Carbon 14? Maybe potassium dating? All of them have flaws. That only proves it is partially accurate. And maybe it will prove that the Earth and Universe is billions of years old down the road. I'm not close minded. I welcome the challenge and support it 100%. If it's irrefutable than I would be stupid to ignore it.

I want answers to what I don't know. I have the Faith in my Hebrew God, and I am positive eventually science will prove this a reality. I believe the more digging and modern science evolves; the closer we get to the truth that God really does exist. Why can't I believe that? Why isn't that a logical request?

 

[TripTango]

So you're ruling out evolution then?



Maybe you should read up on it, it's one of the reasons I'm not an atheist.

You keep suggesting I read up on things... Do you realize how much I have to read? Regardless, I certainly don't see how multiverse proposals should be a lynchpin for anything -- it's not some kind of hardcore tenet for atheists or anything.

As for evolution, I am not a biologist, but I find the archaeological evidence (which IS considered scientific) of a steady progression of species over very large amounts of time to be compelling. Would I stake my life on it being 100% correct? No way (partly because I am not a biologist, and partly because I don't think we're 100% correct about anything...). The great part is that science doesn't claim infallibility, nor does it demand my full agreement.

 

[TripTango]

Are you talking about Carbon 14? Maybe potassium dating? All of them have flaws. That only proves it is partially accurate. And maybe it will prove that the Earth and Universe is billions of years old down the road. I'm not close minded. I welcome the challenge and support it 100%. If it's irrefutable than I would be stupid to ignore it.

I want answers to what I don't know. I have the Faith in my Hebrew God, and I am positive eventually science will prove this a reality. I believe the more digging and modern science evolves; the closer we get to the truth that God really does exist. Why can't I believe that? Why isn't that a logical request?

What flaws in Carbon-14 are so problematic as to disregard their results?

 

[RR7]

What flaws in Carbon-14 are so problematic as to disregard their results?

the problem of disagreeing with the bible, I imagine.

 

[MadeFromDust]

You keep suggesting I read up on things... Do you realize how much I have to read? Regardless, I certainly don't see how multiverse proposals should be a lynchpin for anything -- it's not some kind of hardcore tenet for atheists or anything.

Well I've done it, and I'm not an atheist. Maybe you should take some time to, after all your eternity depends on it.

As for evolution, I am not a biologist, but I find the archaeological evidence (which IS considered scientific) of a steady progression of species over very large amounts of time to be compelling. Would I stake my life on it being 100% correct? No way (partly because I am not a biologist, and partly because I don't think we're 100% correct about anything...). The great part is that science doesn't claim infallibility, nor does it demand my full agreement.

So you admit the Bible is scientific too then? Thanks! And with that are you willing to admit you are putting a measure of "faith" in what these biologists claim to know?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

What flaws in Carbon-14 are so problematic as to disregard their results?

Every year a new Carbon comes out with a bigger processor & more memory for less money.