Also wrong. The post I replied to was a flat statement. If that poster cannot be bothered back up his assertion (i.e. say why he thinks he's correct) then why should I bother to "give a handle"? I'm doing exactly what Big Chiller did. Have you rebuked him? Not that I can see...
Lol, "people would really appreciate it if you at least gave them a handle to whirl you with..." - I like that. Talking to D makes about as much sense as trying to have a conversation with 2XL. If you don't hit "A", "B" or "C" then he'll just endlessly repeat the same pre-recorded message until his battery runs out. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Numbers don't objectively exist; therefore, the statement is kind of silly. Numbers are human abstractions of quantitative relationships in reality. Well no. We *know* that the quantitative relationships that numbers represent exist. They are observably self-evident. I don't think anyone has the stamina to believe in things exclusively that are scientific. If there is little or no risk to believing in something that might be wrong then so what? If however, there is immense risk in believing something that might be wrong then science is a good process to get it right. Correct; however, we *know* that certain outlooks are blatantly incorrect. Science is a process. Nothing more. If a person believes the world is music then they are quite incorrect; however, they probably don't value truth that highly to care about that. This is normal. Most people in the world value how they feel more than truth. If people of science value truth more than what "others have" then there is really no reason to care; however, as it often turns out, people of science tend to use others as psychological experiments to better understand why they believe the odd things that they do. Science already found God. It's a psychological phenomena rooted in the human behaviors of anthropomorphism and hierarchy. It's technically irrelevant.
Science is indeed a tool. And you know... it takes a tool to make a tool and I know a few tools that science tooled! If you catch my drift... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
two wrongs don't make a right D. it's as if baseless assertions aren't enough to add to them baseless objections..just take it as if it's an opinion and move on.. because his statement not only makes sense for me, i wouldn't know how to back it up if i wanted to. reason is a tool(philosophy), and so is science, but reason, being a general solution solving all problems, wouldn't be as good as specialized tools solving some particular problems. how is that supposed to be backed up? especially in the face of no objection?
I didn't claim that either. I'm simply granting the same "courtesy" as is granted to everyone else by the original poster. You're close to the answer. Reason CANNOT be used for everything. That would be why we have other tools...
is that "courtesy" wrong or right? substitute your answer in your post. nope, reason CAN be used to solve anything, but after reason travels the long path to the solution it can hardly be called pure "reason". solving things using science is part of reason, it's as was said here, reason is the tool to make tools, maybe it can't directly solve it's grandtools problems, but other tools come from it to begin with. without reason, science[or any other field] is useless. but without science reason can still work alone or by sprouting other "tools", so it can be said that reason can solve anything. now back to the op; if any field or outlook come from reason, then they are all reasonable to their respective holders. holders of other outlooks may see the reason in other outlooks and may not, artists believe science brought them means to better enjoy art, and scientists believe art is a colorful way to straighten a mood and shake things up a bit. but neither think the other explains the world. pieces of reality are divided between the outlooks, so something can be in one outlook and hence not be seen by some of the other outlooks, i'm here wondering if god is such. if he is such, then we have to retract our steps that we took from reason to science, and look for the steps made from reason to science and see where they end. and see if god is there or not. tele-evaluating god from science might be like evaluating electrons from a art.
WTF has "right" or "wrong" got to do with it? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'll ask again: Show this is true. Does reason work in highly emotional situations? If reason were able to solve anything then we wouldn't require other tools... Being "reasonable to their respective holders" does not mean that it actually is, in reality, reasonable. Or viable.
which isn't fine? it isn't fine scientifically..even philosophically it's fine. but does that mean it doesn't exist? is what isn't proved objectively, isn't repeatedly demonstratable to others, isn't science, is it non-existant? one can say hallucinations exist only inside one's mind so what? so, what exists only in one's mind, is it unreliable? science smacks a definite NO on that question's forehead, other outlooks of life beg to differ, and they could be correct there. and before we get too swept with things that can't be proven out of ones mind, i don't think that god can't be proven out of on's mind, but just for the sake of argument i'm discussing it. mothers beg to differ, so do soldiers and maybe even scientists; the brain does too many calculations for the conscious person to absorb, understand, and then demonstrate to others, you can feel you're being watched without knowing why or how. an expert engineer can look at a complex blueprint and get a gut feeling it's gonna go boom somewhere, he may say th blueprint is ok because he can't exactly point to where the problem is, but his brain caught the problem and registered it into the data he builds his conclusion upon. :shrug: relying on the demonstratable is like a courtroom, like in the movie Law Abiding Citizen; "it's not what happened that matters there, it's what you can PROVE tht matters"...so is god one of the things lost on courtrooms? there are other ways to look for truth, journalism[a different outlook] can cover an event and unearth "facts" the courtroom didn't find or didn't accept. whether those things happened or not, is up to you. why can't god be the same? imo the majority of the world reach god through the watchmaker's fallacy, which i don't even understand why it IS a fallacy, but it makes people comfortable and they follow it. but why can't god, or religion, be like art, or like numbers? true, one can study science to learn of god's wonders. who said there isn't? angry little man.. all what a scientist needs to do is believe god did whatever isn't discovered yet, and that's it:shrug: it's no big deal... no contradiction at all. whatever science finds--->god did it:shrug: emmm..yeah..
let's just drop it. i think i did. emotion in my books is a form of reason. one you are unaware of it's inner workings. lol, other tools from where? those other tools are born FROM reason, which is the whole point. true, it depends on which outlook you belong to. but after testing from as much different outlooks as accurately as you can, you'll be closer to objective reality imo. if god is not viable in science's reason, it could be in others' reason, like love or smoking.
As an attempted refutation of this is a miserable fail. The evidence IS actually there (in the "blueprint" [and I do wish you'd stop using that word]) but has not yet been consciously processed. In other words it's not an unsupported belief.
You may think you did, but in actuality you didn't. Ah, you want to redefine "reason". This is a claim, merely. Yet to be shown as true. For example: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97668&highlight=reason fundamental Again you keep coming back to "could be" and "depends" and "IMO". Which perspectives (other than science) have been shown to give explanations of the world as consistently accurate as science (when they give any at all, that is)? If there is another way of "reasoning" that could show god actually exists how come it hasn't done so? After all, it's had several thousand years to make its point...
PRECISELY! EXACTLY! BULLSEYE!:bravo: AND YET, IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY REJECTED; look, the gut feeling COULD be based on nothing, maybe a bad lunch, and maybe on something true..but REGARDLESS, scientifically it is NOT accepted. now, trust, trust isn't based on what is demonstratable, and it might go by that gut feeling of the fellow engineer and make the project chief cancel or postpone the project, and save the day. so exactly as you said: you can replace "consciously" with "scientifically". maybe for god the evidence IS there, but it could be a philosophical one or an artistic one or a gut one, or there could be none at all; the belief in might not be unfounded after all, even if it is scientifically unfounded. *omg..an engineer...staring at a "complex" "blueprint"..."gut" feelings...sure something'll go "boom" somewhere...lol no wonder you don't want me to use it again..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
you may think that in actuality i didn't, but in actuality i did. that game can be played by twoPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ok then, emotion is a form of logic, not reason. it's still not illogical. nice thread, but still, what're you getting at? reason is formal logic, then what? how about we drop this? i don't see it much relevant. i wanna be as accurate as possible, which is to know you'll never be as accurate as you claim. i have two answers, you can choose one; 1-philosophy.[as i displayed with my nihilist example, which you just ignored]. 2-none, so what? who told you all people want consistency and accuracy? are you missing the whole thread? some people would follow a lie after knowing it is a lie, some perspectives don't require that accuracy to begin with, it is fine with large margins:shrug: and i gave many examples before. happiness can be reached through more than consistency and accuracy, wake up. if you don't, let the others sleep. you livin on mars? how many people walk the earth? how many of them believe in god? how many of those have no reasoning? :crazy: that's the point of this thread! they have their reasoning too, and their's is no less because it's different than yours!
Wrong. It has been scientifically validated. See above. I'll reiterate this, slowly, so that you can understand. The engineer gets a "gut feeling". There actually IS evidence. The engineer will not halt the project UNTIL he can show others what is wrong and how. In other words, even though he has processed the information unconsciously to arrive at the "gut feeling" he will consciously go through the process required to find the evidence that triggered the feeling, and THEN halt the project. Or, having gone through the process and NOT having found anything he'l say "Meh, must have been indigestion, we'l go ahead". And again you misunderstand. It's the term "blueprint" I object to. No worthwhile engineer (in the UK at least) uses the word. It's the stuff of second-rate spy novels rather than real-world engineers. Drawings, not blueprint.
i always knew you were a sore loserPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! aha, and the conclusion was?????????? trust me, i understand, you're the one here who didn't. ok there mister; how about this: the CEO of your company flashes the dRAwinG in front of you for a minute, tells you how hard and for how long they've been working on it, and tells you he'll be submitting it in the next 5 minutes, as soon as you lay your eyes on the paper your heart starts racing and a feeling of forbidding falls on you, you ask the CEO if he's sure this is checked, he says it's double checked, you either sign and approve and it goes or you sign disapproval and cost your company a 500 grand, a tenth of its losses if the drawing was indeed faulted, you tell your CEO of your gut feeling... ...WHAT WILL HIS SCIENTIFIC ANSWER TO YOU BE D? oh so you didn't mean this:
Er, I stated the conclusion: the information (that actually existed) was processed unconsciously. So why was your reply directly contrary to what I'd said? What is your point? I have already explained what happens. In such a circumstance it will come down to how much the CEO trusts the engineer's experience. If it's a new guy then the CEO will likely inore him, if it's a guy with 30+ years the the CEO will ask him to have a look and come back if he finds an error. Nope. Never, ever come across that before.
Emotion, by defintion, is illogical. The point is that reason and logic are separate things, and what can be arrived by logic may not be arrived by reason, and vice versa. Philosophy is a good as science at explaning the world? hardly. Ah, so you aren't looking for valid explanations, just comforting ones. Okay. Oh wait! Just because people BELIVE in god does not mena that the process by which they arrived at that belief is valid (excpet to themselves).
"er", no, you're playing with words; does the scientific method accept statements based on information that actually existed and was processed unconsciously? because you didn't understand:bugeye: that some things elude the scientific method and are caught up by other methods, hence making those other methods sometimes more consistent and accurate:blbl: good thing the CEO didn't follow the scientific method then? alas, good thing he didn't follow the philosophical method either and actually accepted the appeal to authority or wisdom..eh? so much for accuracy and consistency.. there may not BE time for him to go back and do things perfectly, in the same way one may not have time to go back and explain his gut feeling that tells him there is a god around. lol, first time i see it too, but once i was talking to a friend of mine about a game where you have to steal the blue prints and he was like "aha! blue prints?! *wink wink*"Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
