Existing in a single dimension would not allow the thickness required for one nose, much less 8. Your god does not exist.
Is Atheism Unscientific?
- Thread starter th.w.heller
- Start date
- Status
Existing in a single dimension would not allow the thickness required for one nose, much less 8. Your god does not exist.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
Hmm. Maybe. We'd have to actually enter the 4th spacial dimension to detect him, so I'm not sure.
Given that you don't know the properties of this 4th spacial dimension, I say you're wrong. Did I specify that it was a spacial dimension identical in every way to our own three?
Make up your own words, then. The ones you are using already have generally-accepted definitions.
Fraggle
First of all, when you start using "science" to justify ontological categories for reality for the sake of disputing others, you are venturing into philosophy. Philosophically speaking, you are using empiricism as the yard stick for determining the validity of all claims.
Secondly, in a philosophical context, the words macrocosm holds greater significance than merely "something big" and microcosm being "something small".
When you talk of quarks, leptons, seeing things billions of years in the past etc, this is all mesocosmic. All that is garnered from an empirical analysis is a sliver of something between the micro and macrocosm. In other words, while increasing research goes into the vastness or smallness of things, exactly where something is or what reality is essentially composed of remains unapproachable. This is not controversial. It is the modus operandi of empiricism, a mesocsomic means of negotiating phenomena. In fact you say this in your own words just a few more lines down.
A prime indicator of mesocosmic language is that it relies exclusively on tacit explanations (as opposed to explicit ones). Leptons, quarks, etc are all tacit terms. IOW any explanation of "where" or "what" something is by empiricism is tacit or relative.
(If you don't believe me, just try and explain a cup of flour in explicit language.
)
So this isn't a problem.
What is a (philosophical) problem is when you offer a claim about the universe/reality being a closed system on the strength of empiricism.
This is why (in this context) leptons, quarks etc are all simply "jazz".
In short, how the hell did you approach the macrocosm with empiricism?
The reason it is sounding less and less like science is that you are violating the credibility on which it rests.
A succinct definition of empiricism, the tool of the mesocosm.
Empiricism is limited because our senses are inherently limited.
IOW our sense of sight is limited to garnering a mere sliver of what's on offer, no matter how you amplify it with scientific equipment.
If you want to use empiricism to justify ontological categories, you have just violated the credibility of empiricism.
Given that empiricism has no scope for approaching macrocosmic claims (unlike the transcendental disciplines of theism), in what way do you think "science has helped"?
Actually what is an instinct (of illusion) is the drive to comprehend the universe with a product of the universe. IOW, how does one expect to jam everything in their tiny brain and then authoritatively pontificate about the nature of the universe. Its bad enough when (misaligned) theists do it. It’s downright gut wrenching when so called scientists do it too.
I recall an incident about a group of early american colonials trying to wangle the local tribes out of their lands. One of the settlers drew in the sand a big circle and next to it, a little circle. Pointing to the little circle he indicated that this is what the indians knew as compared to the big circle, which is what the white man knew. The indian then drew a big circle around of both circles and indicated that this is what neither the white man or indian knew .....
So tell me fraggle, how big is your circle?
Plain and simple.
It only becomes a mire when you use empiricism as a tool for delineating the absolute limits of the universe.
The ends of the natural universe?
You have empirical evidence of these "ends" or merely more jazz?
One such (simple) finding, is the approximate boiling point of water.
I use this as a straight forward example of exactly how empiricism does function.
If it was somehow determined that this piece of empirical information was wrong, it would be difficult to understand how we have been fabricating metals for the past 3000 years.
My challenge to you, is that if it was established that the universe is not a closed system, what practical applications of empiricism (as opposed to cerebral ponderings of empiricism) would be turned on their heads?
You went from a brief discussion of the orbit of planets (which is Mesocosm with a capital "M") and then made a half-hearted suggestion about software engineering being too advanced for measurements to determine.
sounds like a great tragi-comedy
My point is that empiricism works fine in the mesocsom.
When you use is an authoritative tool for establishing the macro or microcosm, you become a blathering idiot.
It doesn't matter whether one blathers as a scientist or a theist.
This is why empiricism, as a tool for determining the validity of theistic claims is outright slammed by any standard theistic discipline.
sounds like big circle syndrome
Empiricism is all about feeling yourself around in the dark and catch a glimmer of light here and there. In that sense, maybe soft science is like striking a few sparks.
Whatever the case, soft science certainly can't cut the mustard like hard science.
How many controversies or (authoritative) differing paradigm views are there on the boiling point of water?
How many are there in the field of analysing the human disposition?
It’s one thing to find an idea that you like.
It’s another to find an idea that everyone agrees to.
If a person has no life, all the reductionist chemical analysis in the world will be of no avail. In other words "life" (or the retention of functioning synapses, if you like) cannot be materially reduced. Just as the universe remains unassailable at the macrocosm, life remains unassailable at the microcosm. You seem to hint this by the use of the word "irreparable".
Confusing the issue of life and the chemicals that life utilizes is one way that material reductionists kid themselves. Better that they stick to issues of the mesocosm and do something practical.
Or even if you want to leave religion out of it, better that you keep the size of your circles in perspective and understand that calling upon empiricism to certify the closed/open state of the universe is simply a naive bluff at best or a front for one's instincts/ideology at worst.
sounds like a good sequel to the empirical tragicomedy of 500 years of inquiry with the mind and senses has not revealed anything beyond the mind and senses
Empirically determining the constraints and time frame for the “appearance” of an omnipotent, omniscient personality is fraught with difficulties. Certainly no reason why god can’t appear in a potato chip, don’t you think? And it also certainly doesn't mean that there is no means to investigate claims of god either.
I know you have no patience for spiritual discussion so I will keep this brief.
Given this statement about the nature of God’s appearance
BG 4.8 To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium.
Exactly what did god in the potato chip accomplish?
two pointsFraggle Rocker;2141841 said:
First of all, when you start using "science" to justify ontological categories for reality for the sake of disputing others, you are venturing into philosophy. Philosophically speaking, you are using empiricism as the yard stick for determining the validity of all claims.
Secondly, in a philosophical context, the words macrocosm holds greater significance than merely "something big" and microcosm being "something small".
When you talk of quarks, leptons, seeing things billions of years in the past etc, this is all mesocosmic. All that is garnered from an empirical analysis is a sliver of something between the micro and macrocosm. In other words, while increasing research goes into the vastness or smallness of things, exactly where something is or what reality is essentially composed of remains unapproachable. This is not controversial. It is the modus operandi of empiricism, a mesocsomic means of negotiating phenomena. In fact you say this in your own words just a few more lines down.
A prime indicator of mesocosmic language is that it relies exclusively on tacit explanations (as opposed to explicit ones). Leptons, quarks, etc are all tacit terms. IOW any explanation of "where" or "what" something is by empiricism is tacit or relative.
(If you don't believe me, just try and explain a cup of flour in explicit language.
)So this isn't a problem.
What is a (philosophical) problem is when you offer a claim about the universe/reality being a closed system on the strength of empiricism.
This is why (in this context) leptons, quarks etc are all simply "jazz".
In short, how the hell did you approach the macrocosm with empiricism?
The reason it is sounding less and less like science is that you are violating the credibility on which it rests.
There you have it.
A succinct definition of empiricism, the tool of the mesocosm.
Empiricism is limited because our senses are inherently limited.
IOW our sense of sight is limited to garnering a mere sliver of what's on offer, no matter how you amplify it with scientific equipment.
If you want to use empiricism to justify ontological categories, you have just violated the credibility of empiricism.
What makes you think that all theistic claims are simply the default position of frustration in the face of the limitations of empiricism?
Given that empiricism has no scope for approaching macrocosmic claims (unlike the transcendental disciplines of theism), in what way do you think "science has helped"?
Actually what is an instinct (of illusion) is the drive to comprehend the universe with a product of the universe. IOW, how does one expect to jam everything in their tiny brain and then authoritatively pontificate about the nature of the universe. Its bad enough when (misaligned) theists do it. It’s downright gut wrenching when so called scientists do it too.
I recall an incident about a group of early american colonials trying to wangle the local tribes out of their lands. One of the settlers drew in the sand a big circle and next to it, a little circle. Pointing to the little circle he indicated that this is what the indians knew as compared to the big circle, which is what the white man knew. The indian then drew a big circle around of both circles and indicated that this is what neither the white man or indian knew .....
So tell me fraggle, how big is your circle?
Italics = gut wrenching assertion
Plain and simple.
It only becomes a mire when you use empiricism as a tool for delineating the absolute limits of the universe.
The ends of the natural universe?
You have empirical evidence of these "ends" or merely more jazz?
The metal industry, like practically all industries, was greatly revolutionized by advances in the field of physics.
One such (simple) finding, is the approximate boiling point of water.
I use this as a straight forward example of exactly how empiricism does function.
If it was somehow determined that this piece of empirical information was wrong, it would be difficult to understand how we have been fabricating metals for the past 3000 years.
My challenge to you, is that if it was established that the universe is not a closed system, what practical applications of empiricism (as opposed to cerebral ponderings of empiricism) would be turned on their heads?
You went from a brief discussion of the orbit of planets (which is Mesocosm with a capital "M") and then made a half-hearted suggestion about software engineering being too advanced for measurements to determine.
Once again, 500 years of investigating the universe with the senses has not revealed anything that is not beyond the senses?
sounds like a great tragi-comedy
Believe it or not (or maybe it’s more "scientific" to open with "disregard the empirical methodology or abide by it"), I have not disregarded the scientific method.
My point is that empiricism works fine in the mesocsom.
When you use is an authoritative tool for establishing the macro or microcosm, you become a blathering idiot.
It doesn't matter whether one blathers as a scientist or a theist.
This is why empiricism, as a tool for determining the validity of theistic claims is outright slammed by any standard theistic discipline.
hehe
sounds like big circle syndrome
Sure.
Empiricism is all about feeling yourself around in the dark and catch a glimmer of light here and there. In that sense, maybe soft science is like striking a few sparks.
Whatever the case, soft science certainly can't cut the mustard like hard science.
How many controversies or (authoritative) differing paradigm views are there on the boiling point of water?
How many are there in the field of analysing the human disposition?
It’s one thing to find an idea that you like.
It’s another to find an idea that everyone agrees to.
So I guess there is more to life than the chemicals that bear an effect on it, eh?
It doesn't require a PHD, just common sense.
If a person has no life, all the reductionist chemical analysis in the world will be of no avail. In other words "life" (or the retention of functioning synapses, if you like) cannot be materially reduced. Just as the universe remains unassailable at the macrocosm, life remains unassailable at the microcosm. You seem to hint this by the use of the word "irreparable".
Confusing the issue of life and the chemicals that life utilizes is one way that material reductionists kid themselves. Better that they stick to issues of the mesocosm and do something practical.
Hence the folly of analysing theistic claims/disciplines (which deal with issues of the macro/microcosm) in terms of empiricism (which deals with issues of the mesocosm).
Or even if you want to leave religion out of it, better that you keep the size of your circles in perspective and understand that calling upon empiricism to certify the closed/open state of the universe is simply a naive bluff at best or a front for one's instincts/ideology at worst.
hehe
sounds like a good sequel to the empirical tragicomedy of 500 years of inquiry with the mind and senses has not revealed anything beyond the mind and senses
Prime example of blathering.
Empirically determining the constraints and time frame for the “appearance” of an omnipotent, omniscient personality is fraught with difficulties. Certainly no reason why god can’t appear in a potato chip, don’t you think? And it also certainly doesn't mean that there is no means to investigate claims of god either.
I know you have no patience for spiritual discussion so I will keep this brief.
Given this statement about the nature of God’s appearance
BG 4.8 To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium.
Exactly what did god in the potato chip accomplish?
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
If you're going to start arguing over what "reality" is, then this discussion and science are finished with each other. It should be moved to the Philosophy board.
Okay, you've gotten my attention and stalled my departure to go look for a discussion with some science in it. But... I've read your post twice and I still don't see where you've told us what a "macrocosm" and "microcosm" are, in your own idiolect of English, or perhaps in the inscrutable jargon of the philosopher. I repeat, if the "macrocosm" is not simply the entire universe, a word whose very definition is "everything that exists," and the "microcosm" is not at the very opposite end of the scale of measurement, a view of the infrastructure of subatomic particles deconstructed to the point of unraveling into pure mathematics with no physical attributes at all... then what do those words mean? You don't seem to agree with the dictionaries on this.
You have still failed to tell me what one must be talking about, in order to finally be on the subject of the micro- and macrocosmic.
Is that supposed to be a real sentence or did you just throw words together at random? Just putting nouns and verbs are in the right places to form a grammatically correct English sentence does not automatically impart it with meaning. The phrase "the composition of reality" sounds like it was taken from the table of contents of The Magazine Of Fantasy And Science Fiction, to which I've had a lifetime subscription for 45 years. I continue to accept your word that you're trying to say something profound, but I sure don't see what it has to do with science. Especially when you toss around words that are obviously fundamental to an understanding of the topic, without helping us out with definitions. Did I just miss reading the post in which you defined macrocosm and microcosm? If so, please forgive me.
"Negotiating phenomena"??? That sounds like a phrase from a federal RFP. "Pick a gerund from column A and a plural noun from column B." You're talking to the Linguistics Moderator here. Please try to make sense.
You expound at length on the mesocosm, but not on the macro- and microcosms. What are they? What would macrocosmic or microcosmic language sound like, in contrast with the mesocosmic language you accuse me of being incapable of surmounting?
"Amplify or supplement"? I think you're simply dead wrong on that. Even if you're not, your statement belies an unfamiliarity with (or at least an unexplained disrespect for) the perfectly valid scientific technique of sampling.
You're misquoting me although perhaps it's easy to get lost in my longwinded sentences. I asserted that some theistic claims fall into that category. The fundamental assertion which I have posted at least a dozen times on this forum is that theism is nothing more or less than an instinctive behavior, and as such it has no more inherent philosophical validity than other instinctive behaviors such as subordinating to the pack's alpha or killing intruders on the pack's hunting and gathering territory.
There you go again, talking like I'm supposed to know what you mean by "macrocosmic" since it doesn't match the definition I've used all my life.
You insist that just because we use our senses to read our instruments, that the conditions that the instruments have measured are not "beyond our senses." Your use of the language is a bit disingenous.
I would be content if you would spend a couple of sentences "blathering" your personal definitions of "microcosm" and "macrocosm."
Well duh. Life is the organization of the components, not the components. A corpse without life may look just like a living body, but it's as different from one as the pile of lumber and nails is different from the house that stood in its place before the tornado hit it.
You finally give a clue. The "macrocosm" apparently is the supernatural, if its the province of theism. It's good fun to talk about the supernatural, and in fact the metaphors that underly the fun can be very useful. But until some evidence is discovered for the existence of the supernatural in reality rather than in metaphor, such talk is not scientific talk, and it belongs on the Philosophy board.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
I think the biggest mystery of all is why some people can't see this
Not much of a mystery, most of these people believe in a different definition of the universe: everything except the God which created the universe
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Well that's quite a self-serving definition and, frankly, based on nothing.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Exactly. Isn't all faith based on nothing?
I wouldn't say nothing but nothing realistic nonetheless
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Eww !
I think his brain is hawt.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
To the OP.
In most fields, improbability + recognizable specification = intelligence. I'm not sure why biology should be any different.
In most fields, improbability + recognizable specification = intelligence. I'm not sure why biology should be any different.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
I appreciate the kind words, but I'd rather be right than cool. Well at least in this instance anyway.
And since I'm having trouble understanding Light's jargon, I don't know if I'm actually responding to his assertions.You could say the same for the leap of faith between micro evolution to macro evolution I guess theory is the gap and paper thin wisps of imagination in the realm of science.
Fortunantly faith doesn't fill in anything of my knowledge of God...but to you your own theory.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I appreciate the kind words, but I'd rather be right than cool. Well at least in this instance anyway.
By 'cool' I mean 'alright'. You're alright. And since I only know you from your posts it can only mean that I think your posts are great
because millions of tiny mutations cannot result in a large overall change
I don't see the problem either. People like Saquist don't get it. Evolution is not a theory, it is observational fact. Natural Selection is the theory which currently explains these observations the best. (so well, in fact, that some are pushing to begin referring to Natural Selection as Law)
The myth of lacking transient fossils is just that: a myth. The way they see it, every transient fossil found is TWO MORE missing on either side of it. I don't think they would believe their eyes if we had the remains of every organism that ever lived strewn across the cosmos.
Roll them eyes all you want to...because millions of tiny mutations cannot result in a large overall change
but you have to prove it first.
- Status