Aye Aye Captain!

[Octavia156]

Science can only answer the What and the How, but never the Why.

If this is true then... the only way to have a full understanding of existance is to practise Science and some form of Gnosticm?

One with out the other means your walking around like this ---> irate:

 

[idav]

Why is only relevant to humans, existence doesn't need justification. IMO asking why something rather than nothing is silly.

Knowledge is useful in any form whether you want to call it science or gnosticism. Religion just gives you someones opinion as to why.

 

[otokage007]

Science can only answer the What and the How, but never the Why.

There's plenty of whys science can answer. But there's also plenty of whys that no one can answer. For example: why are we here? <- No one can answer this because there's no answer at all. There's no reason of why are we here. Why not?

 

[Quintessence]

If this is true then... the only way to have a full understanding of existance is to practise Science and some form of Gnosticm?

While I would agree that pursuing multiple ways of knowing provide a fuller understanding of the territory than limiting yourself to one or few, I would argue that there is no way any human can have a full understanding of anything given our intrinsic limitations.

 

[Revoltingest]

Science can only answer the What and the How, but never the Why.
If this is true then... the only way to have a full understanding of existance is to practise Science and some form of Gnosticm?
One with out the other means your walking around like this ---> irate:

Whos says anyone can fully understand existence?
Gnosticism might simply exacerbate the misunderstanding.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Science can only answer the What and the How, but never the Why.

Any sufficiently advanced How is indistinguishable from a Why.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Science can only answer the What and the How, but never the Why.

Depends on your 'why'.
There are plenty of 'whys' that has been answered by science, such as why does the tides go in and out (despite Bill'o's confusion), why are there beautiful and fragrant flowers and why we have earthquakes.

If your 'why' is more along the answer to life, the universe and everything, then '42' is as good an answer as you're likely to find out there.

If this is true then... the only way to have a full understanding of existance is to practise Science and some form of Gnosticm?

Don't see the need for Gnosticism.

One with out the other means your walking around like this ---> irate:

Pirates are cool.

 

[freethinker44]

Science can only answer the What and the How, but never the Why.

If this is true then... the only way to have a full understanding of existance is to practise Science and some form of Gnosticm?

One with out the other means your walking around like this ---> irate:

Why do you assume "why" has any kind of substance to it? Maybe the answer to "why" is just "because they can". In this way, the why is the by-product of what and how and is automatically answered when what and how are answered. Maybe why is just so incredibly unimportant and trivial that it doesn't need formal recognition.

 

[Octavia156]

Why is only relevant to humans, existence doesn't need justification. IMO asking why something rather than nothing is silly.

Knowledge is useful in any form whether you want to call it science or gnosticism. Religion just gives you someones opinion as to why.

Yes but I am human - and therefore Why is relevant to me. I dont ask hwy something rather than nothing - i ask why something And nothing - and why me?

There's plenty of whys science can answer. But there's also plenty of whys that no one can answer. For example: why are we here? <- No one can answer this because there's no answer at all. There's no reason of why are we here. Why not?

is there no answer? this is too nihilisit for me. if there's no reason for existance then why bother getting up in the morning?

While I would agree that pursuing multiple ways of knowing provide a fuller understanding of the territory than limiting yourself to one or few, I would argue that there is no way any human can have a full understanding of anything given our intrinsic limitations.

our intrinsic limitations or the intrinsic limitations of our current methods of obtaining "Knowledge".
There is too much information for any human being to have full gnosis of i agree... but the question - why am I here? can be understood by all... but this will never be found through Sceinfic endeavour, only through Gnostic practise.

Depends on your 'why'.
There are plenty of 'whys' that has been answered by science, such as why does the tides go in and out (despite Bill'o's confusion), why are there beautiful and fragrant flowers and why we have earthquakes.

If your 'why' is more along the answer to life, the universe and everything, then '42' is as good an answer as you're likely to find out there.



Don't see the need for Gnosticism.



Pirates are cool.

All the Whys are simply hows disguised. Cause an effect is not Why.
The asnwer to Why does not begin with Because, it is "so....

The need for Gnosticism is to explore the Science of the immeasurable, unquantifiable and indescriable aspects of existance that all of us experience throughout our entire lives in order to gain a full understanding of WHY

I know how earthquakes occur, I know how cells respire, I know a plant uses sunlight to synthesise its own food, I know how forces cause changes in motion, I know how charged particles move in an electic field, I know how DNA replicates to make new life...

but i don't know why i'm conscious, why i dream, why i'm me and noone else, why i'm here in this particular space in time, why i was born, why you and I are having this conversation right now?

 

[jarofthoughts]

The need for Gnosticism is to explore the Science of the immeasurable, unquantifiable and indescriable aspects of existance that all of us experience throughout our entire lives in order to gain a full understanding of WHY

And how exactly is knowledge attained when dealing with immeasurable inquantifiable and indescribable aspects?

but i don't know why i'm conscious, why i dream, why i'm me and noone else, why i'm here in this particular space in time, why i was born, why you and I are having this conversation right now?

Depending on what version of Gnosticism you're using, I don't see how it would help you much in finding answers to those questions.
Science is the best most powerful method of inquiry and while it by no means has led us to all the answers, it is the one I am betting on in our continued search.
No other method even comes close to measuring up to its success.

 

[otokage007]

is there no answer? this is too nihilisit for me. if there's no reason for existance then why bother getting up in the morning?

To live? :/

our intrinsic limitations or the intrinsic limitations of our current methods of obtaining "Knowledge".
There is too much information for any human being to have full gnosis of i agree... but the question - why am I here? can be understood by all... but this will never be found through Sceinfic endeavour, only through Gnostic practise.

You can invent any answer u like. But that doesn't mean it is real.

 

[Musty]

Science can only answer the What and the How, but never the Why.

If this is true then... the only way to have a full understanding of existance is to practise Science and some form of Gnosticm?

One with out the other means your walking around like this ---> irate:

This makes the false assumption that gnosticism is the only way of finding meaning in your life.

I assume that pirate isn't a reference to Pastafarianism?

 

[Octavia156]

And how exactly is knowledge attained when dealing with immeasurable inquantifiable and indescribable aspects?

Experientially? You've never had an immeasurable, unquantifiable, indescribable experience?

Science is the best most powerful method of inquiry and while it by no means has led us to all the answers, it is the one I am betting on in our continued search.
No other method even comes close to measuring up to its success.

I agree... but will there not always be an explanatory gap?

 

[Octavia156]

To live? :/



You can invent any answer u like. But that doesn't mean it is real.

"to live" is a like a tautology..

i'm not sure what you mean by real...

 

[Octavia156]

This makes the false assumption that gnosticism is the only way of finding meaning in your life.

I assume that pirate isn't a reference to Pastafarianism?

It makes a proposition that gnosticism is the only way of finding a true meaning for your life.... can you suggest a better way?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Experientially? You've never had an immeasurable, unquantifiable, indescribable experience?

How does one perform experiments on something that is immeasurable, unquantifiable and indescribable?

I agree... but will there not always be an explanatory gap?

Probably, but I don't see that gap being filled by religious or semi-religious musings.
While I would always like to know and understand more, I don't have a problem with the things I don't know and will probably never know.

 

[Octavia156]

How does one perform experiments on something that is immeasurable, unquantifiable and indescribable?



Probably, but I don't see that gap being filled by religious or semi-religious musings.
While I would always like to know and understand more, I don't have a problem with the things I don't know and will probably never know.

Well exactly - there's a flaw in there somewhere - things exist that cant be experimented on..... so our method is incomplete. or at least they can be experiemented on but the results can only be accessed by the experimentor (subjectively measurable and quantifiable experience)

 

[rusra02]

There's plenty of whys science can answer. But there's also plenty of whys that no one can answer. For example: why are we here? <- No one can answer this because there's no answer at all. There's no reason of why are we here. Why not?

I believe the Bible does answer the question; "Why are we here?" We are here because God created us to live here. (Genesis 1:26-28)

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe the Bible does answer the question; "Why are we here?" We are here because God created us to live here. (Genesis 1:26-28)

Who wrote the Genesis and on what basis? Please

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well exactly - there's a flaw in there somewhere - things exist that cant be experimented on..... so our method is incomplete. or at least they can be experiemented on but the results can only be accessed by the experimentor (subjectively measurable and quantifiable experience)

At this point I'm not (and have not) even conceded the existence of things that are, in theory, immeasurable, unquantifiable and indescribable.
The fact that they remain practically so is not much of an argument.
If you're talking about the problem with qualia, I personally do not think that it is all that much of a problem in the first place as I think they are, on the whole, irrelevant on a non-subjective level, but I can't back that assertion up at the moment.
In either case, this falls down on the 'science can't explain it (yet) so therefore I must look for answers elsewhere' type of argumentation.
Meaning no disrespect, I find this sort of approach somewhat arrogant and misguided.
It may just be that no method has the answers (yet) and that science, in due time, will obtain the answers.
The universe does not owe us an answer, and we're doing the best we can with the tools available to us.

And so far science has proven to be a far better tool for the job than any other we have tried.