Can it not exist?

[F1fan]

Yeah and of course it is something else than pure good science when science is used of "bad" purposes. Did you know that a form of math where improved upon to allow it for guns to be hit their target better. Of course that is not proper math, I know. Or the Internet or GPS.

Science develops the technology. The state asks for it to be developed for military and security purposes.

For example having g GPS that can guide a missile and kill a terrorist is something that aids our security. Now, has that technology been used with bad intel? Yes. Here we have the murkiness of a world in conflict with a variety of political and religious ideologies.

Is it any worse that Carl Maxim invented the high capacity machine gun? His belief was that this invention would bring peace because the gun would cause so many casualties in war that no nation would tolerate it. He was wrong, and nations simply adjusted what they considered acceptable losses in war.

Your gripe should be against those nations who are aggressive and bring about conflict and war, not technology. Thentechnology is going to come. Whether humanity is mature and wise going into the future should be your point of focus. I point to the Tootsies using machetes on the Huttus in their genocide was highly effective. Humans will find a way to kill.

Stop trying to differentiate science as an unique special human behavior. It is not and nor is religion.

False accusation #3. Well done. Notice I never wrote that science is unique or special. Those are your words. I'm curious why you aren't self-reflecting more about your thoughts before you respond.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science develops the technology. The state asks for it to be developed for military and security purposes.

For example having g GPS that can guide a missile and kill a terrorist is something that aids our security. Now, has that technology been used with bad intel? Yes. Here we have the murkiness of a world in conflict with a variety of political and religious ideologies.

Is it any worse that Carl Maxim invented the high capacity machine gun? His belief was that this invention would bring peace because the gun would cause so many casualties in war that no nation would tolerate it. He was wrong, and nations simply adjusted what they considered acceptable losses in war.

Your gripe should be against those nations who are aggressive and bring about conflict and war, not technology. Then technology is going to come. Whether humanity is mature and wise going into the future should be your point of focus. I point to the Tootsies using machetes on the Huttus in their genocide was highly effective. Humans will find a way to kill.


False accusation #3. Well done. Notice I never wrote that science is unique or special. Those are your words. I'm curious why you aren't self-reflecting more about your thoughts before you respond.

Yeah, you are a believer in certain kind of worldview. I hold it also, but I view it as a matter of belief. Now if you don't accept it as a belief or opinion, give it a go and show evidence or what words you use.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yeah, all humans who abandon critical thinking skills in favor of believing that which 'feels right' to them are a Q-Anon follower.
So let us look a bit closer.
Say you have 2 non-religious humans and they contradict each other by claiming respectively that it is known that the world is physical and that it is not known what the world is.
This example also applies to other examples as what science is, what truth is, what knowledge is, what political rights are, what morality is.
So I would estimate that at least over 95% and maybe close to 99% of all adults don't use critical thinking skills. They are in effect just products of nature and nurture.

So are all these people like Q-Anon followers? Well, no, not as far as I can tell. So is it reasonable to go after all these people like they are all the same?

Yes, if people abandon critical thinking skills in favor of what 'feels right' to them then they are just like Q-Anon followers in that they abandoned critical thinking skills in favor of what just feels right.

But most of what you mentioned is just difference of opinion, and just because you have a difference of opinion it doesn't automatically mean that one of the people have abandoned their critical thinking skills. For instance, two people employing critical thinking skills can have different opinions on how best to deal with the climate change crisis. That's not the same as someone who accepts that the climate change crisis is real and someone who abandons critical thinking just because it fells right that climate change is nothing but a hoax.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, if people abandon critical thinking skills in favor of what 'feels right' to them then they are just like Q-Anon followers in that they abandoned critical thinking skills in favor of what just feels right.

But most of what you mentioned is just difference of opinion, and just because you have a difference of opinion it doesn't automatically mean that one of the people have abandoned their critical thinking skills. For instance, two people employing critical thinking skills can have different opinions on how best to deal with the climate change crisis. That's not the same as someone who accepts that the climate change crisis is real and someone who abandons critical thinking just because it fells right that climate change is nothing but a hoax.

So what is the world really? With evidence and all those words? Come on, you can solve over 2000+ years of philosophy trying to do it.
BTW the word "real" has no objective referent just like the word "God".

 

[QuestioningMind]

So what is the world really? With evidence and all those words? Come on, you can solve over 2000+ years of philosophy trying to do it.
BTW the word "real" has no objective referent just like the word "God".

So what is the world really?

Which world, there are billions upon billions of planets within our solar system. If you mean this world it's the 3rd planet from the sun in our solar system.

With evidence and all those words?
That's not a complete sentence, nor is it a question.

Come on, you can solve over 2000+ years of philosophy trying to do it.

Philosophy has been trying to figure out that we live on the 3rd planet from the sun for 2000+ years? I didn't know that.

BTW the word "real" has no objective referent...

Why, and according to whom?

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, you are a believer in certain kind of worldview.

What world view is that?

I hold it also, but I view it as a matter of belief.

It's apparent you make it clear you have an unorthodox way of thinking of how things are that is different than most rational thinkers.

Now if you don't accept it as a belief or opinion, give it a go and show evidence or what words you use.

You're being typically vague so I can't really address your challenge.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If it is invisible to your eyes or your other senses, why is it impossible that it does exist without you being able to detect it?
For something to exist, you must see it?

Can it be that other people can see and understand something you can't see or understand?

Seeing (i.e., accessible to our senses) is not all. There are many things which we cannot/do not see. But is it detectable by any means whatsoever? If it is not, then you may keep it in the category of Flying Spaghetti Monster, the unicorn, the pink fairy, the mermaid, Cthulhu, etc.
Other people's experience is their experience. They may be misguided, biased, in hallucination, psychotic, mad. I will not base my views on the experience of others.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So what is the world really?

Said that previously also. As per the current scientific theory, The world, the universe, is a product of spontaneous appearance of space energy and time, like a bubble in water. As Lawrence Krauss said 'nothing is unstable'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Said that previously also. As per the current scientific theory, The world, the universe, is a product of spontaneous appearance of space energy and time, like a bubble in water. As Lawrence Krauss said 'nothing is unstable'.

No, that is a belief.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Said that previously also. As per the current scientific theory, The world, the universe, is a product of spontaneous appearance of space energy and time, like a bubble in water. They say 'nothing is unstable' or something like that.

Can I ask in honesty, because I do not understand.

How can something spontaneous appear from absolutely nothing? Does science say that is possible? What force did "create" the big bang as an example? If big bang just accidentally happen from nothing, how would that be possible if you need something to create something new?

I now think this is where I don't understand science or even non-believers. How can you prove ( since you guys always/often ask for proof) that something suddenly exist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can I ask in honesty, because I do not understand.

How can something spontaneous appear from absolutely nothing? Does science say that is possible? What force did "create" the big bang as an example? If big bang just accidentally happen from nothing, how would that be possible if you need something to create something new?

I now think this is where I don't understand science or even non-believers. How can you prove ( since you guys always/often ask for proof) that something suddenly exist?

He is not telling the truth. It is not a scientific fact, what he claims. It is what is called an untested hypothesis.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can I ask in honesty, because I do not understand.

How can something spontaneous appear from absolutely nothing? Does science say that is possible? What force did "create" the big bang as an example? If big bang just accidentally happen from nothing, how would that be possible if you need something to create something new?

I now think this is where I don't understand science or even non-believers. How can you prove ( since you guys always/often ask for proof) that something suddenly exist?

Take #2.
This starts with philosophy. Imagine you are only dreaming all this as you are being tricked by evil demon. That is from Rene Descartes. The answer is that you can't know whether the rest of the world is real or something else. In modern terms you could be in the Matrix.
The solution that the most common version of science uses is to use the following beliefs:
-that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers. (No evil demon or matrix)
-that this objective reality is governed by natural laws. (That we can make sense of the world in an orderly sense)
-that this objective reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation. (the scientific method)
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
There are even more beliefs, but they don't call them beliefs. They are axiomatic assumptions, but in effect that is the same.

There is even more that this. But for some of the religious non-believers they treat these beliefs/axiomatic assumptions as fact/truth or what ever.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So what is the world really?

Which world, there are billions upon billions of planets within our solar system. If you mean this world it's the 3rd planet from the sun in our solar system.

With evidence and all those words?
That's not a complete sentence, nor is it a question.

Come on, you can solve over 2000+ years of philosophy trying to do it.

Philosophy has been trying to figure out that we live on the 3rd planet from the sun for 2000+ years? I didn't know that.

BTW the word "real" has no objective referent...

Why, and according to whom?

I retract my post. It was not relevant.
We agree on people, who deny the objective parts of reality. We are just of different opinions, where the actual border should be drawn and if all cases are equally dangerous. But yes, for some beliefs, it is the cases that they are dangerous.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, that is a belief.

Well, I too search for a better answer.

"Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation., Prajapati Parameshthi in 'Nasadiya Sukta', Verse 6 (at least 1,000 BCE)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I too search for a better answer.

"Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation., Prajapati Parameshthi in 'Nasadiya Sukta', Verse 6 (at least 1,000 BCE)

Well. you think you have found the correct belief for us all. I haven't found such a belief. I have found the best belief for me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Can I ask in honesty, because I do not understand.
How can something spontaneous appear from absolutely nothing? Does science say that is possible? What force did "create" the big bang as an example? If big bang just accidentally happen from nothing, how would that be possible if you need something to create something new?

The problem is that you probably do not have the necessary education to understand science. Perhaps you were not interested in science in your school years and you had interest in art, history, sociology, etc. But though not academically qualified beyond a Bachelor's degree in science, I was always interested in science. Therefore, I understand it a little. Universe is not as simple as any God or Allah clapping his hands and creating the universe. If you search the internet, you can find more information about it. Science does not deny 'Creation from nothing'. Here is some answer to your query:
Antimatter - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe
Universe - Wikipedia, Universe - Wikipedia, Universe - Wikipedia
(These are all different section of the Wikipedia article on Universe)

He is not telling the truth. It is not a scientific fact, what he claims. It is what is called an untested hypothesis.

Well, all theories in science start as untested hypotheses. When did I say that I have the exact answer?

We agree on people, who deny the objective parts of reality.

By your own views, there is no objective reality.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The problem is that you probably do not have the necessary education to understand science. Perhaps you were not interested in science in your school years and you had interest in art, history, sociology, etc. But though not academically qualified beyond a Bachelor's degree in science, I was always interested in science. Therefore, I understand it a little. Universe is not as simple as any God or Allah clapping his hands and creating the universe. Here is some answer to your query:
Antimatter - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

It is true science has never been my interst, mostly because I dont believe science give a correct way to God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How can science give you the correct way to God when none from religions have given any evidence to science to investigate?

 

[Spirit of Light]

How can science give you the correct way to God when none from religions have given any evidence to science to investigate?

Because religious belief does not look for answer in the physical world, science only work in this physical world.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not know if it could be called a lacuna?