Science IS religion

[Darkstorn]

To be serious for a second, these arguments with dad would go a lot smoother if everybody understood he's a last thursdayist and therefore NO argument that expects ANY other eventuality would even be considered by him.

He's already decided that we're ALL wrong since we CAN'T disprove last thursdayism. Which is correct. We also can't disprove the Matrix.

Last thursdayists are an extreme form of YEC that make the claim that we will NEVER be able to know any other alternative no matter what.

I.E we're in the matrix (fishbowl, whatever) and we can't prove anything outside of what we're "fed" therefore this guy is not debating, but proselytizing.

Last thursdayists are worse than solipsists in debates.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

There are nothing in itself. If there was, it wouldn't be a part of the world.
So here it is for science by a scientist:


So here is what you do. You are a rational reductionist. You believe you can reduce the world down to parts separate from each other. You can't. You are embedded as a part of the word and you are nothing in yourself, because you can't be in yourself.

As for the rest, you do the following. You reduce everything down to either conceptual or perpetual in themselves, but there are several problems with that:
You rely on concepts in your brain, rules, to state these absurd claims:

The problem is that importance and value are conceptual and not perceptual.

The word "real" is conceptual as it has no objective referent.
You reduce reality down to what is really real and I just answer that is only real to you, because real is an idea in your brain, that you can't turn physical. It is mental and it is only in your brain as a concept; an abstract idea.

You think that you can turn everything in to being expressed in physical terms, but the problem is that it is an idea in your brain. You can't do it, because some words don't have a perceptual, tangible, observable, objective, independent of the mind referent and the word "real" is one of them. "Importance", "value", "unique", "in itself" and so on are other words, which are conceptual.

So don't do that. It is years ago, I learned to spot what you do. That is not unique to you. I have come across it many times before. It has a rich history in philosophy and the problem is always the same: "All concepts can be reduced to percepts." The problem is that it is an abstract idea itself and I all have to do, is answer: No!

You are not that unique, neither am I. You haven't solved anything for an uniform, universal methodology of how to be human. Neither have I, I just know that neither you nor I are that unique.

I am a skeptic and you are a rationalist, who believes, he can make a rule, that everything is real only as objective and what not. The problem is that the rule is subjective and I use another set of rules than you. You then declare yours objective for all humans and then you arrive at the result that mine are "wrong". They are not. Both set of rules are subjective and can't be compared because there is no objective standard.

What you do and you are not the first to have tried to do that: You try to do reductive physicalism and it fails everything, because reality is interconnected and you can't reduce something down to being physical in itself, because I just answer: No!
And then I live in a fantasy world be myself, yet you know it, because you point it out and thus I can't live in a fantasy world by myself.
So the absurd part is that you do a duality of really unreal, a fantasy world, yet you speak of it as real, otherwise I couldn't be in it.

I can separate concept and percept and you do it differently. I accept that. I just point out that is an idea in your head. A fantasy, which works for you, but not me, because I can in fact do it differently. So I use a different fantasy and it works for me.

So you can do philosophy all you like and I just answer: No! I can do it differently.

BTW From your link:


And off we go with ideas in brains. You are not that good at spotting the problematic parts, if it agrees with your bias, right?!!

We are all anatomically, physiologically, emotionally, and psychologically unique from each other in our species. The fact that I cannot perceive what you are perceiving right now, is evidence of our uniqueness. This is called, our subjective perspective. Either we are all part of a collective mentality that is objective, or our mentality is subjective and unique only to self. I don't know how I can explain this any easier. You can't "mind melt" with another person. You can't see yourself outside of yourself. And you are not a true empath. So, YES WE ARE ALL UNIQUE AND OUR REALITY IS SUBJECTIVE. what possible gibberish can you present to disprove something that is so obvious and self evident? Do you think that we are all clones, with a hive mentality?

I agree that you can always say "no" to anything I say. Most creationist, flat-earthers, zealots, and cultists minds, usually do say "no", when they have nothing left that is relevant to defend their claims. They simply go into denial, hide behind absolutes, ignore, deflect, obfuscate, or just cherry-pick any questions that is asked. Eventually, they are buried under the weight of logic, objectivity, truisms, facts, and evidence. They are exposed at best, as a curiosity, and at worse as a lunatic.

Let me tell you a story about the world I exist in. When I look at an apple in a bowl on a table in a room, how do I know that all of this is real, and not just some fantasy? In order for me to know that I am real, I must first be able to pose the question if I am real. Who is the "I" that is asking the question? The "I' must be a real person asking the question, since a non-real person can't ask the question if "I" am real. Therefore, I must be real. Then I use my senses to give me the awareness of my position in space and time(spacetime). Then I use my visual senses for feedback, depth perception, and location of the apple on the table. I then use multiple senses to validate that the apple, bowl, table, and room are real and physical, and not just a projection. I can also use objective evidence(videos, photos, scales, another person, etc.) to validate what my senses are perceiving. I can taste, discuss, cut up, or share my apple with others, as more objective evidence that the apple on the table exist in the physical reality. In my world, I can at least validate what my senses can perceive. None of these actions can be applied to the fantasy world. No senses can be used to validate the fantasy world.

The idea of a physical world may indeed exist in my mind, but the physical world exist outside my mind. Unless you think that the apple can physically exist inside my mind as well. We are directly connected to our physical world through our senses. Also, this is not a competition. This is suppose to be an honest exchange of ideas.

You stated that you are skeptical. Are you skeptical about the validity of your senses? Are you skeptical about the existence of a supernatural being, that is all-knowing, all-good, everywhere, and all the time? Are you sceptical about a 6000 year old Universe. Are you skeptical about a life after death, as a reward for obedience, worship, and service? Are you skeptical of miracles, ghost sightings, or paranormal activities? Do you agree, that there are no limits on how we can conceive of reality, but there are limits on how we can perceive of reality? Finally, do you believe that God created everything, and do you follow and obey God?

What other world is there, outside of the physical world? What other kind of perception can you demonstrate. I will accept anything you can demonstrate objectively. It is just a cop-out to keep implying that it is me, that is holding me back from accepting your worldview. I have no problems with anyone's personal beliefs. I simply believe that I came into this world as an individual, and I will go out as an individual as well. How I live in between, I should also determine as an individual. But to each their own. As long as your fantasy beliefs do not infringe upon my freedoms of choice, then how you choose to live your life is no concern of mine. But how you defend your claims, is.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

To be serious for a second, these arguments with dad would go a lot smoother if everybody understood he's a last thursdayist and therefore NO argument that expects ANY other eventuality would even be considered by him.

He's already decided that we're ALL wrong since we CAN'T disprove last thursdayism. Which is correct. We also can't disprove the Matrix.

Last thursdayists are an extreme form of YEC that make the claim that we will NEVER be able to know any other alternative no matter what.

I.E we're in the matrix (fishbowl, whatever) and we can't prove anything outside of what we're "fed" therefore this guy is not debating, but proselytizing.

Last thursdayists are worse than solipsists in debates.

Thank you for the heads-up.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... (Well written, yet limited and as shown below, the limit is) ...

What other world is there, outside of the physical world? What other kind of perception can you demonstrate. I will accept anything you can demonstrate objectively. It is just a cop-out to keep implying that it is me, that is holding me back from accepting your worldview. I have no problems with anyone's personal beliefs. I simply believe that I came into this world as an individual, and I will go out as an individual as well. How I live in between, I should also determine as an individual. But to each their own. As long as your fantasy beliefs do not infringe upon my freedoms of choice, then how you choose to live your life is no concern of mine. But how you defend your claims, is.

That you accept, is subjective. You write to the following effect. I subjectively will only accept the objective and not the subjective, because I have subjectively decided only to accept the objective.
So you confirm the subjective by stating: I will accept anything you can demonstrate objectively.
The underscored part is the subjective part.

We might as well stop here. You got so much personal value and importance riding on that you are objective, that you properly can't admit that you are subjective. You have values, which are subjective. That the objective is important is subjective. That is it.
So me both the subjective as value and the objective, how the world works with science, are subjectively important to me.
It is also subjectively important that I find personal subjective peace with my belief in God.
So as long as I keep my God subjective it is not of your concern.
On the other hand what you believe that your values are somehow objective and ought to be so for all humans is a problem for the rest of us.
And that you treat me as if I have to live up to your idea of religion, so you can win, tells more about you than me.
I am not religious, as you would like, because being religious is subjective. And not just your subjective idea of what religion is. Again you can't see your own subjectivity and then project it onto me as if I have to be religious based on your subjective concept of religion.

 

[Bear Wild]

Jesus is God. Need we say more?


Speaking of hallucinations, your view of history fits the bill.

So you are saying Jesus is your god and since Jesus was a male therefor god is a male? Jesus died so your god died? And you have real evidence for this beyond oral tales the written long after the fact? Did Jesus himself write down he was god? Did Jesus ever actively preach to those outside of the Jewish faith? Maybe you can help me understand and provide evidence outside of the bible. Actual evidence to support the biblical claims such as archeological evidence or cross references by different sources at the time of Jesus. This should be easy for you with all of your understanding.

 

[dad]

Literally every piece of evidence we have ever uncovered has shown the biology always worked like... biology.

Should be easy to name one then!

You have to prove biology worked differently.

All I have to say is that we do not know from science. You science claims based on a belief it was the same crumble into dust then. I am happy to assume that history and the bible records which indicate stark differences in life and nature have some validity to them.

If science claims otherwise we need to see the basis for the claims obviously.

Again, you're alleging something that A) is contradicted by everything that we currently know and B) has no evidence to support it whatsoever.

Science assumes and views the evidences from the past as if it was the same then. That is not known, and contradicts what is known from records.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Should be easy to name one then!

Sorry, once you irrationally reject evidence you can no longer make valid demands. Now it is remedial education time for you.

All I have to say is that we do not know from science. You science claims based on a belief it was the same crumble into dust then. I am happy to assume that history and the bible records which indicate stark differences in life and nature have some validity to them.

If science claims otherwise we need to see the basis for the claims obviously.

No, and once again you demonstrate an ignorance of the scientific method. Scientific claims are based upon concepts tested and confirmed with empirical evidence. Once more you only demonstrate a need for remedial education.

Science assumes and views the evidences from the past as if it was the same then. That is not known, and contradicts what is known from records.

No, scientists are not allowed to "assume" in the sense that you keep using the word. And you are ignoring the records that tell us that you are wrong.

So, remedial education time. Which do you want to discuss first:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Or:

 

[Darkstorn]

I don't think you REALLY realize that you're arguing with a last thursdayist, SZ.

ALL evidence is by default suspect to a last thursdayist, as per definition. This is not a debate. It's an exercise in futility.

We've already convinced each other of his mental status. But we'll never convince him of it.

 

[dad]

What I am confused about, is how any rational person could believe that the 4 fundamental forces, could have somehow been different in the past, than they are now. A rational person would know that these forces are interconnected, and any changes to one, will effect changes in the others.

I am not thinking about a change IN our nature! I am thinking our current nature is the result of a change. You do not know what changed or how, to leave nature as it is today. Your argument is a strawman.

What do you think would happen if light traveled at a different speed in the past, then it does now?

No no no. Speed is how must time something takes to move through space! It would not be that something went slower or faster, that whatever it did, there was not time as we know it to move in. Without time, nothing can TAKE time to do anything, including move. Also, without time existing in far space, as we know it here in the fishbowl, we could not expect anything to take the same amount of time out there. So the question is do we know time is the same in far space or not? (Not 'did the speed of light as we know it in the solar system area change')

What do you think would happen if Gravity was slightly different in the past, then it is now?

That depends if gravity itself was not the same, or if there were some countermanding force that used to exist also.

We would certainly see clear evidence of this change. So what evidence can you present to support this claim? Never mind, if any of these forces were changed in the past, there would be no Universe left for us to be having this discussion.

The fact that huge blocks were used and moved in the more ancient structures, and that they got smaller in some cases fairly suddenly comes to mind. One could suspect that they had some way to, at least at times, overcome gravity. But I neither know, nor care too much. If YOU claim no change happened, fine, if you have hard evidence, I could accept that.
But when you talk about objects attracting each other in far space, that are of unknown size or distance I have to ask how accurate your gravity calculations are!

I certainly can say that Gravity was the same now as it was in the time of your fantasy character(Noah). Here is the reality. The Gravity of the earth is determined by the total mass of the earth.

The funny thing is mass itself is determined by nature!

In deep space for example we see this..

"But there are other objects in space that astronomers are very interested in knowing their masses: stars and galaxies. The way to get the mass of these objects is to look at the gravitational interaction with other objects nearby. For example, if you have two stars orbiting one another and you know the distance between them and how long it takes for one to go around the other, you can calculate the mass of the stars. Similar tricks apply to measure the mass of galaxies, for example by measuring how fast they rotate."

How do we weigh objects in space? (Beginner) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

So they use realities on earth that we see now, the force of gravity for example, Then they assume that star would follow the same rules. Then they use distances derived from a belief time exists with space the same out there. Then they use the time we observe HERE on earth or area, in the light from that far away star. That is several beliefs piled on one another.

Also, looking at earth and mass and gravity here, all we can do is measure how it is now! Tell us how this tells us the force of gravity...etc was the same long long ago?

You would need to add the mass of the moon, to increase the earth's gravity, even slightly.

Or simply change the forces that cause earth to have the mass it does!

Therefore since there is no evidence of a large comet or planet crashing into the earth, I'd say that the earth's gravity is the same today as it was thousands(or millions) of years ago.

The way nature changed would not be a change in nature itself as we know it. OUR nature did not change since it came to be. We would not be looking for cataclysmic physical changes, but rather, looking at a possible change in the very forces that used to exist. Not a tweak IN our present nature, but a change in the former nature orchestrated by the creator.

Let me summarize, every particle obeys the same rules, experiences the same forces, and sees the same fundamental constants, no matter where or when they exist.

Now, they do, at least in the solar system/earth area. When did this start, and how would you know? You look at the forces of nature existing today, and simply use that to model the past!

Gravitationally, every single entity in the Universe experiences the same gravitational acceleration or the same curvature of spacetime, no matter what properties it possesses

Says who? Einstein? He never got out of his veranda in this universe! He sat there on that veranda talking about what he thought an observer should/would see coming in the fishbowl at the speed of light! His math was fishbowl based and therefore relativity is relative to the fishbowl. He took the time and space we know here to model. There IS no other observer in the universe, he/we have only ONE observation point of reference...the fishbowl.
Yes, we see relativistic effects in far space. But since we do not know sizes or distances or what else may also be working on objects that we are not familiar with here in the fishbowl, it does tell us much.

All claims dealing with time outside the fishbowl are extraordinary!

 

[Darkstorn]

I am not thinking about a change IN our nature! I am thinking our current nature is the result of a change. You do not know what changed or how, to leave nature as it is today. Your argument is a strawman.

The only reason i'm "responding" to his post is because his first statement there is just convoluted speak for "i believe in last thursdayism."

This is starting to feel pretty retarded.

 

[dad]

Sorry, once you irrationally reject evidence you can no longer make valid demands. Now it is remedial education time for you.



No, and once again you demonstrate an ignorance of the scientific method. Scientific claims are based upon concepts tested and confirmed with empirical evidence. Once more you only demonstrate a need for remedial education.



No, scientists are not allowed to "assume" in the sense that you keep using the word. And you are ignoring the records that tell us that you are wrong.

So, remedial education time. Which do you want to discuss first:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Or:

You cannot hide under the umbrella of a sweeping claim about what evidence is, or what a method is. To be called evidence, something must stand on it's two feet. You do not have evidence for what time is like in deep space for example, so claiming scientific...anything is disingenuous. You had every opportunity to post it, but failed.

 

[dad]

The only reason i'm "responding" to his post is because his first statement there is just convoluted speak for "i believe in last thursdayism."

This is starting to feel pretty retarded.

A disbelief in reality of last week that is known and plastered in newspapers and books and memories and videos etc etc is not to be compared with your ignorance about nature on earth in the past. That amounts to religious intolerance and bigotry against other beliefs, and ignorance. You cannot make up fantasy claims about life on earth in the distant past that even flies in the face of historical evidences, and claim anyone who does not partake in your beliefs does not believe in last week!

Cheap and cowardly argument.

 

[dad]

The appearance of old age.

The delusional appearance of imaginary ages is due to how you view things, not to evidence of any sort.

 

[Darkstorn]

A disbelief in reality of last week that is known and plastered in newspapers and books and memories and videos etc etc is not to be compared with your ignorance about nature on earth in the past. That amounts to religious intolerance and bigotry against other beliefs, and ignorance. You cannot make up fantasy claims about life on earth in the distant past that even flies in the face of historical evidences, and claim anyone who does not partake in your beliefs does not believe in last week!

Cheap and cowardly argument.

So, a last thursdayist who doesn't know what last thursdayism is. Even though i explained this to you 30 pages ago.

It has nothing to do with last week. Or even a thursday. You're just being hopelessly ineffective at understanding things. Of any kind.

See? Totally futile.

 

[Darkstorn]

The delusional appearance of imaginary ages is due to how you view things, not to evidence of any sort.

Did you read the rest of the post? I'm guessing, no, you did not.

I told you it's because satan has deceived me. DUH.

Last Thursdayists, lol.

 

[dad]

So you are saying Jesus is your god and since Jesus was a male therefor god is a male?

Yes.

Jesus died so your god died?

He rose again, death could not hold Him, but in paying for our sins with His pure life, we can be saved. That is the plan of salvation.

Did Jesus himself write down he was god?

When I look in the red letter edition of the bible where His quotes are in red, yes, He sure did!

Did Jesus ever actively preach to those outside of the Jewish faith?

Since He is active now and helps those who do preach, yes.

Maybe you can help me understand and provide evidence outside of the bible. Actual evidence to support the biblical claims such as archeological evidence or cross references by different sources at the time of Jesus. This should be easy for you with all of your understanding.

The thread is about defending your religion, not mine.

 

[Darkstorn]

The thread is about defending your religion, not mine.

I'm saying it's you defending your belief of last thursdayism.

It's a common form of young earth cretionism for delusional people. You're both a YEC, and delusional, so it's like a perfect match made in heaven.

 

[dad]

So, a last thursdayist who doesn't know what last thursdayism is. Even though i explained this to you 30 pages ago.

It has nothing to do with last week. Or even a thursday. You're just being hopelessly ineffective at understanding things. Of any kind.

See? Totally futile.

That doesn't help your inability to defend your pseudo science claims, or denial of history.

 

[dad]

Did you read the rest of the post? I'm guessing, no, you did not.

I told you it's because satan has deceived me. DUH.

Last Thursdayists, lol.

This is not all out you, but the belief set of origin sciences. If you have a personal claim about possession or influence from Satan, that is for another thread/doctor/whatever.

 

[Darkstorn]

That doesn't help your inability to defend your pseudo science claims, or denial of history.

Not only do i disagree, i also make the claim that it definitely doesn't help your belief of last thursdayism. I'm trying to pull attention to this fact. I feel it's working already.

This is not all out you, but the belief set of origin sciences. If you have a personal claim about possession or influence from Satan, that is for another thread/doctor/whatever.

No, it's all about you believing in last thursdayism.