- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,104
- 52,639
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Number One is "a good deal of arrogance on the part of the observer" to you?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Number One is "a good deal of arrogance on the part of the observer" to you?This would imply that
1/ what we cannot explain is not possible to be explained except via the supernatural,
2/ the fundamental paradigm of science "as it is known" is in fact true and accurate,
3/ "credible" covers all possible means...
Any of these would indicate a good deal of arrogance on the part of the observer, and taken together, borders on sheer hubris.
Number One is "a good deal of arrogance on the part of the observer" to you?
"That which we cannot explain has no possible explanation"?
Finish the sentence, professor.
You wrote it.
"... except via the ____________"?
Ahem ... let's see here ......except via the supernatural.
Yes, very arrogant.
Ahem ... let's see here ...
We have a cigar-smoking Mickey Mouse Marvel Comics X-man saying supernatural explanations are 'very arrogant.'
What's wrong with this picture?
Oh, I get it.Your complete inability to address the topic?
I mean come on, AV -- surely you of all people will agree that science is myopic, and just because it cannot find an answer right here and now, that doesn't mean there's no answer to be found...
Or do you find science to be omniscient and infallible?
Oh, I get it.
You're trying to steal my thunder from HERE
I basically said the same thing about science being arrogant for not following proper continuity procedures.
Atheism is simply a non belief in any gods. An atheist may or may not believe gods don't exist as well. I have a non belief in gods. How can I come to any other conclusions about reality based on this non belief?I simply point out from observation your entire philosophical platform as expressed from time to time on these threads is based on a set of beliefs. You are welcome to them, but they are none the less beliefs.
The atheism often expressed here is in essence coupled with scientific realism. It is unusual to see atheism without some other postulation for origin of life. “Don’t know “ or “ don’t care” is more logically consistent with agnosticism.
I have always thought science is such a strange straw to clutch at as a philosophy or meaning of life and existence , since the scientific model is just an abstract invention of man , used to codify observation. A strange thing on which to base faith.
I could pick one of the points to argue but that would obscure the generality, that atheism is in itself a belief generally couple with other beliefs, as sadly - and wrongly - taught in the classroom.
Ask any schoolchild where life comes from and they are likely to say from chemical soup or similar meaning, which is utterly false teaching since nobody can conclude it from science. It’s a belief. It doesn’t even constitute a valid scientific hypothesis, yet it is taught as a fact.
I find it fascinating you use the word “ inevitability” of life as a random chance accident, since that presumes very high probability. If it were a high probability then have you not wondered why no other instance ever been observed happening? No far more primitive cells have been observed, in a continuous process of reinvention of life? Not even a credible process has been postulated by which it can happen!
Ascribing a high probability to “unknown mechanism” as an explanation is farcical reasoning, however you arrived at it!
(As a point of explanation : DNA coding is in essence a software, that is presumed to program a chemical automaton. )
Here they are again:Which is it?
Here they are again:
1. Keep looking.
2. Consider they simply didn't write anything.
3. Wait until your technology is sufficiently advanced to detect written documents underground.
4. Make sure you're not misinterpreting documentation you have already discovered.
5. Don't give up the ship prematurely.
I suggest that, before you consider "1/ what we cannot explain is not possible to be explained except via the supernatural," to be "arrogance," you make sure you aren't giving up the ship prematurely.
Can't do both?Which is precisely why it's arrogance -- because if we concede the supernatural, we decided not to "keep looking."
Can't do both?
Seems to me that the arrogant thing to do is to claim it didn't happen, despite the Bible saying otherwise.
I'm addressing your post, where the supernatural has already been conceded.How does one "look for" a supernatural event?
Because it seems to me that the supernatural is by necessity idiopathic, and can only be determined by exclusion. That is to say, we cannot perceive the cause, and have to rule out all other possibilities before accepting the supernatural as said cause.
To do otherwise would leave one wide open to all sorts of false prophets, charlatans, and con artists, would it not?
Which is precisely why it's arrogance -- because if we concede the supernatural, we decided not to "keep looking."
I'm addressing your post, where the supernatural has already been conceded.
Remember saying this?
Yes.I remember saying it -- you see the word "if" in there?
Just dumb. The history of scientific discovery is a history of repeatedly demonstrating the opposite."That which we cannot explain has no possible explanation"?
Absolutely arrogant.
Just dumb. The history of scientific discovery is a history of repeatedly demonstrating the opposite.
Yes.
That's the part I'm addressing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?