How the C&E debate has changed my beliefs

[mnbvcxz87]

Well it is part of religion, but religion puts it's happening down to when the supreme being of whichever religion chooses. I put it down to us.

I understand where your coming from, and I can accept why you believe it but you can't accept mine. You have to appreciate that the basis of my belief isn't on scientific grounds, so you're dismissing my philosophy on your grounds.

 

[Tomk80]

Well the core problem with TOE on moral grounds is the problem I referred to. I also strongly disagree on this higher purpose point which is something religion brings up alot. Is it really acceptable for us to dismiss a billion years of suffering for serving a higher purpose? I find that obscene. And then, once that had ended what purpose is our being here?

I find it obscene too. But when you posit a higher reason for existence, which you do not know, it has to be considered. And not liking it is not a valid reason to reject it. Also, nobody is dismissing a billion years of suffering. But that we do not like billions of years of suffering doesn't mean we should somehow pretend it didn't happen.

Like I say, if all of the negative aspects of life are according to science impossible to end, and to get to the point of being here there has been a few billion years of suffering, and now we can't do anything anyway, the only philosophical outlook you can have after you've made sure it's compatible with science is "errr".

Again, this is your opinion. You are entitled to it, but it doesn't negate the evidence. It doesn't negate that many philosophers have set out to other solutions to your problems. The fact that you are ignoring both the evidence and other opinions is good for you, but it will never help you get a realistic picture of reality. And if you want to improve reality, you'll have to do that by starting with reality, not by ignoring it.

There's nothing which fits.

There is quite a lot that fits. Start with inflationary theory and how it fits the evidence and evolution and how it fits the evidence. Study it, instead of ignoring it.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

But if you apply moral reasoning to the universe, the TOE doesn't fit.

How so? No amount of philosophical reasoning in the universe can change the cold hard facts that substantiate the TofE. If you seek truth then you can’t simply ignore evidence that doesn’t jive with your philosophy.

Non human, sentient animals.

The only thing that separates us from “Non human, sentient animals” is how we define species.

Does science know exactly how sentience works?

Science has made considerable inroads into how our brain works. The greater point here that is getting lost in the minutiae is that you can’t simply point at something that science can’t explain and use it as proof of your philosophical assertions. Knowledge doesn’t work that way. It’s not epistemologically sound reasoning.

It really depends which questions are most important to you individually. Personally the questions philosophy deals with are more important than scientific questions (how did that happen instead of why).

But this is not the domain of science. Science isn’t used to refute philosophy and philosophy can’t be used to refute science. Any attempt to do either is futile.

If you accept that there is or at least could be reason for being, then the TOF can be negated on these grounds.

Please explain how. Even if there is a purpose for “being” then how can it possible refute the evidence that substantiates the TofE? You can’t change reality because it doesn’t fit your philosophy. You must refine your philosophy to work within the framework of reality. Otherwise you’ll end up like the YECs.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Absolutely. Well supported, red shifts and everything, but not concrete.

Well agriculture is a very recent milestone, we're going into the reals of impossible to know exactly how, when we assume how our primitive ancestors survives millions of years ago.

 

[Opcode42]

Well the core problem with TOE on moral grounds is the problem I referred to. I also strongly disagree on this higher purpose point which is something religion brings up alot. Is it really acceptable for us to dismiss a billion years of suffering for serving a higher purpose? I find that obscene. And then, once that had ended what purpose is our being here?

Like I say, if all of the negative aspects of life are according to science impossible to end, and to get to the point of being here there has been a few billion years of suffering, and now we can't do anything anyway, the only philosophical outlook you can have after you've made sure it's compatible with science is "errr".

There's nothing which fits.

No, there is very definately something that fits. Its called the universe. It contains the totality of what we know, and by definition what is knowable. Speculation about what may exist beyond the universe is and will remain just that, speculation, until such a time as we are capable of leaving our universe and observing this "beyond". Of course, by everything we do currently know, this is not possible to do.

In the mean time, we are left with our universe. And we will continue to explore and learn about it. The tool that we use to do so is called science. You can chose to reject it on the grounds that you do not like what it shows us, but this will not change what it shows us, nor will it allow you to affect change.

If you decided that you abhored the use of fossil fuels, you have two options. You can either use alternative forms of transport such as your feet or a bike, or you can try to figure out new methods of power generation that do not use fossil fuels, such as fuel cells, or solar power. What will not work is standing there and explaining to your car that what it is doing is bad and that it has to stop.

This is what your philosophy sounds like to me.

 

[Tomk80]

Absolutely. Well supported, red shifts and everything, but not concrete.

Well agriculture is a very recent milestone, we're going into the reals of impossible to know exactly how, when we assume how our primitive ancestors survives millions of years ago.

Exactly, yes. But you are again pretending that, because we do not know the details, we do not know anything. That is blatantly false.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Ahh then I will tom, as I say very open minded. What is the same of one of these atheistic philosophies?

 

[Opcode42]

Well it is part of religion, but religion puts it's happening down to when the supreme being of whichever religion chooses. I put it down to us.

I understand where your coming from, and I can accept why you believe it but you can't accept mine. You have to appreciate that the basis of my belief isn't on scientific grounds, so you're dismissing my philosophy on your grounds.

Except you then ascribe a divine aspect to us and our universe. You atribute more than the natural world to it. Thus it remains in the realm of religion.

The reason we disagree is that you reject science not on its own merits or lack there of but because you disagree with its conclusions as they do not fit with your idealogy. It would be one thing to say "I do not like what science has shown to be real, heres how I think we should change it", it is quite another to state that it is wrong because I do not like it.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Empirical, my philosophy works on the basis of a certain degree of inevitable suffering, which we can now end.

But billions of years is too long for me too ascribe the universe to the creation of a good being, or for a good purpose. That seems, as a philosophical principle absurd.

 

[Tomk80]

Ahh then I will tom, as I say very open minded. What is the same of one of these atheistic philosophies?

I am not well versed in this part, so I don't know about specific philosophies or philosophers. This might be a good starting point if you want to read more about it.

Another site which might be (on a first cursory glance) a good starting point is http://www.kentvancleave.com/Evolphi/evolphi.htm]here.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Empirical, my philosophy works on the basis of a certain degree of inevitable suffering, which we can now end.

But billions of years is too long for me too ascribe the universe to the creation of a good being, or for a good purpose. That seems, as a philosophical principle absurd.

I’m still not getting how this makes the TofE invalid in some way.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Funyn analogy opcode, on scientific grounds I'm sure it is as absurd as that. By moral logic it makes sense. Again, your defining knowledge as bound by science. As I said before our mind has a limit, and there are concepts that we cannot comprehend. So then, searching for truth by scientific means can never truly succeed, because science cannot break into the bounds of what is impossible for our minds to comprehend (ie non existsence).

Which is where philosophy comes in. Is that so hard to accept? I'm not rejecting science, but I'm not accepting it's theories as fact either, and big bag/TOE are still theories and not 100% money in the bank facts.

Well to your next reply, science hasn't shown the TOE to be real beyond doubt. It isn't watertight, as shown by the land-sea transition. You have an assumption of how that happened, but any move from breathing in land-sea doesn't fit with the TOE principle of mutation.

The philosophy has it's moral principles, and a billion years of suffering cannot fit with it, and since it is not an undisputable fact, it doesn't have to included in a philosophy for that philosophy to have merit.

 

[Tomk80]

Empirical, my philosophy works on the basis of a certain degree of inevitable suffering, which we can now end.

But billions of years is too long for me too ascribe the universe to the creation of a good being, or for a good purpose. That seems, as a philosophical principle absurd.

Yet the physical evidence indicates that this is what happened? What to do now with this physical evidence?

 

[mnbvcxz87]

How about if we take the hypothetical scenario that humans or an animal with our level of intelligence never existed, would the scientific knowledge we have discovered still exist?

It is the same as saying if there was a brain twice as ...good as ours we could discover thruths which could negate science on watertight philosophical principles, or science that could negate philosophy entirely.

The point is that our knowledge is bound by limits, and to ascribe truth to science is ignorant of the philosophical possibilites.

EG perhaps more advanced brains could enable us all to literally talk to supernatural power.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

It indicated it but it doesn't prove it.

What if the universe was created to appear old? Or figmentalism is correct which would mean any existence before our individual perception of it beggining at our birth ending at our death, is mere fabrication?

Does it make sense that science doesn't have to be - truth -?

 

[Tomk80]

Funyn analogy opcode, on scientific grounds I'm sure it is as absurd as that. By moral logic it makes sense. Again, your defining knowledge as bound by science. As I said before our mind has a limit, and there are concepts that we cannot comprehend. So then, searching for truth by scientific means can never truly succeed, because science cannot break into the bounds of what is impossible for our minds to comprehend (ie non existsence).

Of course, but nobody is saying science will give 100% truth. However, what we are saying is that you cannot ignore evidence because you don't like it.

Which is where philosophy comes in. Is that so hard to accept? I'm not rejecting science, but I'm not accepting it's theories as fact either, and big bag/TOE are still theories and not 100% money in the bank facts.

What I find a bit funny is that you keep referring to philosophy for your worldview and than state the above. While philosophy has definitively shown that facts are not 100% money in the bank either. On the other hand, theories can be as much 'money in the bank' as facts. You pretend to use philosophy, but continuously ignore some of the more important insights of philosophy of science. Why?

Well to your next reply, science hasn't shown the TOE to be real beyond doubt. It isn't watertight, as shown by the land-sea transition. You have an assumption of how that happened, but any move from breathing in land-sea doesn't fit with the TOE principle of mutation.

How does it not?

The philosophy has it's moral principles, and a billion years of suffering cannot fit with it, and since it is not an undisputable fact, it doesn't have to included in a philosophy for that philosophy to have merit.

How is it not an undisputable fact? What evidence leading to this conclusion negates that as fact, points against it? Is the dating wrong? Did animals only exist the last 10 years somehow? What part of the evidence does not fit the fact of a billion years of suffering?

 

[Opcode42]

Funyn analogy opcode, on scientific grounds I'm sure it is as absurd as that. By moral logic it makes sense. Again, your defining knowledge as bound by science. As I said before our mind has a limit, and there are concepts that we cannot comprehend. So then, searching for truth by scientific means can never truly succeed, because science cannot break into the bounds of what is impossible for our minds to comprehend (ie non existsence).

But here you break into speculation. We cannot observe what is beyond the universe if such a term even makes any sense(by what we currently know, it does not). Yes, this is very much the realm of philosophy, but being as we cannot observe it, it cannot factor in to our oberservations of what we CAN observe, ie our natural universe. This is why science cannot include the supernatural. We have to work with what we know. Not include guesses and assumptions based on what we want to be true.

Which is where philosophy comes in. Is that so hard to accept? I'm not rejecting science, but I'm not accepting it's theories as fact either, and big bag/TOE are still theories and not 100% money in the bank facts.

But you are rejecting, and apparenly part of the problem is a common misunderstanding of fact and theory and just how exact science claims to be.

A theory NEVER becomes a fact. A theory is a conclusion drawn from evidence that explains facts. A theory is the highest level of scientific ideas. The theory of evolution has more evidence, and is better understood and fits the universe better than the theory of gravity.

Well to your next reply, science hasn't shown the TOE to be real beyond doubt. It isn't watertight, as shown by the land-sea transition. You have an assumption of how that happened, but any move from breathing in land-sea doesn't fit with the TOE principle of mutation.

And it never will. This is not a court of law. Science is never 100%. Science must always leave room for additional evidence. Science can only posit theories that are the best explanation for the facts at hand. Additional evidence may cause the theory to change, or even be tossed aside. See the transition from Newtonian Gravity to Relativity for an example.

As to the transtion from water to land, no it is not an assumption. As I sated, this is not an area I am knoweldegable enough in to explain. This is why I posted a refernce to start with, which you apparently didn't bother to even look at. Please learn about the evidence for how fish became amphibhians before rejecting it.

The philosophy has it's moral principles, and a billion years of suffering cannot fit with it, and since it is not an undisputable fact, it doesn't have to included in a philosophy for that philosophy to have merit.

Philosophy does not have its moral pricibles. Some philosophies posit moral ideals, but not all philosophies. Morality, or more specifically ethics, is itself a subset of philosophy.

For a philosophy to have merit, it must take into account all that is known of the universe. If you throw out evidence just becasue you do not like it, your philosphy no longer fits with what we do know. Thus it fails as a workable philosophy.

You continue to try to ignore reality, and substitude your ideal world in its place, and then claim any philosophy based in this other place should work and fit in the real world.

This will not work, except internally for yourself.

 

[Tomk80]

It indicated it but it doesn't prove it.

Nothing is ever proven in science.

What if the universe was created to appear old? Or figmentalism is correct which would mean any existence before our individual perception of it beggining at our birth ending at our death, is mere fabrication?

Or what if Iggy the magic elf created the universe with a history a second ago, and this has actually never happened. You may find that a viewpoint which is worthty of consideration. I find it quite a useless way of thinking.

Does it make sense that science doesn't have to be - truth -?

Of course. But as methods for reaching it go, it is by far the best and most impartial.

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Could you rephrashe this paragraph

'What I find a bit funny is that you keep referring to philosophy for your worldview and than state the above. While philosophy has definitively shown that facts are not 100% money in the bank either. On the other hand, theories can be as much 'money in the bank' as facts. You pretend to use philosophy, but continuously ignore some of the more important insights of philosophy of science. Why?'

It isn't watertight as I went over before. Mutation and evolution, the principle is small genetic defecs (minute) which lead to a slight advantage, enabling that animal to go on and prosper, and so it continues very slowly.

So where, in this drawn out process of minute steps does an animal being able to breathe in it's opposite environment fit in? Where's the transation from fish - amphibian - land dweller? In terms of exactly how an animal managed to suddenly breathe in it's alien environment.

 

[Opcode42]

I get the feeling that we are going to need to put this discussion on hold and actualy teach you what evolution is before we continue. You have made several statements in the last few posts which show you do not understand it at all.

Evolution does not work like the XMen.

Evolution works on popluations not individuals.