SofaKing
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 605
Reputation: 54
SofaKing 51-75 points
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
No aspect of my theology is contradicted by science.
As a non-scientist, you are not qualified to make such a statement. Have you ever even taken a college physics course?
Of course this guy is not a scientist, but he claims to have masters in scientific subject so he deludes himself into thinking he is a scientist.
My response
Old 7 Hours Ago #25
SofaKing
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 605
Reputation: 54
SofaKing 51-75 points
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
that's ridiculous. as a non Ph.D. candidate who has never study philosophy of science you are not qualified to critique my arguments or judge my knowledge.
you are guilty of the transgression of which C. Write Mills warned. creating a priesthood of knowledge out of science.
His response
Nope. Sorry, there is no way that you could know that your fantasy jives with all scientific theories if you don't even know the undergraduate-level theories. In fact, if you did know science, you would know that many scientific theories are contradicted by other scientific theories. For example, quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity are not compatible under certain situations.The only way your theology is going to be compatible with all scientific theories is if it was scientifically meaningless deism, which yours is clearly not.
I did not say it's compatible with all theories. I said is not constradicted by scientific fact. you can't say that for your views.
Old 3 Hours Ago #19
alexhanson
Member
It is true, while I am patient with ignorance, I hate it when people blindly cling to it as you do. You lose logic at the final step of your argument and make a faith statement.
The footprints only show that someone made them. You cannot say that it was an invisible man, you cannot say that you know who made them.
But that's with footprints. With god, there aren't even footprints. You are suggesting that natural occurrences are really caused by god. You cannot prove this, all you can prove is that people believe/think that god causes them and that is normative (normal) for them to do so. ITS NOT PROOF OF GOD. Follow your logic all the way through. Its intellectually dishonest to use logic for most of your argument and then try to say that it proves your faith claim. Your critical thinking skills are severely lacking.
Sofaking again:
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=3627613#poststop
Sorry. I meant to say that natural philosophy was the precursor of modern science. They are not exactly the same.
"Modern notions of science and scientists date only to the 19th century (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary dates the origin of the word "scientist" to 1834)." -- wikipedia
this is really odd because the attributes the quote to Webster's then to Wilipedia.
Why would you think Newton is not part of modern science? Wasn't modern science based upon Newtonian laws until the middle of the twentieth century (it stil is really).
Sofaking again (same post):
As far as I know, science is the only domain that's worth my consideration. You have not given me any reason to think otherwise.
after that astounding pronouncement he says:
Ha! Atheism is far from an ideology. Is your non-belief in Apollo an ideology? Don't be ridiculous.
Is that a scientific question?
I made an analogy about religious experince that involved the idea of finding the invisible man's tracks in the snow. We can't see the man but we can see where he's been. So this guy "alexhansen" says "How do you know he's invisible?" He continues to quibble about that analogy for a whole thread, doing post after post on it until he says:
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=3642284#post3642284
Meta, that is my point. Your analogy relies on invisible men, which don't actually exist. If we transfer the analogy to 'reality' the invisible men = God (which also doesn't exist). I doubt that this was the result you were looking to accomplish.
Your analogy doesn't work to make your point since invisible men do not exist and because of this, it shows that there are better, more rational and natural explanations for the 'trace'.
In other words he think an analogy is an argument intended to prove something.
Very entertaining!
ReplyDeleteThis from Sofaking is very telling:
You have not shown its [philosophy's] vital importance, whereas the vital importance of science is plainly evident to all. We could do just fine without philosophy. It's fun to ask dopey questions and sit and ponder about them, but let's quit fooling ourselves about the "vital importance" of this undisciplined speculation.
Question for sofaking: For what is science vitally important? Please answer without reference to any discipline outside of science. Be especially cautious not to draw on any philosophical methods or traditions, since they are so manifestly unimportant.
That's a good approach. Unfortunately, I tried it with him, I don't think he got it.
ReplyDeletebut thanks for the post.
Somehow I'm not surprised to find out it didn't work...
ReplyDelete"For what is science vitally important? Please answer without reference to any discipline outside of science."
ReplyDeleteModern medicine? Though I suppose it's not vitally important if you don't mind going back to 40 year life spans.
"For what is science vitally important? Please answer without reference to any discipline outside of science."
ReplyDeleteModern medicine? Though I suppose it's not vitally important if you don't mind going back to 40 year life spans.
He's assuming I'm saying we need to stop having science. This is the kind of mature response you get on CARM, serious thinkers, mature ideas, always sharp and understand quickly and have a well read back ground in modern thought.
then woke up for the dream...
Somehow I'm not surprised to find out it didn't work...
ReplyDeleteLOL
Oh, I know what he was assuming Joe, and it doesn't surprise me. I was just trying to answer Tom's question.
ReplyDeleteOh, I know what he was assuming Joe, and it doesn't surprise me. I was just trying to answer Tom's question
ReplyDeleteI get you. no problem.
Mike said,
ReplyDeleteModern medicine? Though I suppose it's not vitally important if you don't mind going back to 40 year life spans.
It seems to me, Mike, that you are still making reference to a discipline outside of science, in the value you give to mankind's longevity in interpreting "vitally important." Science cannot give value to anything, but can only state how things work. What is "vitally important" is thus not a question that can be answered by pure science alone.
"Science cannot give value to anything, but can only state how things work."
ReplyDeleteCertainly science doesn't give value, but the use of it has provided things that have value, some that many would consider indispensable. Is there a discipline that is vitally important all by it's self?
I would say, Mike, that that discipline which is devoted to the determination of what is vitally important (ie., ethics or the philosophy of ethics), is vitally important in and of itself. But it seemed to me that the point Joe was trying to make in asking the question was that science is a tool-- a means towards an end, not an end in itself.
ReplyDeleteCertainly science doesn't give value, but the use of it has provided things that have value, some that many would consider indispensable. Is there a discipline that is vitally important all by it's self?
ReplyDeleteOf course, a bunch of them: art, music, literature, philosophy, ethics.
no one said there's a choice between doing science and not doing it. that was never the issue.