seriously?
Source.
Whether he is merely a self-diagnosed Aspie or has an official diagnosis, I do not know; but there must be something in a person to go so far as to self-diagnose themselves that way ...
Anyway, having some form of autism surely affects a person's philosophical outlook on life; it can make a mechanicistic outlook seem perfectly valid and acceptable.
See, if that were true, if there were an interface between this world, and some other level of experience, we should be able to find the 'receptor' that exists in this world. If that truly is your argument, go find evidence for the receptor.
But here's the thing. We know simple chemicals can alter a personality, which rather scuppers the idea of that personality belonging to an independent soul. We know brain damage also changes personality. Know, you might argue the entire brain is merely a 'receptor', but then, you'd have to come up with some extraordinary proof to overturn all the current research and understanding, and propose a new mechanism for personality. Instead of hiding behind uncertainties, maybe it's time for theists to offer something of substance, or simply admit, it's all just about faith, and it's not necessary for it to be true.
I'll say
At the least it certainly explains why he insist on a certain definition of "science"
Last edited:
You convolved evolution and cosmology. There are no convincing answer when you asked muddled questions. Do you want to talk about cosmology, abiogenesis, or evolution?
Why don't you understand that? We know evolution works, because we have harnessed it's properties to breed different types of dog, and better racehorses. What is it about evolution you don't grasp or dislike? Speciation? 'Random' selection? What?
No, I said it was shocking because you wanted the biological theory of evolution to explain the physics theory of cosmology. You call yourself 'Science Man' but don't even seem to grasp the separate branches. That is truly shocking.
I think I have done exactly that. But it's not my job to provide your education. Did you go to school?
There's nothing wrong with the transmission,....
Sorry, but you are. You convolved cosmology and evolution. That shows you don't even understand the argument.
That's a blanket statement, but I am correcting you, and it's not my job to educate you.
What do you need explaining? I'm sure someone has explained it to you already, but let's try again.
'Conversion' is the term when one switches from one religion to another. Atheism isn't a religion, so one cannot 'convert' to it. I explained already that I never believed, so no, I never followed a religion. Sure, we got herded into church every know and again but I was there under duress and always thought it was bullshit. Simply, I've never met an honest believer.
What is not rational, is effectively your claim that God can hide in the cracks science can't peer into. You seem to be saying that because _you_ have doubts about the completeness of each theory, God _could_ exist.
That's a stretch. It's certainly not rational.
Who said anything about senses?
Nobody.
You said that if you study a circle, you come to the conclusion that corners don't exist. If that circle is your Universe, they don't. It has nothing to do with senses or perception, this addition is tangential to your original point and a mere diversion.
huh?
what else do you think the heated oppositiona re talking about when they say "no proof"
the analogy is more about how if you accept something partial as the complete picture, you simply carry your errors through.
IOW nothing is wrong with empiricism - works perfectly fine for crossing the street ... but extrapolating it to all knowable claims makes for a weak world view
what to speak of god, you could talk of how a cup of flour hides in the cracks that science can't peer into. IOW I am not talking about the subject of investigation, I am talking about the epistemological limitations of what is (falsely) heralded as having a monopoly on all knowable claims
I am saying that if one expects a complete anything to be obtained from a discipline that works purely with tacit states and terms, its certainly irrational
Scientific proof is independent of the senses.
No, the problem begins when you assume there exists more than you can detect. In a circle Universe, there are no corners. You may dream of corners, wish for them, want them, or feel they exist, but they don't.
Which amounts to mud slinging, really. Your god lives in the cracks not known my science. You have to live with that.
Who expects a 'complete anything'? I'm quite happy, and do not need to introduce God to explain anything, The habitat of your god is shrinking as science explores and understand more. You just throw mud and doubt science to keep a crack open in your mind, and place your god in it. That's a bit tragic.
Excuse me for getting anthropomorphic for a second there. Do you have a point?
its empirical
the length and breath of it is the senses
au contraire, the problem begins when you assume that all that exists is what you can bring your blunt senses to bear on
actually its philosophy
you can also place a cup of flour in the same category
you for a start, when you subscribe to a pathological rendition of a reductionist world view
sure
instead you lump in the claim that the characteristics of everything can be explained in terms of matter
once again, its irrational to think that a tacit frame of reference can expand anything (aside from further tacit references of course)
actually for the purposes of discussion, we could be talking about how even a cup of flour evades science.
Its not mud and doubt - its simply the limitations of the epistemology
sure
Your claim of "need" is saturated in highly questionable premises
Last edited:
No, it's mud slinging, and it's a pointless diversion.
'pathological', no, that's you. Wanting more than there is.
And energy, and forces.
No, just the limits of your understanding of it's uses.
Scientific proof is independent of the senses.
Please try again, and comprehend what you are being told.
yes, indeed
The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.[1] A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.
Actually its a philosophical critique of your premise
I called it pathological since you don't appear to be capable of even discussing the philosophical ramifications of your world view (what to speak of philosophical alternatives to it)
which still gives you the same set of problems ....
when ever you get tired of the mud slinging, feel free to explain how tacit terms can generate a complete picture (although given your lack of understanding of empiricism it might be better to ask if you even understand what the word "tacit" means)
Well excuuuuse me... Let me rephrase that for you.
You know, as long as you live long enough to reproduce and see that your offspring survive then
EDIT: Actually you make a good point. It is much too easy to describe nature in human terms. We use analogies to explain complex concepts in bite size chunks. The problem is that most religious people "believe" the analogies are the reality.