02 Dec '16 08:18>
Originally posted by EladarIf it is obvious, you should have no problem explaining it in clear English. But you won't, will you?
I am sure that is how you take it. You are one of those true believers who can't see the obvious.
Originally posted by EladarIn other words, you figure science is our religion and we just believe anything a scientist tells us, is that it? Obviously, you know little about science. For instance, a scientists says Mars is Blue. Ok, some people might fall in line with that. Then other sceptical scientists train a newly minted telescope on Mars and find out it's mostly brownish red. Then other scientists do the same. Pretty soon there is ample evidence the guy who said Mars is blue is full of shyte and not to be believed.
I am sure that is how you take it. You are one of those true believers who can't see the obvious.
Originally posted by sonhouseWrong
In other words, you figure science is our religion and we just believe anything a scientist tells us, is that it? Obviously, you know little about science. For instance, a scientists says Mars is Blue. Ok, some people might fall in line with that. Then other sceptical scientists train a newly minted telescope on Mars and find out it's mostly brownish red. T ...[text shortened]... al, since to accept something as real would deny belief and go into the world of reality proven.
Originally posted by EladarMaybe for you assumption requires faith. MY assumptions require evidence. I don't assume anything. I KNOW if I jump over a cliff I die. There is no assumtion there, that is solid knowledge.
Wrong
I said that everyone has a core belief that can't be proven. It must be taken on faith.
How did the universe begin? Is that a fair question?
How can anything not have a beginning?
If one assumes that the Universe had a purely natural beginning, then explain how something can arise from nothing.
You see, every assumption requires faith. ...[text shortened]... ome who put their heads in the sand like to pretend their beliefs are rooted in facts not faith.
Originally posted by EladarAnd some of us are wise enough not to have beliefs about something we know we cannot know. I do not know how the universe started or even if it started and have never claimed otherwise.
It is just that some who put their heads in the sand like to pretend their beliefs are rooted in facts not faith.
Originally posted by sonhouseYour beliefs are rooted in axiom that a super natural aspect of reality does not exist.
Maybe for you assumption requires faith. MY assumptions require evidence. I don't assume anything. I KNOW if I jump over a cliff I die. There is no assumtion there, that is solid knowledge.
Maybe you have some philosphical POV that allows you to think YOU can jump off a cliff unprotected by wings or paraglider that you will be alive to tell the tale but ...[text shortened]... years and jumped off a cliff there, I would still die.
This is not assumption based on faith.
Originally posted by Eladar
Your beliefs are rooted in axiom that a super natural aspect of reality does not exist.
True we can't test it but does that mean it is not possible?
Since your beliefs can't explain a universe without beginning or how the universe can begin your belief system has obvious flaws.
Your beliefs are rooted in axiom that a super natural aspect of reality does not exist.
True we can't test it but does that mean it is not possible?
Since your beliefs can't explain a universe without beginning or how the universe can begin your belief system has obvious flaws.
Originally posted by EladarI believe one should base what ones beliefs purely on evidence and/or flawless logic and not on what one would like to be true (hence my rejection of religion)... and that's it. It is you who believes in a religion, not me nor most of the scientists here.
As I said earlier you are a yrue believer.
Originally posted by humyI know what you believe. How is that belief not rooted in an assumption that can't be proven?
I believe one should base what ones beliefs purely on evidence and/or flawless logic and not one what one would like to be true... and that's it. It is you who believes in a religion, not me nor most of the scientists here.
Originally posted by EladarI do not make any such assumption about the "acceptability" of a natural explanation or any other kind of explanation including a supernatural one. Regardless of the "acceptability" of an assumption, whatever exactly that is supposed to mean, a supernatural assumption should be assigned a low probability because of logic/lack-of-evidence/Occam's-razor etc. The "acceptability" of an explanation is irrelevant. And I don't even regard a supernatural explanation as 'unacceptable' (why should I?); just not likely given logic/Occam's-razor etc, that's all. Its probability based on logic/evidence is what's relevant. If I observed real creditable evidence for supernatural, I would without hesitation or emotional reluctance believe there is a supernatural. What assumption do I make just there (or anywhere for that matter) that "can't be proven"?
That the only acceptable explanation is a natural explanation.
Originally posted by humyhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
I do not make any such assumption about the "acceptability" of a natural explanation or any other kind of explanation including a supernatural one. Regardless of the "acceptability" of an assumption, whatever exactly that is supposed to mean, a supernatural assumption should be assigned a low probability because of logic/lack-of-evidence/Occam's-razor etc. The ...[text shortened]... vant. What assumption do I make just there (or anywhere for that matter) that "can't be proven"?