10 Feb 10
In human history, many things were thought to have supernatural causes such as lightning, rainbows, earthquakes, floods, diseases, season changes, etc. One by one, they have all been proven to have natural causes that can be explained by science. On the other hand, there has never been something natural which has been proven scientifically to have a supernatural cause. Nothing. Zero. All the proof is flowing in the direction of supernatural to natural!
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by 667joeNatural is as supernatural was...
In human history, many things were thought to have supernatural causes such as lightning, rainbows, earthquakes, floods, diseases, season changes, etc. One by one, they have all been proven to have natural causes that can be explained by science. On the other hand, there has never been something natural which has been proven scientifically to have a superna ...[text shortened]... l cause. Nothing. Zero. All the proof is flowing in the direction of supernatural to natural!
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by 667joeyou kinda fail at logic.
In human history, many things were thought to have supernatural causes such as lightning, rainbows, earthquakes, floods, diseases, season changes, etc. One by one, they have all been proven to have natural causes that can be explained by science. On the other hand, there has never been something natural which has been proven scientifically to have a superna ...[text shortened]... l cause. Nothing. Zero. All the proof is flowing in the direction of supernatural to natural!
you cant ever have a natural phenomenon be proven scientifically to have a supernatural cause. it is a contradiction. once you prove something scientificaly that certain thing ceases to be supernatural.
also in human history many things were thought to have one explanation and then it turned out to have a different one. it's callled progress.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by 667joeAnd yet, you are just like the religious in that you're afraid to admit that there's a lot of fundamental issues that you have no answer for and never will. The religious nut bizarrely proclaims "I know it because I have faith!". The athiestic nut bizarrely proclaims "Science knows it all!". Both equally dodge the proclamation of "I don't know!".
In human history, many things were thought to have supernatural causes such as lightning, rainbows, earthquakes, floods, diseases, season changes, etc. One by one, they have all been proven to have natural causes that can be explained by science. On the other hand, there has never been something natural which has been proven scientifically to have a superna ...[text shortened]... l cause. Nothing. Zero. All the proof is flowing in the direction of supernatural to natural!
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by BadwaterYou are wrong. Science advances because it always wants to learn more. It is never satisfied with the status quo unlike religion which does not like change at all. Science and atheists have never said we know it all. We want to learn as much as possible and realize , as Thomas Edison said, we know less than 1% about anything at all.
And yet, you are just like the religious in that you're afraid to admit that there's a lot of fundamental issues that you have no answer for and never will. The religious nut bizarrely proclaims "I know it because I have faith!". The athiestic nut bizarrely proclaims "Science knows it all!". Both equally dodge the proclamation of "I don't know!".
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by 667joeYou have said nothing that proves me wrong. Ironically, you underscore part of my post.
You are wrong. Science advances because it always wants to learn more. It is never satisfied with the status quo unlike religion which does not like change at all. Science and atheists have never said we know it all. We want to learn as much as possible and realize , as Thomas Edison said, we know less than 1% about anything at all.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by 667joehow does science explain why we love art? its certainly superfluous to survival. How does science explain why we have a conscience? How does science explain consciousness? How does science explain morality? How does science explain spirituality? Can adhering to a strictly materialistic point of view make one more purposeful? More Happy perhaps? Please explain.
In human history, many things were thought to have supernatural causes such as lightning, rainbows, earthquakes, floods, diseases, season changes, etc. One by one, they have all been proven to have natural causes that can be explained by science. On the other hand, there has never been something natural which has been proven scientifically to have a superna ...[text shortened]... l cause. Nothing. Zero. All the proof is flowing in the direction of supernatural to natural!
10 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's easy to think of potential explanations for all of those. Regardless, the real question is how do we distinguish between competing explanations. Science is just a method we use to distinguish between them. And a method does not "explain" anything. It can only pick between competing explanations.
how does science explain why we love art? its certainly superfluous to survival. How does science explain why we have a conscience? How does science explain consciousness? How does science explain morality? How does science explain spirituality? Can adhering to a strictly materialistic point of view make one more purposeful? More Happy perhaps? Please explain.
10 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynkammm, i see, but was our friend here not alluding to explanations, i.e. science as a basis for explaining certain phenomena which led him to conclude that religion was of no use and that science would now be a guiding principle? please forgive me if i have misunderstood. It seems to me that your designation as science simply as a 'tool', or a 'method', for evaluating certain criteria is excellent.
It's easy to think of potential explanations for all of those. Regardless, the real question is how do we distinguish between competing explanations. Science is just a method we use to distinguish between them. And a method does not "explain" anything. It can only pick between competing explanations.
please can you offer a very brief and simple explanation of why we like art for it certainly does seem superfluous to survival.
10 Feb 10
So you're an atheist because science categorizes terms and phenomena in a system of categorization? Sure, we can explain things my natural laws and stuff, but it will never answer why those natural laws are in place or why certain things should happen et cetera.
Why are we stuck to the ground?
Because of gravity
What is gravity?
The attractive force we associate between two masses
Why does it work?
At this point we associate it with particle interactions
But I do not see where it calls for the absence of a god
Same with rainbows, and thunder and the sun et cetera.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe are hard wired to enjoy pleasure. It's all in your brain. Nothing supernatural about it. You could not enjoy anything before your brain was formed, and you will not be able to enjoy anything after your brain dies.
mmm, i see, but was our friend here not alluding to explanations, i.e. science as a basis for explaining certain phenomena which led him to conclude that religion was of no use and that science would now be a guiding principle? please forgive me if i have misunderstood. It seems to me that your designation as science simply as a 'tool', or a 'metho ...[text shortened]... nd simple explanation of why we like art for it certainly does seem superfluous to survival.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieArt could be seen as being originally a side-product of our aesthetic sensibilities (which can be said to have a reproductive function). Abstract art (which came much later) is a more social phenomenon, but that again does not require (nor deny) a metaphysical explanation.
please can you offer a very brief and simple explanation of why we like art for it certainly does seem superfluous to survival.
Side note: There is actually a bird of paradise where the male constructs a "gallery" to attract the female. He decorates this "gallery", which serves no purpose other than to make the female willing to mate with him. Very interesting stuff.