Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Asherian Command wrote: Why does the earth orbit the sun? Now before you answer because of the gravity of the sun. Think about it again. Why does it? Why does the sun have gravity.
Because the sun has mass. And before you ask why does the sun have mass, it's because of the Higgs field created by the Higgs Boson. As to why that is, Science is working on it. Philosophy is not.
Remove scientific thinking and think philisophically. Why would it oribit it? Why does it exist? Why does gravity exist? Why does the earth exist? Why does this do that? Remove all scientific theories of other human beings and try to come up with your own philsiophical reason as to why? Soon enough you'll find you really can't answer them.
You cannot reasonably say why the earth orbits the sun. Why the earth was created.
That is where I am getting at.
So we can't answer these questions when we think "philosophically" yet have no trouble answering them by scientific thought and the scientific process?
Obviously your not a fan of philosophy. Which is completely different from science. (To a degree)
It is the art of figuring it out with your own reasonable conclusions. And we can't answer all of them. that is not what science does. Science doesn't care about why it works a certain way and not another. Because we believe it is correct in its assertion. Which might be proven false. (give or take, we never truly know if it will change in the future)
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Asherian Command wrote: Why does the earth orbit the sun? Now before you answer because of the gravity of the sun. Think about it again. Why does it? Why does the sun have gravity.
Because the sun has mass. And before you ask why does the sun have mass, it's because of the Higgs field created by the Higgs Boson. As to why that is, Science is working on it. Philosophy is not.
Remove scientific thinking and think philisophically. Why would it oribit it? Why does it exist? Why does gravity exist? Why does the earth exist? Why does this do that? Remove all scientific theories of other human beings and try to come up with your own philsiophical reason as to why? Soon enough you'll find you really can't answer them.
You cannot reasonably say why the earth orbits the sun. Why the earth was created.
That is where I am getting at.
So we can't answer these questions when we think "philosophically" yet have no trouble answering them by scientific thought and the scientific process?
Obviously your not a fan of philosophy. Which is completely different from science. (To a degree)
It is the art of figuring it out with your own reasonable conclusions. And we can't answer all of them. that is not what science does. Science doesn't care about why it works a certain way and not another. Because we believe it is correct in its assertion. Which might be proven false. (give or take, we never truly know if it will change in the future)
Wrong. Science definitely does care as to why it works one way and not another because once you know that, you know more about how the universe works than you did before.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
The main problem is when someone mentions that Science is based on faith, and that religion is based on faith.
Then going and saying that definition one of faith is what they mean by faith, but never saying what they think religion is based on.
This is why people who try to understand science can get annoyed, as equating science with religion, saying they are both based on faith is just not true.
This is why you have to say you are meaning a different type of faith, or just don't use the word faith when relating to science, as we don't have faith in it, we have confidnence due to it working and having been tested, which we cannot say about any religion or religious book, god, gods or even the philisophical god. what can be falseified has been, and what can't is not needed.
chocmushroom wrote: The main problem is when someone mentions that Science is based on faith, and that religion is based on faith.
Then going and saying that definition one of faith is what they mean by faith, but never saying what they think religion is based on.
This is why people who try to understand science can get annoyed, as equating science with religion, saying they are both based on faith is just not true.
This is why you have to say you are meaning a different type of faith, or just don't use the word faith when relating to science, as we don't have faith in it, we have confidnence due to it working and having been tested, which we cannot say about any religion or religious book, god, gods or even the philisophical god. what can be falseified has been, and what can't is not needed.
I think I have made that difference known. People just see it and go haywire at the very mention of it and look past the arguments I have given. One part just makes them go what and they just ignore parts of the sentence that actually explain it.
Belief is the term I would coin for religion. And faith for science. Faith is trust or confidence in someone or something. Belief is beyond that it is complete confidence without evidence or idea of how or why. They just see it and think yeah I believe in that. There is no proof but so what?
The current mindset is people often associate faith with only religion and forget all words have multiple meanings. They only take one or another. If I call something gay. Like i say that couple looks quite gay. What am I saying? I think that couple looks quite homosexual? Or do I mean that couple looks happy? I would like to think they look happy. And when someone calls me gay, I take it as a compliment. "You think I am happy? Well I hope your gay too! Now lets skip and dance down the road together, while singing Yankee doodle!"
The thing is people often forget the meanings of the word. They try and study a certain aspect but forget to take a step back and think. What is the true meaning. If I ask for something like a why statement. From context clues you should probably assume I am not asking a scientific question. I am not a scientist. Nor will I claim to be ever again. But I believe in science, that science is the future of all life.
I believe the singularity is possible, yet I don't have a shred of proof of it being available (as of yet, if there is an article on that, bring it on! I would love to read it). Sometimes we just have to believe in certain things. That is what humans do. We act unreasonable in certain situations. Some of us believe in a god of some great power, some of us believe in fate, some of us believe in a better world, and some of us have the belief that science is the way forward. And then there are some of us that believe in everything that, everything in combination could help the world become a better place.
It is fought over again and again to see if we humans really do know everything, People like me say we can't know for an absolute fact of all things to be true. That we are only human and we only think that we know. That human beings are currently to primitive to truly know anything, until another evolutionary stage happens that allows us to develop another sense, or we able to prove it without data, but through another intelligence that is not our own. Then there are the people who don't about absolutes and use absolutes because they don't understand their meaning. But then there are the scientists avoid absolutes and only wish to study science. And so and so forth.
Human beings are unique creatures.
So you can believe in god, You can have faith in science, just don't force it down other peoples throats because you want them to be the same to you. You can discuss it, you can show them what you are trying to say. But do not be a forceful hand.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
If you want a logical link well: I am Wiccan. I am also a practising witch. A few years back when my income was £00.00 I cast a spell for money. Within a week I had £70.00.
That spell, you must teach me. I want to conjure money too. I need it.
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived. 2. The idea of God exists in the mind. 3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. 4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality. 5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God. 6. Therefore, God exists.
What a roller coaster that was
It just smacks of a lack of imagination if you ask me.
I kant see why you'd think so.
I think it's pretty on the marx.
Spoiler:
He sees what you did there. He thinks you should putin some more effort into your puns
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/18 19:12:02
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
What a roller coaster that was
It just smacks of a lack of imagination if you ask me.
I kant see why you'd think so.
I think it's pretty on the marx.
Spoiler:
He sees what you did there.
He thinks you should putin some more effort into your puns
You people need to stop beating up the bush.
I'll be barack.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/18 19:11:07
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Soladrin wrote: Kay, I'll bite, what practical use does philosophy have in our current western world?
Inspiring people to think differently on problems. Seeing multiple sides to a problem.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. (Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy)
It is about looking at something critically, and knowing what is ethical and what is not. A single problem occurs and one needs to see it rationally.
Lets look at abortion. What would you do to change it. What are the arguments against it? For it? you look at the too, and you dissect the situation. What is main purpose of Abortion? It is a way out for women, where men can leave at any time. A woman without abortion has no way to get out of a pregnancy unless she aborts. There are emotional and physically problems that can happen either way. What is the best course of action to take? What should this woman do?
Philisophy is a dissection of a problem. A fundamental problem. With the more problems that arise the more you have to dissect it. There are always two sides to a problem. Maybe three or four. We can't all rush to one side because someone says so. You have to think rationally.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Soladrin wrote: Kay, I'll bite, what practical use does philosophy have in our current western world?
Formulating questions, providing critical thinking and ethics and much much more. A society can not function without philosophy. Science would be impossible without it. Most scientific truths once started out as philosophical questions. We would never have had the whole theory about gravity if someone had never wondered why objects are always pulled to the ground. Asking what the use of philosophy is is like asking what the use of learning and understanding is. It is actually quite ironic that questioning the use of philosophy is philosophy in itself.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/18 19:36:20
welshhoppo wrote: Bringing up philosophy in a modern western culture instantly causes people to believe that you are a bumbling idiot.
Yeah, there are certain philisophies that I look at think. "Really? What? Thats kind of ehem dumb."
(I.E. Ethical Egoism, coined in Atlas Shrugged and shown in Bioshock the Video Game)
But yes all science has to pay respects to philosophers for kicking the door down for science.
Fair enough, and mind you, I was not trying to say that it didn't pave the road to where we are now. It's just that most things included in philosophy have now become what is known as science. Critical thinking and assesment of a problem seems to be the main recurring point and these are both integral parts of modern science. Hence why I say what current practical use is left for it.
I guess the only real thing left for it is ethics, critical thinking is not something unique to it. Mind you, I do enjoy philosophy and often listen to debates while at work.
Actually, I think he's right. Everything he's said. The parts about everything being an illusion. His definitions and use of "faith". It's all right and makes perfect sense.
I mean, you can't prove even simple things because you don't actually know what things actually are. You think you do, but it could be false. The sum of all human knowledge could just be a lie, because we only have the sum of human knowledge to prove it. It's all just something we blindly accept.
Though that is all kind of like saying alchemy has a place in modern science because it was the origin of chemistry.
One does not require philosophy to look at the world and question it and determine meaning. Even ethics does not require philosophy although commonly it is debated using emotive language and philosophical reasoning.
SilverMK2 wrote: Though that is all kind of like saying alchemy has a place in modern science because it was the origin of chemistry.
One does not require philosophy to look at the world and question it and determine meaning. Even ethics does not require philosophy although commonly it is debated using emotive language and philosophical reasoning.
Thank you for making my point for me, I'm bad at talking today.
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
But why? You keep avoiding the question. Why does it? Why was it created?
Why does everything need a purpose for it's creation? The universe is mindless, things happen.
The spaghetti monster was created as Italians are quite clearly the chosen people of God, I mean look at the other option Jews, nope, they don't give us brilliance like cannelloni or pasta, no it's...gefilre fish and the more hardcore they go the worse the food gets. I rest my case.
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
But why? You keep avoiding the question. Why does it? Why was it created?
Why does everything need a purpose for it's creation? The universe is mindless, things happen.
The spaghetti monster was created as Italians are quite clearly the chosen people of God, I mean look at the other option Jews, nope, they don't give us brilliance like cannelloni or pasta, no it's...gefilre fish and the more hardcore they go the worse the food gets. I rest my case.
If we are judging religions by food wouldn't we all have to convert to Shinto?
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
The current mindset is people often associate faith with only religion and forget all words have multiple meanings. They only take one or another. If I call something gay. Like i say that couple looks quite gay. What am I saying? I think that couple looks quite homosexual? Or do I mean that couple looks happy? I would like to think they look happy. And when someone calls me gay, I take it as a compliment. "You think I am happy? Well I hope your gay too! Now lets skip and dance down the road together, while singing Yankee doodle!"
You mean she just meant I left my alarm clock on? OH THANK GOD!
SilverMK2 wrote: Though that is all kind of like saying alchemy has a place in modern science because it was the origin of chemistry.
One does not require philosophy to look at the world and question it and determine meaning. Even ethics does not require philosophy although commonly it is debated using emotive language and philosophical reasoning.
Yep. Though I think ethics is just a sub-root of philosophy.
But Alchemy is quite interesting in its desire to avoid certain scientific laws.
Would be funny to see if one day there would be people out there with high levels of technology who can shape any element known to man.
You mean she just meant I left my alarm clock on? OH THANK GOD!
I am a magician. Behold my power!
If we are judging religions by food wouldn't we all have to convert to Shinto?
I don't know about that but the Mayan's had the best hearts ever.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/19 01:13:15
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
The centre of a massive brood chamber, heaving and pulsating.
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
Simple, it's 9 birds and one bird missing a leg, thus resulting in 9.87 birds.
Squigsquasher, resident ban magnet, White Knight, and general fethwit.
buddha wrote: I've decided that these GW is dead/dying threads that pop up every-week must be followers and cultists of nurgle perpetuating the need for decay. I therefore declare that that such threads are heresy and subject to exterminatus. So says the Inquisition!
