[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, what if a theology is applicable to the world in a useful way. Is it not then also true in that same sense?[/quote]
Instead of quibbling, why don’t you refine or clarify your original question; or was it rhetorical? And if it was the latter, why post it?
[/quote]
The other poster was using usefulness and goal achievement as measuring sticks for the truth of science. Can we not apply that same standard to other beliefs?
If I have a desire in life for things that my beliefs achieve, aren’t they also true in the same since science is for achieving goals?
You’re reaching. Or, you’re misunderstanding my rebuttal or analogy. Just because there are “different tools in the toolbox” that will get the job done, does not mean using a different tool invalidates the tool not chosen. Religion however, is largely exclusive to other religions. The big 3 are all mutually exclusive to each other for instance. You cannot adhere to Islam, and claim Jesus divine; and you can run the foregoing “algebra” in any direction with the big 3 and you cannot get around it.
[/quote]
It is similar when those “tools” are entirely contradictory.
I think most of you think that science is much more exact than it is. There is a vast amount of estimation, truncation, and user manipulation in ANY real world application of science.
Complex analysis is as much reliant on the artful skill of the person doing it as it is the actual math. How to simplify geometry for the model, how to estimate and model loading, how to mesh the part and where to refine the mesh, are all as much art as science.
A horse is estimated as a circle, then simplified to and line which is approximated by a point.
Then you get into the inexactness of material properties, and corrosion over time and a million other factors.
You can literally be talking about margins of error larger than the result.
Which is why, in the real world, physics is never relied on for building anything, real world testing is. I think you grossly over estimate the abilities of science. Much of the time, science will say that X design will work perfectly, then it’s a complete failure in application.
That is really what I’ve been trying to get at in this thread. People invest faith and trust in a system of which they grossly overestimate it’s capabilities.[/quote]
You’re still reaching and now you’re off on a tangent. First, you keep saying “you” overestimate “science” and I’ve made no such argument supporting that observation. And, “real world testing” IS science. So following, no such gross overestimation in it’s capabilities has in fact occurred. We can test and see the results of various scientific disciplines, including every single thing you mentioned. We can see what works, and what fails.
I know of no test for the validity of various divinity claims.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, what if a theology is applicable to the world in a useful way. Is it not then also true in that same sense?[/quote]
Instead of quibbling, why don’t you refine or clarify your original question; or was it rhetorical? And if it was the latter, why post it?
[/quote]
The other poster was using usefulness and goal achievement as measuring sticks for the truth of science. Can we not apply that same standard to other beliefs?
If I have a desire in life for things that my beliefs achieve, aren’t they also true in the same since science is for achieving goals?[/quote]
Be my guest and apply it. It will be a miserable failure. We have dozens of religions and dozens more of what I’ll call “sub-denominations”. All of them claim to be “true”. And conflict and wars have been fought b/c of them. Heck, people in here get all butt hurt about the subject. Try that “toolbox” the next time you build a bridge. The result, if you could test such a “toolbox” would be either one bridge remains structurally sound and stands, or all the bridges fall. However, religious claims remain untestable.
Now, if you’re talking about religion as a means for personal behavior modification, then it is “useful” but that in no manner approximates what occurs in science.
You’re reaching. Or, you’re misunderstanding my rebuttal or analogy. Just because there are “different tools in the toolbox” that will get the job done, does not mean using a different tool invalidates the tool not chosen. Religion however, is largely exclusive to other religions. The big 3 are all mutually exclusive to each other for instance. You cannot adhere to Islam, and claim Jesus divine; and you can run the foregoing “algebra” in any direction with the big 3 and you cannot get around it.
[/quote]
It is similar when those “tools” are entirely contradictory.
I think most of you think that science is much more exact than it is. There is a vast amount of estimation, truncation, and user manipulation in ANY real world application of science.
Complex analysis is as much reliant on the artful skill of the person doing it as it is the actual math. How to simplify geometry for the model, how to estimate and model loading, how to mesh the part and where to refine the mesh, are all as much art as science.
A horse is estimated as a circle, then simplified to and line which is approximated by a point.
Then you get into the inexactness of material properties, and corrosion over time and a million other factors.
You can literally be talking about margins of error larger than the result.
Which is why, in the real world, physics is never relied on for building anything, real world testing is. I think you grossly over estimate the abilities of science. Much of the time, science will say that X design will work perfectly, then it’s a complete failure in application.
That is really what I’ve been trying to get at in this thread. People invest faith and trust in a system of which they grossly overestimate it’s capabilities.[/quote]
You’re still reaching and now you’re off on a tangent. First, you keep saying “you” overestimate “science” and I’ve made no such argument supporting that observation. And, “real world testing” IS science. So following, no such gross overestimation in it’s capabilities has in fact occurred. We can test and see the results of various scientific disciplines, including every single thing you mentioned. We can see what works, and what fails.
I know of no test for the validity of various divinity claims. [/quote]
You responded to a post I made to someone else. The you I’ve been using has been in general terms since you were not the topic of my initial post.
Science attempts to predict. Testing is due to its’ lack of ability to predict.
And all the tests for science finds it lacking to at least some degree.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, what if a theology is applicable to the world in a useful way. Is it not then also true in that same sense?[/quote]
Instead of quibbling, why don’t you refine or clarify your original question; or was it rhetorical? And if it was the latter, why post it?
[/quote]
The other poster was using usefulness and goal achievement as measuring sticks for the truth of science. Can we not apply that same standard to other beliefs?
If I have a desire in life for things that my beliefs achieve, aren’t they also true in the same since science is for achieving goals?[/quote]
Be my guest and apply it. It will be a miserable failure. We have dozens of religions and dozens more of what I’ll call “sub-denominations”. All of them claim to be “true”. And conflict and wars have been fought b/c of them. Heck, people in here get all butt hurt about the subject. Try that “toolbox” the next time you build a bridge. The result, if you could test such a “toolbox” would be either one bridge remains structurally sound and stands, or all the bridges fall. However, religious claims remain untestable.
Now, if you’re talking about religion as a means for personal behavior modification, then it is “useful” but that in no manner approximates what occurs in science.
[/quote]
I seek to find happiness and meaning in life. Religion can be a great toolbox. I don’t seek to approximate science. Not sure where you got that.
Shall I begin to name the horrors done by science and see if that invalidates it?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, what if a theology is applicable to the world in a useful way. Is it not then also true in that same sense?[/quote]
Instead of quibbling, why don’t you refine or clarify your original question; or was it rhetorical? And if it was the latter, why post it?
[/quote]
The other poster was using usefulness and goal achievement as measuring sticks for the truth of science. Can we not apply that same standard to other beliefs?
If I have a desire in life for things that my beliefs achieve, aren’t they also true in the same since science is for achieving goals?[/quote]
Be my guest and apply it. It will be a miserable failure. We have dozens of religions and dozens more of what I’ll call “sub-denominations”. All of them claim to be “true”. And conflict and wars have been fought b/c of them. Heck, people in here get all butt hurt about the subject. Try that “toolbox” the next time you build a bridge. The result, if you could test such a “toolbox” would be either one bridge remains structurally sound and stands, or all the bridges fall. However, religious claims remain untestable.
Now, if you’re talking about religion as a means for personal behavior modification, then it is “useful” but that in no manner approximates what occurs in science.
[/quote]
I seek to find happiness and meaning in life. Religion can be a great toolbox. I don’t seek to approximate science. Not sure where you got that.
Shall I begin to name the horrors done by science and see if that invalidates it?[/quote]
No disagreement to your first point.
Can I rely upon the “evil man” defense that religion attempts to rely upon when they get it wrong It’s “inspired by God”, until it’s proven wrong, and then it’s evil or imperfect man.
I think science just ends up being wrong. And man that misuses science just ends up being an evil man.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, what if a theology is applicable to the world in a useful way. Is it not then also true in that same sense?[/quote]
Instead of quibbling, why don’t you refine or clarify your original question; or was it rhetorical? And if it was the latter, why post it?
[/quote]
The other poster was using usefulness and goal achievement as measuring sticks for the truth of science. Can we not apply that same standard to other beliefs?
If I have a desire in life for things that my beliefs achieve, aren’t they also true in the same since science is for achieving goals?[/quote]
Be my guest and apply it. It will be a miserable failure. We have dozens of religions and dozens more of what I’ll call “sub-denominations”. All of them claim to be “true”. And conflict and wars have been fought b/c of them. Heck, people in here get all butt hurt about the subject. Try that “toolbox” the next time you build a bridge. The result, if you could test such a “toolbox” would be either one bridge remains structurally sound and stands, or all the bridges fall. However, religious claims remain untestable.
Now, if you’re talking about religion as a means for personal behavior modification, then it is “useful” but that in no manner approximates what occurs in science.
[/quote]
I seek to find happiness and meaning in life. Religion can be a great toolbox. I don’t seek to approximate science. Not sure where you got that.
Shall I begin to name the horrors done by science and see if that invalidates it?[/quote]
No disagreement to your first point.
Can I rely upon the “evil man” defense that religion attempts to rely upon when they get it wrong It’s “inspired by God”, until it’s proven wrong, and then it’s evil or imperfect man.
I think science just ends up being wrong. And man that misuses science just ends up being an evil man.
[/quote]
Ah, but defining misuse, is a job for something outside the science toolbox.
Science is the act of testing things by experiment. If an experiment challenges or changes a previous understanding of something, that does not invalidate science, or validate religion.
The fact that you think the use of science, in this example, invalidates science (because it challenges a former understanding) is laughable.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Science is the act of testing things by experiment. If an experiment challenges or changes a previous understanding of something, that does not invalidate science, or validate religion.
The fact that you think the use of science, in this example, invalidates science (because it challenges a former understanding) is laughable. [/quote]
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Science is the act of testing things by experiment. If an experiment challenges or changes a previous understanding of something, that does not invalidate science, or validate religion.
The fact that you think the use of science, in this example, invalidates science (because it challenges a former understanding) is laughable. [/quote]
Your definition of science is imprecise though. Empirical science is the use of inductive reasoning to reach conclusions that have the highest probability of being true. Experiments are tools used to further this process. If there is no valid inductive argument to use experimental data in it is merely random information. And of course higher level arguments will supersede lower level ones.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Science is the act of testing things by experiment…
[/quote]
How many times have I emphasized this in the various discussions about origins?
[/quote]
There is more to it than that. As the simplest description one might give to an elementary schooler, science is observing the world and attempting to measure those observations. True science requires asking “what if?” and then trying to find the thing that can be measured to answer that question. Without “what if,” scientists would be nothing more than physical historians. I know the simplistic definition is rooted in the desire to claim evolution is not a science because of a lack of something to measure, but the science lies in the “what if.” The measurable will one day be found.
As an analogy, stating that science is simply testing that which can be tested, is like saying faith is simply believing that a God exists. To be a man of faith, more is required.
[quote]pat wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Islam? Where was that introduced? And what did I say about Islam? Again making assumptions with zero facts to back it up? Where did I say I reject Islam?
For the record, Islam would not exist if Christianity didn’t, since it was heavily influence by Christianity in the beginning.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘rigorous logic’ any how? I wasn’t making a deductive logical argument. We’re having a discussion.
I swear I think you aren’t really interested in real discussion or information, you just like to start fights any how and any way possible.
And if Sloth’s accusation that you tried to arrange to beat someone up because they insulted you on the internet is even remotely true, I find that extremely disturbing. Problem is, I know sloth to be of good character and I have never know him to make stuff up willy-nilly.[/quote]
He has a valid point, and whether you can’t see it or are deliberately avoiding it remains to be seen. Simply put:
You used the ‘appeal to numbers’ fallacy. An example of this is most of the world thinking the earth was flat. Should we continue to entertain such a theory today since the majority once believed in it?
[/quote]
We were discuss influence, not validity. Numbers matter in influence, but not in validity. The argument or conversation was about the impact Jesus, Christianity and it’s holy book has had in history, not the validity of what it says or His divinity.If you want to get all nit picky than changing the topic in mid-conversation is a strawman. Try to keep up. If you had read what was leading up to this you would have found the error was not mine.
Islam has had great influence as well, just not as big as Christianity. But with out Christianity and it’s Holy book there would be no Islam either. And correctly, if there were no Judaism, there would be neither faiths.
[/quote]
Ok, I’ll play your game.
“He” was not very directly influential at all. His followers, specifically those that started the Church, were far more “influential” than he in terms of “numbers”. Jesus did not even have his own family convinced, and had few followers among his contemporaries. I would not call that “influential”. In fact, “he” did not write down a single word. However, all those things you listed prior, like “sundays” and the “calendar”, and my rebuttal to those that you ignore, we inventions of THE CHURCH, not Jesus. I’d concede the Church was far more influential if that was your position, but it was not.
But really, why did you put forth the “influential” argument to begin with if you were not at least trying to imply “validity”. Again, you’re treading upon being disingenuous. Tell us the point, within the context of this thread, of raising Jesus’ “influence”?? [/quote]
“Jesus did not even have his own family convinced, and had few followers among his contemporaries.” ~ LOL!!!
What resource did you use to draw this conclusion? As far as I know, the only resource that speaks to it with any detail is the Bible, according to it he made quite a slash. Also, the 1rst century historian Josephus was aware of Jesus and knew he was a person of great influence.
Then there are no followers without Jesus, there is no church without Jesus.
Second, no I cannot prove the ‘validity’ of Jesus or the Bible, but your calling bullshit on a book you never read. That is disingenuous. But you’ve made up your mind and I have no intention of trying to change it.
If it were just a hoax, it’s really unlikely that the impact would have been nearly significant. [/quote]
Starting here and much of what follows is another example of your apparent loss of the rigorous reason and logic you are quick to apply elsewhere.
I’m pretty sure you reject Islam, for instance. Yet the story of Muhammad, as one example, has every bit the impact and significance to his followers as your story has to you and yours. It’s another fallacious argument, a form of appeal to widespread belief and you can translate that to Latin if you’d like, but it’s fallacious nonetheless.
If the story of Muhammad were just a hoax, it’s really unlikely that the impact would have been nearly significant. Roughly 1.5 billion of the world’s population would agree with the latter, and reject your premise.
See how that works?
In before you claim I’m bashing Christianity and converted to Islam. In before you claim I’m attacking you or getting personal.
What I’m doing, is holding to you to the same standard you seek to hold others to when you engage in debate…when such rigorous standards suit you.[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about Islam? Where was that introduced? And what did I say about Islam? Again making assumptions with zero facts to back it up? Where did I say I reject Islam?
For the record, Islam would not exist if Christianity didn’t, since it was heavily influence by Christianity in the beginning.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘rigorous logic’ any how? I wasn’t making a deductive logical argument. We’re having a discussion.
I swear I think you aren’t really interested in real discussion or information, you just like to start fights any how and any way possible.
And if Sloth’s accusation that you tried to arrange to beat someone up because they insulted you on the internet is even remotely true, I find that extremely disturbing. Problem is, I know sloth to be of good character and I have never know him to make stuff up willy-nilly.[/quote]
If you don’t “get” the above, I’m losing confidence in your alleged intellectual prowess that you showed in the CA discussions.
I’m sorry this has to be explained to you, but I will anyway.
Your entire argument about the “popularity” of Christianity is fallacious. I was using Islam to ILLUSTRATE the falsity of the argument. Are you denying that Christianity and Islam are not mutually exclusive? Because last I checked, Islam (among others) denies Jesus’ divinity.
I’m starting to believe you heavily plagiarized during the CA discussion or, you’re a one trick pony. Because your arguments here are underwhelming. That you do not see the Islam illustration is astounding to me. And for the record, I’m going to sleep in less than an hour and I won’t lose a moment of it worrying what you or “sloth” think about me. Stick to the discussion.
[/quote]
Your one to talk…Are you going to fly down to GA to kick my ass now??
We were talking about influence in history, how Jesus’s existence was the most influential of any single human on earth, then you denied it, but could produce a single example of someone more influential.
It doesn’t matter if you deny Jesus’s divinity, the influence of Jesus, via Christianity has changed the world, period. That was the point.
You move the target all around, change what you are talking about and accuse me of failing the logical rigidity test. What’s more then that you go and make up your own logical fallacies that don’t exist to describe something I didn’t say?
This is your own epic fail. But please don’t beat me up for it.[/quote]
You’re moving the target and I’ve responded, and I’ll respond again since you’re apparently stuck. Why did YOU raise the “influence” of Jesus within the context of this thread, if not to imply some form of validity?
I made up a logical fallacy? Appealing to Widespread Belief is not a fallacy? Why? Did you have a problem googling it to Latin or something?
[/quote]
I didn’t raise this topic. I merely responded. And I already responded to the validity in terms that I cannot prove divine nor divine inspiration. I simply said whether you believe it or not you cannot deny the influence of Christ, and that word was spread via the Bible. You said Jesus was not the most important influential person who ever lived, and then asked if you were receiving a grade when I asked if you knew somebody who was more. Assuming that if he wasn’t you knew who was…
I would never make a thread about you, or anybody else for that matter, so I am not sure what the fuck you are talking about. Your the one insulting and making threats around here, not me. You’re little ‘music’ comment is a perfect example, if it has any meaning what-so-ever…[/quote]
I know this is difficult for you, but try to stay on topic. Your insults, veiled and otherwise are about as meaningful to me as the mosquito I just killed. And given that you know this is true, you must be showing off for your PWI friends. Not. A. Good. Look. for someone who fancies himself an intellectual.
So, back to topic. You admitted you cannot prove or disprove divine. Fine. Conceded here and agreed. And to reiterate, I answered your question now; The man called Jesus was NOT the most influential person ever. He directly influenced very few. So few in fact, that if you believe the biblical account, he was crucified. If you believe the biblical account, his followers were few. If you believe the biblical account, much of his own family rejected him. To be accurate, “the Church” had the influence you are attempting to ascribe to Jesus. Your question would be more accurately expressed in those terms. And under those terms, I’d be hard pressed to rebut the claim. “The Church” has indeed been very influential, and not all of it good. It’s been a very mixed bag. Given the “mixture” of influence, would it be fair to open this up to any influential body or person regardless of its or their works?[/quote]
There is no church and no followers with out Jesus. He started it, he gave the marching orders.
Please provide the book and verse that shows members of his own family didn’t believe him, that’s just funny.
You really need to do some research.
If he isn’t the most influential person in history, then somebody else must have been, who is it? This isn’t a trick question.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Science is the act of testing things by experiment. If an experiment challenges or changes a previous understanding of something, that does not invalidate science, or validate religion.
The fact that you think the use of science, in this example, invalidates science (because it challenges a former understanding) is laughable. [/quote]
Your definition of science is imprecise though. Empirical science is the use of inductive reasoning to reach conclusions that have the highest probability of being true. Experiments are tools used to further this process. If there is no valid inductive argument to use experimental data in it is merely random information. And of course higher level arguments will supersede lower level ones.
[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
“In fact, the researchers themselves are not ready to proclaim a discovery and are asking other physicists to independently try to verify their findings.”[/quote]
Because it goes against all their understanding of physics, not because they are unsure about their process or measurements. They have already done everything they can to try to disprove the discovery.[/quote]
Sorry you are wrong. This is how peer review works. They are saying, we did some experiments. We got some results that make no sense based on our current understanding. Everyone else, please try and replicate this so that we can work out what went wrong.
If other people are able to replicate the results, the scientists will work to adapt the model to account for the new findings.
Yes, if it turned out that the neutrinos were travelling faster than light that would be pretty huge but it wouldn’t be the end of science, it would just be a new chapter in one important part of science.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It means the religion of physics didn’t actually know anything about the universe.[/quote]
What a ridiculous thing to say[/quote]
In what way?[/quote]
Your actual, serious opinion as that physicists don’t know anything about the universe?[/quote]
Not what I said at all.
Religion: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
Though there are a lot of physicists that are included in that.
But, I’ll play with you on this one.
Name something physics knows.[/quote]
Well, that still says you think physicists don’t know anything about the universe. You’re making a very strange case here and I have no idea why you’re making some religion connection. This is also a really dumb game to “play”. Name something physics knows? I guess satellites and superconductors and acoustics and plumbing systems (fluid dynamics?) and about a thousand other things that you use all the time are just the product of good luck? What the hell are you on about?
[/quote]
Not, not physicists, people who take science as their religion.
Physics doesn’t know any of those systems. Fluid dynamics is a very rough system of ballpark estimation, it can’t predict a single element of fluid. Satellites are currently mapped using general relativity, which now seems to be false (and which NASA has measured problems with). Not one of the things you mentioned is a known. It is entirely possible that the universe itself isn’t analytic and no system of equations could even ever possibly be correct.
Name one thing about the universe that science KNOWS.[/quote]
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:<<< Yes, if it turned out that the neutrinos were traveling faster than light that would be pretty huge but it wouldn’t be the end of science, it would just be a new chapter in one important part of science.[/quote]Hey look who it is. One the original involuntary members of my T-Nation prayer list. Long time no argue, but I totally agree with the above.
It’s “inspired by God”, until it’s proven wrong, and then it’s evil or imperfect man.