First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
No to the Illogical Agnostic.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 8/5/10

pcekeep wrote:
I was just pointing out DP's point. He was underestimating the fact that some people even has the abilities to create "theories" and "ideas" unproven yet can be a breakthrough in the future. It may sound ridiculous at the present date because of the lack of the capabilities of modern science to prove them.


This is not an issue of possibility, this is an issue of probability. It is possible for a layman to make a scientific breakthrough, but it is highly improbable. Scientists cannot sit around all day to verify whether the claims of thousands and thousands of laymen are correct, so that they will not hurt the feelings of these people. Efficacy, where is the efficacy in that? If we did that, for every single breakthrough we would sacrifice hundreds.
Posted 8/5/10

pcekeep wrote:



Let me ask you, what is reality? What is "logical", what is this evidence you are talking about?

How did they become logical in the first place? Weren't they because they were proven later on?

You are not open minded if you are just going to stick on one approach. I am not saying you are to follow a unproved idea but you are to "investigate" it.

That is how existing theories came into reality if I am correct.
No one easily believed that all people came from apes until evidence came to life.
It's the laws of the physical world, where everything can have a cause and effect, character and quality. In other words, all things that's bounded by human knowledge of the existing natural world, aka reality.

But when it comes to a hypothetically "supernatural" being with a supposedly "metaphysical" existence, how are you going about to prove its "realness"? You can't.

And don't you think that you gloating someone into doing something that not even you can do is cruel and unfair?
15179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/5/10
The problem with only accepting what we can prove with irrevocable evidence is we close our minds off to possible new discoveries. Whereas if we keep our minds open to all unclosed possibilities we can easily accept whatever new evidence that might pop up in the future.
Posted 8/5/10 , edited 8/5/10

excalion wrote:

The problem with only accepting what we can prove with irrevocable evidence is we close our minds off to possible new discoveries. Whereas if we keep our minds open to all unclosed possibilities we can easily accept whatever new evidence that might pop up in the future.
Isn't that in and of itself a contradiction? As in how can there be new discovery without new evidence to prove its existence. Thereby while the "probability" of new discovery based on no new evidence is 0%, the possibility of acquiring metaphysical evidence of a supernatural existence OTOH is also 0%. In other words, based on the religious nature of god(s) itself, any physical and/or natural evidence of god(s)'s "supernatural" and "metaphysical" existence is impossible, improbable, not to mention illogical.
15179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/5/10

DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:

The problem with only accepting what we can prove with irrevocable evidence is we close our minds off to possible new discoveries. Whereas if we keep our minds open to all unclosed possibilities we can easily accept whatever new evidence that might pop up in the future.


Isn't that in and of itself a contradiction? As in how can there be new discovery without new evidence to prove its existence. Thereby while the "probability" of new discovery based on no new evidence is 0%, the possibility of acquiring metaphysical evidence of a supernatural existence OTOH is also 0%. In other words, based on the religious nature of god(s) itself, any physical and/or natural evidence of god(s)'s "supernatural" and "metaphysical" existence is impossible, improbable, not to mention illogical.


it's not a contradiction at all. A long time ago people had irrevocable evidence that the Earth was flat. Why? Just look around you, is it flat? Yes. However on a larger scope of things, it turns out the Earth is actually round. If we had held onto the idea of "the earth is flat" for dear life, we wouldn't have been able to accept the new "the earth is round" idea very easily. However if everyone at the time instead held the belief that "These lands and these oceans are vast, I have not yet seen all there is to see of these lands and these oceans. Therefor, although it's very likely the Earth is flat, I also admit the possibility of the Earth being another shape." people would have been a lot more willing to accept the idea that the Earth was indeed round and not be so stubborn.

The possibility of acquiring evidence of a supernatural existence is 0%, I agree. If we could acquire evidence of such an existence then it would no longer be supernatural. We have no means to acquire evidence of what we currently have no means to acquire evidence for. Nothing more, nothing less. In the future we might develop means to acquire evidence of what was considered to be supernatural today, you cannot deny that possibility, no one can. The same way no one should have denied the possibility of acquiring evidence that the Earth was round back in the day. Simply because they didn't foresee spaceships, they made wild claims of the limitations of human ability. I hope you do not make the same mistake.

Also I'd like to remind you, Agnostics don't necessarily believe in Gods or the supernatural. They simply view their existence as a possibility that we cannot prove either way at this current time. These two things are very different. Just because I believe there is a possibility of me winning the lottery when I buy the lottery ticket, doesn't mean I believe I will definitely win the lottery. Agnostics view God with the same stance as they view the big bang theory - They bought two lottery tickets, the winning number could be one of them, or it could be something else entirely. There is nothing illogical about this, in fact I think this is the most logical approach to this problem. "I know what I know, I don't know what I don't know, I'm not going to pretend to know what I don't know just so I can have an answer."
17888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/5/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:

The problem with only accepting what we can prove with irrevocable evidence is we close our minds off to possible new discoveries. Whereas if we keep our minds open to all unclosed possibilities we can easily accept whatever new evidence that might pop up in the future.


Isn't that in and of itself a contradiction? As in how can there be new discovery without new evidence to prove its existence. Thereby while the "probability" of new discovery based on no new evidence is 0%, the possibility of acquiring metaphysical evidence of a supernatural existence OTOH is also 0%. In other words, based on the religious nature of god(s) itself, any physical and/or natural evidence of god(s)'s "supernatural" and "metaphysical" existence is impossible, improbable, not to mention illogical.


it's not a contradiction at all. A long time ago people had irrevocable evidence that the Earth was flat. Why? Just look around you, is it flat? Yes. However on a larger scope of things, it turns out the Earth is actually round. If we had held onto the idea of "the earth is flat" for dear life, we wouldn't have been able to accept the new "the earth is round" idea very easily. However if everyone at the time instead held the belief that "These lands and these oceans are vast, I have not yet seen all there is to see of these lands and these oceans. Therefor, although it's very likely the Earth is flat, I also admit the possibility of the Earth being another shape." people would have been a lot more willing to accept the idea that the Earth was indeed round and not be so stubborn.

The possibility of acquiring evidence of a supernatural existence is 0%, I agree. If we could acquire evidence of such an existence then it would no longer be supernatural. We have no means to acquire evidence of what we currently have no means to acquire evidence for. Nothing more, nothing less. In the future we might develop means to acquire evidence of what was considered to be supernatural today, you cannot deny that possibility, no one can. The same way no one should have denied the possibility of acquiring evidence that the Earth was round back in the day. Simply because they didn't foresee spaceships, they made wild claims of the limitations of human ability. I hope you do not make the same mistake.

Also I'd like to remind you, Agnostics don't necessarily believe in Gods or the supernatural. They simply view their existence as a possibility that we cannot prove either way at this current time. These two things are very different. Just because I believe there is a possibility of me winning the lottery when I buy the lottery ticket, doesn't mean I believe I will definitely win the lottery. Agnostics view God with the same stance as they view the big bang theory - They bought two lottery tickets, the winning number could be one of them, or it could be something else entirely. There is nothing illogical about this, in fact I think this is the most logical approach to this problem. "I know what I know, I don't know what I don't know, I'm not going to pretend to know what I don't know just so I can have an answer."


No what they had was faith that the world was flat based on no evidence. That is not a logical claim, only a accepted claim based on faith, hence more like a religion than something that came from evidence and facts.

Making claims on something that directly affects us is more than enough reason to expect the claim to be based on evidence, and take it out of the supernatural and into another category. For the supernatural claim only works if it does not directly affect us. Hence why God as a factor is illogical.


Instead they avoid the question.
The fact is Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you said someone razed the dead, And there was an army of zombies walking around, I expect to see some evidence of that claim before I accept it. Even as a possibility.
If I was to claim that The world was going to end do two race of cat like aliens attacking us next week. Would you accept it on faith, would you think their was even the slightest chance I was telling the truth, or would you think I was nuts, If I had no evidence what so ever for my claims.

Posted 8/5/10 , edited 8/5/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:

The problem with only accepting what we can prove with irrevocable evidence is we close our minds off to possible new discoveries. Whereas if we keep our minds open to all unclosed possibilities we can easily accept whatever new evidence that might pop up in the future.


Isn't that in and of itself a contradiction? As in how can there be new discovery without new evidence to prove its existence. Thereby while the "probability" of new discovery based on no new evidence is 0%, the possibility of acquiring metaphysical evidence of a supernatural existence OTOH is also 0%. In other words, based on the religious nature of god(s) itself, any physical and/or natural evidence of god(s)'s "supernatural" and "metaphysical" existence is impossible, improbable, not to mention illogical.


it's not a contradiction at all. A long time ago people had irrevocable evidence that the Earth was flat. Why? Just look around you, is it flat? Yes. However on a larger scope of things, it turns out the Earth is actually round. If we had held onto the idea of "the earth is flat" for dear life, we wouldn't have been able to accept the new "the earth is round" idea very easily. However if everyone at the time instead held the belief that "These lands and these oceans are vast, I have not yet seen all there is to see of these lands and these oceans. Therefor, although it's very likely the Earth is flat, I also admit the possibility of the Earth being another shape." people would have been a lot more willing to accept the idea that the Earth was indeed round and not be so stubborn.

The possibility of acquiring evidence of a supernatural existence is 0%, I agree. If we could acquire evidence of such an existence then it would no longer be supernatural. We have no means to acquire evidence of what we currently have no means to acquire evidence for. Nothing more, nothing less. In the future we might develop means to acquire evidence of what was considered to be supernatural today, you cannot deny that possibility, no one can. The same way no one should have denied the possibility of acquiring evidence that the Earth was round back in the day. Simply because they didn't foresee spaceships, they made wild claims of the limitations of human ability. I hope you do not make the same mistake.

Also I'd like to remind you, Agnostics don't necessarily believe in Gods or the supernatural. They simply view their existence as a possibility that we cannot prove either way at this current time. These two things are very different. Just because I believe there is a possibility of me winning the lottery when I buy the lottery ticket, doesn't mean I believe I will definitely win the lottery. Agnostics view God with the same stance as they view the big bang theory - They bought two lottery tickets, the winning number could be one of them, or it could be something else entirely. There is nothing illogical about this, in fact I think this is the most logical approach to this problem. "I know what I know, I don't know what I don't know, I'm not going to pretend to know what I don't know just so I can have an answer."


No what they had was faith that the world was flat based on no evidence. That is not a logical claim, only a accepted claim based on faith, hence more like a religion than something that came from evidence and facts.

Making claims on something that directly affects us is more than enough reason to expect the claim to be based on evidence, and take it out of the supernatural and into another category. For the supernatural claim only works if it does not directly affect us. Hence why God as a factor is illogical.


Instead they avoid the question.
The fact is Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you said someone razed the dead, And there was an army of zombies walking around, I expect to see some evidence of that claim before I accept it. Even as a possibility.
If I was to claim that The world was going to end do two race of cat like aliens attacking us next week. Would you accept it on faith, would you think their was even the slightest chance I was telling the truth, or would you think I was nuts, If I had no evidence what so ever for my claims.




No what they had was faith that the world was flat based on no evidence. That is not a logical claim, only a accepted claim based on faith, hence more like a religion than something that came from evidence and facts.


I don't even think it was based on faith but rather it was based on the "mountains of evidence" you keep on pointing on the other threads. By the way the world looks on man's perspective everything was flat. The ground itself is flat, the plains that rests beneath the mountains so as the seas. It is mostly by man's perspective itself that he himself drawn the conclusion that the world was flat. Not because it was merely based on faith. It was the evidence before him that made him say that the world is indeed flat. Religion was merely influenced on the idea. Man was around first before religion.


But when it comes to a hypothetically "supernatural" being with a supposedly "metaphysical" existence, how are you going about to prove its "realness"? You can't.


This is where people become close minded...

Science haven't proved "everything" keep that in mind. Only most physical and superficial existence in the universe but not most of the unexplained phenomenons which kept most of our experts dazzled as of this day.
67723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/5/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Instead they avoid the question.
The fact is Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you said someone razed the dead, And there was an army of zombies walking around, I expect to see some evidence of that claim before I accept it. Even as a possibility.
If I was to claim that The world was going to end do two race of cat like aliens attacking us next week. Would you accept it on faith, would you think their was even the slightest chance I was telling the truth, or would you think I was nuts, If I had no evidence what so ever for my claims.



Actually if certain trusted friends burst into my room/work place and claimed the world had turned into a George Romero film I'd get the fuck out with them and arm myself.... THEN ask to see evidence.

If someone random on the internet said the sky was blue today, I'd be tempted to go outside and check to see if it hadn't turned green.





15179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/5/10 , edited 8/5/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

excalion wrote:


No what they had was faith that the world was flat based on no evidence. That is not a logical claim, only a accepted claim based on faith, hence more like a religion than something that came from evidence and facts.

Making claims on something that directly affects us is more than enough reason to expect the claim to be based on evidence, and take it out of the supernatural and into another category. For the supernatural claim only works if it does not directly affect us. Hence why God as a factor is illogical.


Instead they avoid the question.
The fact is Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you said someone razed the dead, And there was an army of zombies walking around, I expect to see some evidence of that claim before I accept it. Even as a possibility.
If I was to claim that The world was going to end do two race of cat like aliens attacking us next week. Would you accept it on faith, would you think their was even the slightest chance I was telling the truth, or would you think I was nuts, If I had no evidence what so ever for my claims.



Red: By that logic, I could very well say my belief the Earth is round is also just faith. That it's not a logical claim, only an accepted claim based on faith. Why not? It was born of the same process why people assumed the Earth was flat. They observed something was X, so it must be X.

Blue: What exactly do you mean by this. Why would the claim of the possibility of a supernatural phenomenon affect me directly? It's definitely not something I would devote myself to or risk my life on, why would I? It's just a possibility, not a reality. I think it would be best if you clarified this one for me.

Green: I think you're confused about something, just because I accept something as a possibility doesn't mean I'm going to do anything about it. Again with the lottery ticket example, just because it's a possibility I might win the lottery doesn't mean I'm going to go buy 5 new mansions on credit before the drawing even happens. Also, even if I do accept something as a possibility, I also have to weigh the conceivability of it and act accordingly. Just because I believe anything to be possible, doesn't mean I treat all possibilities equally.

15179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/5/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

If someone random on the internet said the sky was blue today, I'd be tempted to go outside and check to see if it hadn't turned green.



HOLY F*&K don't look directly into the sun! That f&cker is bright as hell.

=D
67723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/5/10
I'm BLIND!!!

That's iT! you'll be hearing from my lawyers. I dun backtraced you and consequences will never be the same!!

;]








(seriously though: there's a difference between temptation and yielding to it.)
15179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/5/10
Not if I backtrace your IP first and report to the cyberpolice! You dun goofed!
maffoo 
64803 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / England
Offline
Posted 8/6/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



No what they had was faith that the world was flat based on no evidence. That is not a logical claim, only a accepted claim based on faith, hence more like a religion than something that came from evidence and facts.


What do you call evidence in this case?

Someone who lives somewhere where they can see right to the horizon can logically assume that the Earth is curved, for example someone who lives on the coast might see ships appear/disappear over the horizon. However, someone who lives a long way from the sea, possibly surrounded by forest, might not be able to see anything to suggest that the Earth is anything other than flat. They could apply a very crude version of the scientific method and say that their observations show that the Earth is flat (which in some places it is, on a local level). Faith/religion has nothing to do with it.

17888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10

maffoo wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



No what they had was faith that the world was flat based on no evidence. That is not a logical claim, only a accepted claim based on faith, hence more like a religion than something that came from evidence and facts.


What do you call evidence in this case?

Someone who lives somewhere where they can see right to the horizon can logically assume that the Earth is curved, for example someone who lives on the coast might see ships appear/disappear over the horizon. However, someone who lives a long way from the sea, possibly surrounded by forest, might not be able to see anything to suggest that the Earth is anything other than flat. They could apply a very crude version of the scientific method and say that their observations show that the Earth is flat (which in some places it is, on a local level). Faith/religion has nothing to do with it.



They can assume but they did not test that theory. If they watched a boat go out to see, and vanish under the horizon line, than return you know the world is not flat, hence a simple test would easily disproved such faith based claims.
Assuming something as fact and knowing something to be through the logical methods are not the same thing.
17888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/6/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

I'm BLIND!!!

That's iT! you'll be hearing from my lawyers. I dun backtraced you and consequences will never be the same!!

;]








(seriously though: there's a difference between temptation and yielding to it.)


'well I got the look and the outfit down, but still lack the gloves. '

after that I look just like your avatar.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.