Originally posted by Adrift
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Bill Nye The Idiot Guy
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostBut I'm not in agreement with you, I have no idea what does or does not live on other planets in far away galaxies.
Originally posted by JimL View PostYou said that you do know, that you don't need empirical evidence in order to know. So, I'm just asking, how do you know?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostYou're contradicting yourself JimL. You just got done telling me that you neither believe that Buddhas exist on other planets, nor that you are agnostic about Buddhas living on other planets.
That leaves only one other option, that you do not believe Buddhas live on other planets, which is the view I hold. Now you're telling me you ARE agnostic about the idea.
I never said that I don't need empirical evidence in order to know. Do you have empirical evidence for Buddhas living on other planets?Last edited by JimL; 07-29-2017, 05:51 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostNot sure where you're getting that from Adrift, I never said any such thing.
"Are you saying that you believe that there are Buddhas living on other planets in our universe, or are you saying you're completely agnostic to the idea; That there might be other Buddha's living in the universe?" That was in post #823. You replied to me in post #824 "Neither".
Originally posted by JimL View PostWhat I just got through saying was that I have no idea what does or does not live on other planets in far away galaxies.
Originally posted by JimL View PostWhat you or I believe has nothing to do with the question, you said that know what doesn't live on other planets if far away galaxies. I'm just asking you how you know? If you didn't mean to say that you know, then don't make a thing out of it, just say so.
If, JimL, you can provide evidence for the claim that Buddha's live on far away planets, I'll be happy to investigate the evidence you provide to see if it is compelling, barring that, I'll assume that the claim is as empty as the claim that little pink unicorns exist on other planets. You're free to remain agnostic about the existence of pink unicorns and extra-planetary Buddha's if you like. I won't be following you down that road.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostAh, actually yes you did. You said that you don't need to go to far away planerts in far away galaxies, in order to know what doesn't live there.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostLooks like you edited your post and added this sentence. I never said anything one way or the other about empirical evidence. Those are words you've been attempting to stuff into my mouth (or fingers as they case may be). I'd examine any sort of evidence, it doesn't need to be empirical. What sort of evidence are you providing for Buddhas living on other planets? I'm assuming you'll be changing your faith tag after this discussion, right?
Is it that difficult for you to just admit that you made a mistake, to admit that you can't know what may or may not live on other planets in far away galaxies?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWhy are you being a jerk? What you said was that you didn't need to go to far away planets in far away galaxies in order to know, not in order to believe, but in order to know what doesn't live there.
Is it that difficult for you to just admit that you made a mistake, to admit that you can't know what may or may not live on other planets in far away galaxies?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI've already explained the reason why I know these things do not exist. Provide your evidence to the contrary, and I'll give it a fair inspection. You're free to remain agnostic about things like Buddhas living on other planets, and pink unicorns, and whatever other nonsense someone tells you exists without offering a shred of evidence. I will not be doing the same.
Comment
-
-
Except that no one is asserting anything but you. I didn't assert that I know anything one way or the other, it is only you who asserted that you know.
Don't think it went unnoticed that you attempted to move the goal post just now either. You went from asking me how I could "know" to how I could have "certain knowledge" (and by "certain" I'm assuming you mean "absolute"). No one outside of an omnipotent being has "certain knowledge" about anything, but no one requires "certain knowledge" to claim that they "know" a thing. All of us have claimed to know things without having "certain knowledge" about those things.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostExcept that no one is asserting anything but you. I didn't assert that I know anything one way or the other, it is only you who asserted that you know.Originally posted by JimL View PostClaiming to know is claiming to have certain knowledge Adrift. That was exactly your claim. Seriously, quit while you're behind, this is getting embarrassing for you.
But anyhow, no, there is quite a bit of debate in philosophy concerning our ability to have certain (absolute) knowledge. For reference, check the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page on Certainty,
Like knowledge, certainty is an epistemic property of beliefs. (In a derivative way, certainty is also an epistemic property of subjects: S is certain that p just in case S's belief that p is certain.) Although some philosophers have thought that there is no difference between knowledge and certainty, it has become increasingly common to distinguish them. On this conception, then, certainty is either the highest form of knowledge or is the only epistemic property superior to knowledge. One of the primary motivations for allowing kinds of knowledge less than certainty is the widespread sense that skeptical arguments are successful in showing that we rarely or never have beliefs that are certain (see Unger 1975 for this kind of skeptical argument) but do not succeed in showing that our beliefs are altogether without epistemic worth (see, for example, Lehrer 1974, Williams 1999, and Feldman 2003; see Fumerton 1995 for an argument that skepticism undermines every epistemic status a belief might have; and see Klein 1981 for the argument that knowledge requires certainty, which we are capable of having).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIncorrect! Methodological naturalism, the essential component of science, does not allow for miracles.
BTW, Do you know who first coined the term "methodological naturalism"? Do you know that he was an evangelical Christian who himself believed in the existence of miracles?
Originally posted by Tassman View PostTo invoke a supernatural explanation is to end up with a god-of-the-gaps scenario, thus effectively abandoning scientific methodology altogether.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
BTW, Do you know who first coined the term "methodological naturalism"? Do you know that he was an evangelical Christian who himself believed in the existence of miracles?
Last edited by rogue06; 07-30-2017, 10:21 PM.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostTo clarify, that was Paul de Vries, while a professor at Wheaton College which is a conservative Christian evangelical school where the faculty agree to a statement of faith that says
http://www.wheaton.edu/About-Wheaton...tional-Purpose
One can see that it may inhibit the full implementation of scientific methodology.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View PostMN simply rules out miracles as part of scientific explanations. But it does not and cannot rule out rule out the possibility of miracles occurring at all (outside of science). Jim is correct that MN is agnostic concerning the existence of miracles.BTW, Do you know who first coined the term "methodological naturalism"? Do you know that he was an evangelical Christian who himself believed in the existence of miracles?
This would only be the case if supernatural explanations were to be included as part of science. If supernatural explanations are kept outside of science, they have no effect on scientific methodology.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 06-20-2024, 09:11 PM
|
29 responses
172 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 07:33 AM |
Comment