Limits of Science

[lifegazer]

Lifegazer, is there anything better than science?

You can pray for wheat or you can plow a field with the plow that applied science has made for us and grow the plants that the applied science of agriculture has given us.

You can pray over someone with diabetes or you can give them insulin to control it.

You can send psychic thoughts to a far way friend or you can call them.

Has there been anything that has delivered as well as consistantly in the real world as science?

Of course science is useful. Understanding the order of perceived existence enables us to manipulate that existence for our own requirements, good and bad (yes, science has given us bad things too, such as weapons of mass destruction). But that isn't the issue here.
... The issue in this thread (and my own similar thread), pertains to the limitations of science in regards telling us about the absolute nature of reality.
If you read my posts properly, you'll understand why science can tell us nothing about the nature of reality, since science is the study of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things (unreal things) within awareness.
This is significant for it disarms atheists and materialists of their philosophies, reducing their ideas to absolute religions (pure beliefs).

 

[Z]

How, exactly, does it do that? Seems to me, rather, that it only further eliminates the immaterialist and dogmatically faithful, since not only do they not have the absolute nature to be sure of, but they also lack any perceptual evidence as well.

All the faithful has, is faith. You believe because you were taught to believe by other believers, and told that one book out of billions contains the truth. Never mind the fact that the book has been re-copied hundreds of times, edited, spliced into and out of form, etc. Never mind the internal inconsistancies, absurdities, archaic thought, or absolute nonsense.

Science tells us what to expect from our perceived reality, and is consistant and constant. We can accept science as such, and have no fear of betrayal; yet religion fails even this much, telling us nothing about nothing, by your way of thinking.

Our knowledge of the world through science may well be seen as a system of belief, but it is a verified system of belief that requires no 'leap of faith' to engage in; in fact, it requires no faith at all, since we need never consider the nature of the reality that things exist in. Whereas religion is an unverified system, indeed, even a disproven system.

No matter how you slice it, Gazer, whether your philosophy is true or not, it does nothing at all to 'disarm' Atheists and Materialists, and only further weakens the position of Dogmatists and the Faithful.

 

[Iacchus]

No matter how you slice it, Gazer, whether your philosophy is true or not, it does nothing at all to 'disarm' Atheists and Materialists, and only further weakens the position of Dogmatists and the Faithful.

Yeah, that's why they come out of the woodwork here.

 

[scribble]

Yeah, that's why they come out of the woodwork here.

No, that's because they're too <a href =http://www.zenspider.com/RWD/Thoughts/Inept.html>
ignorant to recognize the facts.</a>

 

[Piscivore]

No, that's because they're too <a href =http://www.zenspider.com/RWD/Thoughts/Inept.html>
ignorant to recognize the facts.</a>

Ha! Anyone want to give odds that our man Radrook was a subject in that study?

[pmod=Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]I realize humor was intended here, but let's try to keep things civil.[/pmod]

 

[Iacchus]

No, that's because they're too <a href =http://www.zenspider.com/RWD/Thoughts/Inept.html>
ignorant to recognize the facts.</a>

Hey, facts are easy to recognize. It's when you begin to get into areas requiring a deeper understanding that you begin to have problems. In which case you can throw out all the facts you want and it still doesn't mean anything.

 

[Piscivore]

Hey, facts are easy to recognize.

Did you even read that link?

Of course not, what am I asking for?

 

[Maledict]

Did you even read that link?

Of course not, what am I asking for?

That's why I don't bother with Iacchus anymore - any rational person who can objectively examine what Iacchus says and debates with anyone else, will come to the conclusion that all he does is spout nonsense and evades questions and points addressed to him, by spouting even more nonsense, and in respone to people telling him that he is evading, spouts even more nonsense, and so on, until he slips up, is shown that he's contradicted himself, and spouts more nonsense to cover up his own flialing skin.

 

[Piscivore]

That's why I don't bother with Iacchus anymore - any rational person who can objectively examine what Iacchus says and debates with anyone else, will come to the conclusion that all he does is spout nonsense and evades questions and points addressed to him, by spouting even more nonsense, and in respone to people telling him that he is evading, spouts even more nonsense, and so on, until he slips up, is shown that he's contradicted himself, and spouts more nonsense to cover up his own flialing skin.

Yeah, you are quite correct. Nonetheless, Iacchus facinates me in a there-but-for-the-grace-of-getting-laid-go-I sorta of way.

 

[Z]

Hey, facts are easy to recognize. It's when you begin to get into areas requiring a deeper understanding that you begin to have problems.

Deeper understanding? What's deeper than fact?

This is the problem with the 'faithful' - they think belief is somehow more important than fact. The truth is, facts are facts, and facts are far more important than fantasies.

 

[Z]

Iacchus is like a bad car accident. You can't help but slow down and gawk.

 

[Iacchus]

Deeper understanding? What's deeper than fact?

This is the problem with the 'faithful' - they think belief is somehow more important than fact. The truth is, facts are facts, and facts are far more important than fantasies.

Hey, I can recognize that I have five fingers on my hand. And that's a fact. So what?

Now isn't that real meaningful?

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus is like a bad car accident. You can't help but slow down and gawk.

That's bloody awful! And the Titans rent him to bloody shreds!

 

[Iacchus]

That's why I don't bother with Iacchus anymore - any rational person who can objectively examine what Iacchus says and debates with anyone else, will come to the conclusion that all he does is spout nonsense and evades questions and points addressed to him, by spouting even more nonsense, and in respone to people telling him that he is evading, spouts even more nonsense, and so on, until he slips up, is shown that he's contradicted himself, and spouts more nonsense to cover up his own flialing skin.

Is this just a recent development though, say like within the last hour or so? Well thank you very much!!! Praise the Lord and Hallelujah!

 

[Maledict]

Is this just a recent development though, say like within the last hour or so? Well thank you very much!!! Praise the Lord and Halelujah!

No, just something that I realised over time debating with you, your idiocy is astounding.

Yes yes, you can get the last word, you win

 

[Iacchus]

No, just something that I realised over time debating with you, your idiocy is astounding.

Yes yes, you can get the last word, you win

Whatever you say.

 

[Z]

Well, I've read quite a bit now about what Iacchus is going on about, and have come to one conclusion:

Lunatic.

Plain and simple.

My advice, Iacchus, is to stay off of drugs and alcohol (or get off them if you're currently on them), stay in school (or go back to school, as is suitable), and stop reading metaphysical nonsense like your Titans link.

This is full of 'I had a dream' and 'I imagined that I saw', etc... in other words, someone with a waaay over-active imagination is going to base a life-philosophy on 'dreams' rather than embrace reality, and therefore is probably going to have a rather miserable life, when all is said and done.

Just out of curiosity - how old are you, Iacchus? Judging by comparison (i.e. the age I was at when I was in your shoes), I'd guess you're 13 to 15, or possibly 19-20. However, this is a judgement based on my own experiences, which are hardly typical, inasmuch as I had rejected Satan before I turned 10, while still accepting religion for another decade.

 

[Iacchus]

Did you even read that link?

Of course not, what am I asking for?

Took a hop, skip and a quick jump over there, and as soon as I determined it was already what I thought it was, I didn't bother to stick around.

 

[dmarker]

Of course science is useful. Understanding the order of perceived existence enables us to manipulate that existence for our own requirements, good and bad (yes, science has given us bad things too, such as weapons of mass destruction). But that isn't the issue here.
... The issue in this thread (and my own similar thread), pertains to the limitations of science in regards telling us about the absolute nature of reality.
If you read my posts properly, you'll understand why science can tell us nothing about the nature of reality, since science is the study of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things (unreal things) within awareness.
This is significant for it disarms atheists and materialists of their philosophies, reducing their ideas to absolute religions (pure beliefs).

So absolute reality cannot be sensed? I ask how do you know that deities aren't just dwellers of your own mind?

 

[Iacchus]

So absolute reality cannot be sensed? I ask how do you know that deities aren't just dwellers of your own mind?

I think the word you might be looking for here is "interaction."