Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Options
1…191192194196197…327

Comments

  • Options
    #5792
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    marienbad wrote: »

    So it is a matter of opinion then ?

    It's a matter of truth. God led me, a stubborn unrepentant sinner to the foot of the cross and ultimately to Him.

    If you were talking to me before 2007 you would find me at loggerheads with the gospel in many ways. I didn't know Jesus at all really. I was an agnostic without the foggiest clue. I can think back literally a mere few years ago to what I was before.

    But God in His kindness brought me to a true knowledge when I didn't deserve one bit of it. That's amazing to me.

    I think if you honestly look into it God will work the sane way.

    I think the Gospel makes better logical sense than atheism does.


  • Options
    #5793
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    It's a matter of truth. God led me, a stubborn unrepentant sinner to the foot of the cross and ultimately to Him.

    If you were talking to me before 2007 you would find me at loggerheads with the gospel in many ways. I didn't know Jesus at all really. I was an agnostic without the foggiest clue. I can think back literally a mere few years ago to what I was before.

    But God in His kindness brought me to a true knowledge when I didn't deserve one bit of it. That's amazing to me.

    I think if you honestly look into it God will work the sane way.

    I think the Gospel makes better logical sense than atheism does.

    But again that is just a matter of opinion is it not ? Saying it with emphasis makes no difference.


  • Options
    #5794
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    marienbad wrote: »

    But again that is just a matter of opinion is it not ? Saying it with emphasis makes no difference.

    Not really. If God is who He says He is, and if Jesus was who He was it doesn't matter a damn what my opinion is other than it affects my salvation.


  • Options
    #5795
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    marienbad wrote: »
    Ok - can I jump in and ask you a question ? Why one religion or belief as opposed to any other ?

    Or none?
    Can only answer for myself here so take from it what you will!
    I am not a natural unbeliever, I seem to have been born with a sense of 'other' and when younger found paganism fitted my outlook. But I couldn't fit pantheism or tbh more than one God into a realistic belief system. Why one rather than another, geography if I'm honest. Christianity is in the culture I live and is the easiest for me to access and use as a guide towards the divine. It is theological consistent and historically reasonable provable.
    The Gospel presents a realistic portrayal of the fallen creation that we dwell in
    Agree with phil on this.

    Having said all that, I must make clear that I don't use 'believe' the way some do, I mean believe in the way I believe in democracy or anarchy or justice. Not the way I believe the world is round or Dublin is the capitol of Ireland.

    It is not laziness or dumb acceptance that informs my belief, it's a view of life that I chose.
    So it is a matter of opinion then ?
    Outlook more than opinion, an outlook that inform opinion.


  • Options
    #5796
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Would be interesting to ask a scientist the same question about a scientific theory (why Darwinism and not Lamarickism, why electromagnetic theory of light and not the luminous ether) and see if you get the same type of answers.

    I would imagine with the scientists you wouldn't get a lot if "it makes sense to me" answers :rolleyes:

    I would hope not!
    I don't want to drive a car designed by the principals of theology.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5797
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Define those things you mentioned in a manner that doesn't reference human experience, which is measurable, or the brain, which is also measurable.

    It is all very well to say these things are transcendent but that is romanticising the words that when you examine them properly, ie actually define the words, are rather simple.

    Human experience is measurable?
    I must be more post modern than I thought?
    How do you measure love? observe actions and correlate to previously observed actions? Examine hormone and physiological effect?
    Give me a break, you must be a torment on valentines day, imagine having to make sure your effort matched the expected (and scientifically proven) level of love?
    Yes I'm romanticizing the words and the feelings and actions, it's called being human.


  • Options
    #5798
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    Not really. If God is who He says He is, and if Jesus was who He was it doesn't matter a damn what my opinion is other than it affects my salvation.

    Not really you say ! How so ? This still all just a matter of opinion and in this case your opinion ?


  • Options
    #5799
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Damn right I'm angry. Between your nonsense notions and the Creations science is under attack from all sides on this forum.

    Well, it is the Christianity forum, so you should expect people to have a somewhat different view than your extreme scientism. It is quite ironic that you keep bringing up the philosophy of science. You should really read up on Karl Popper, who gave us the modern view on this subject, regarding what he thought about the whole "God" question. He used the phrase "arrogant and ignorant" to describe some athiests, which one can only assume means strong atheists.

    On the question of God, he said "When I look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak about it, I am embarrassed I may do something wrong to God in speaking about God". What a wonderfully humble statement, in contrast to the arrogant and ignorant nonsense from certain atheists.

    You should have no worries about science, it is extremely well funded and will continue to make slow and steady progress with occasional leaps driven by intuitive genius as it always has. The only danger with science is the formation of "fixed ideas" that act as an inhibitor to future study.


  • Options
    #5800
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Originally Posted by nagirrac;
    You should have no worries about science, it is extremely well funded
    I think theirs reason to worry, science is well funded and will continue to do it's thing but the modern anti science movement has a deep rooted desire to achieve certainty and it's desire is reflected in the reaction of populist media. We are in danger of science becoming a thing that produces goods and loosing the idea that science produces answers. It's not just religion though religion is the worst offender, it's fear that threatens science.


  • Options
    #5801
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    tommy2bad wrote: »

    Human experience is measurable?
    I must be more post modern than I thought?
    How do you measure love? observe actions and correlate to previously observed actions? Examine hormone and physiological effect?

    You could do it that way. There are others. For example when I was in hospital the nurses were constantly asking me how I felt and was I in pain. There was even a pain scale so the nurses could communicate to the doctor how this pain was to say another pain.

    They didn't say Oh well pain is this transcendent experience that goes beyond human under standing, or any other fluffy nonsense. They just said 1 to 10 how is your pain today.

    You would be amazed how quickly fluffy romanticised nonsense is abandoned when there is an actual need for something.
    Give me a break, you must be a torment on valentines day, imagine having to make sure your effort matched the expected (and scientifically proven) level of love?

    That is a rather irrelevant straw man. What does being able to measure something have to do with having to tell someone. I know exactly how much my flowers cost, am I obliged to inform my hypothetical partner. If the best argument for why these things are intangible and impossible to measure is that otherwise it would be awkward at dinner, well that isn't much of any argument.
    Yes I'm romanticizing the words and the feelings and actions, it's called being human.
    When has something being nice sounding to humans ever had anything to do with truth.

    The argument is we cannot measure these things in an empirical fashion. Again if the only argument for that is it more romantic sounding if we pretend we can't that isn't much of an argument.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5802
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    On the question of God, he said "When I look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak about it, I am embarrassed I may do something wrong to God in speaking about God". What a wonderfully humble statement, in contrast to the arrogant and ignorant nonsense from certain atheists.

    By Zeus' beard!

    Popper was saying with that quote don't suppose things you cannot know. Don't guess, don't make up stuff and assume its real, don't think you ideas about reality some how mean something just because you thought of them

    In other words, don't do everything you do every time you post something, be it your musings on consciousness and quantum theory or your guess that evolution is intelligent.

    You couldn't have picked a more ironic thing to quote given your habit of just believing any old nonsense you happen to find appealing, and having the confidence in your own belief to start spouting this nonsense on Internet forums, the thing Popper would have been far to embarrassed and humble to do.

    Talk about missing the point


  • Options
    #5803
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Well, it is the Christianity forum, so you should expect people to have a somewhat different view than your extreme scientism. It is quite ironic that you keep bringing up the philosophy of science. You should really read up on Karl Popper, who gave us the modern view on this subject, regarding what he thought about the whole "God" question. He used the phrase "arrogant and ignorant" to describe some athiests, which one can only assume means strong atheists.

    On the question of God, he said "When I look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak about it, I am embarrassed I may do something wrong to God in speaking about God". What a wonderfully humble statement, in contrast to the arrogant and ignorant nonsense from certain atheists.

    You should have no worries about science, it is extremely well funded and will continue to make slow and steady progress with occasional leaps driven by intuitive genius as it always has. The only danger with science is the formation of "fixed ideas" that act as an inhibitor to future study.

    This is why you need to look into what Jesus actually said and did rather than dismiss it off the cuff.

    By the by, have you ever thought that if the Bible is God's inspired word, and if God did send Jesus to die for the sin of the world and to raise from the dead three days later that you are doing something wrong by God by rejecting Him?


  • Options
    #5804
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Popper was saying with that quote don't suppose things you cannot know. Don't guess, don't make up stuff and assume its real, don't think you ideas about reality some how mean something just because you thought of them

    Then why would he have asked that the interview in question not be published until after his death? Because it had nothing to do with science and reflected his personal beliefs. What you have described above relates to Popper's Philosophy of Science, an entirely different matter.

    How confident are you in your understanding of what reality is? You seem to continually confuse it with what we know from scientific facts, which by definition are falsifiable.

    Arguably the best scientific theory we have is Quantum Theory. It has survived almost 100 years of attempts to falsify it and mathematically is accurate to any number of orders of magnitide you try and throw at it. Of course like any scientific theory it may be falsified someday. What quantum theory unambiguously describes is an underlying reality that is non-local and indeterminate. However, every scientific observable fact we have is always local and determinate (the various double slit experiments).

    The Irish genius John Stewart Bell resolved this dilemna with his theorem
    which proves* there is no possible underlying reality that is local and determinate that can result in our observed universe. Put in lay man's terms what Bell's theory tells us is that this universe that appears local and determinate to us is built upon a non-local, indeterminate reality.

    If you reflect on this long enough you can only come to one conclusion. The underlying reality of the universe is based on magic (the only word we have to describe it). We have no means whatsoever, currently at least, to understand this reality based on scientific observation.

    * Bell's theory is a simple logic theory and would even be true if QM were falsified. Bell set out to prove that reality was local and proved the opposite.


  • Options
    #5805
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    nagirrac wrote: »
    If you reflect on this long enough you can only come to one conclusion. The underlying reality of the universe is based on magic (the only word we have to describe it). We have no means whatsoever, currently at least, to understand this reality based on scientific observation.



    Yes we do.


  • Options
    #5806
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Morbert wrote: »
    Yes we do.

    QFT is an extension of QM, it proposes a theoretical framework for describing "field like" objects and "particle like" objects.

    There are three things to consider, quantum theory (a framework for calculating the results of any experiment we may run), quantum facts (what we observe) and quantum reality (what actually is).

    From the facts we observe it is entirely logical to assume a local, determinate reality. Bell's theory however proves that reality is non-local and indeterminate. It proves that in our underlying reality all things are possible and thus the only plausible conclusion is that nature selects from the "all things possible" to give us the universe we observe. We know this because Bell proved that 1+1=3.


  • Options
    #5807
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    philologos wrote: »
    This is why you need to look into what Jesus actually said and did rather than dismiss it off the cuff.

    By the by, have you ever thought that if the Bible is God's inspired word, and if God did send Jesus to die for the sin of the world and to raise from the dead three days later that you are doing something wrong by God by rejecting Him?

    Where did you get the idea I dismiss things off the cuff? Any views I have on religion are based on careful examination of what they say.

    What I think is that as we evolve as a species our concept of "God" will continue to evolve. We started out worshipping the sun and the moon, we then moved on to "revealed" religions, and today I would say we are in the atheistic "science as religion" era. To move on, we need to understand that "nature" is driven by a mental process that creates everything we observe from underlying chaos.


  • Options
    #5808
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    God I hate spelling nazis! And your argument is ???

    Yeah and 'goddidit' is about as usefull a retort as nanana!
    Come on make an attempt at a resoned argument instead of cheap potshots.

    My argument is that your writings are as useless as a paper bag in a hurricane, i.e. that you would have trouble converting a dead fish to your cause never mind a thinking rational person like myself or Zombrex.


  • Options
    #5809
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    My argument is that your writings are as useless as a paper bag in a hurricane, i.e. that you would have trouble converting a dead fish to your cause never mind a thinking rational person like myself or Zombrex.

    Do you always play the man rather than the ball?
    Please!


  • Options
    #5810
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Zombrex wrote: »
    You could do it that way. There are others. For example when I was in hospital the nurses were constantly asking me how I felt and was I in pain. There was even a pain scale so the nurses could communicate to the doctor how this pain was to say another pain.

    They didn't say Oh well pain is this transcendent experience that goes beyond human under standing, or any other fluffy nonsense. They just said 1 to 10 how is your pain today.

    You would be amazed how quickly fluffy romanticised nonsense is abandoned when there is an actual need for something.



    That is a rather irrelevant straw man. What does being able to measure something have to do with having to tell someone. I know exactly how much my flowers cost, am I obliged to inform my hypothetical partner. If the best argument for why these things are intangible and impossible to measure is that otherwise it would be awkward at dinner, well that isn't much of any argument.


    When has something being nice sounding to humans ever had anything to do with truth.

    The argument is we cannot measure these things in an empirical fashion. Again if the only argument for that is it more romantic sounding if we pretend we can't that isn't much of an argument.

    Hmmm. We may be taking across each other at this stage. I never said intangibles were unmeasurable, just unmeasurable by science, I can use as the pain scale but it's always relative to me, my 10 may not be the same as your 10, it's a self reference that can never be more than a guide.
    The problem I have with your position, and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you, is that it leads to the same conclusion that Calvin predestination leads, to a clockwork universe.
    I don't think either of us are claiming that.

    Again you are using a self referencing scale for the flowers, though in fairness that was a bit of a stupid point, as soon as I had posted it I realized it was exactly how love is commercialized for our favorite hallmark holiday.

    Sounding nice has everything to do with truth. But I know you are using nice as a dismissive, remember I never used 'nice'.

    No, the argument is we cant measure them empirically but it doesn't matter because we can measure them relatively. I know how much I love, hate, hurt, I can show how much to someone who also feels love, hate, hurt. I cannot quantify them for someone or thing that can't feel to them.

    None of which has anything to do with proving the existence of God other than putting God in a context.


  • Options
    #5811
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Where did you get the idea I dismiss things off the cuff? Any views I have on religion are based on careful examination of what they say.

    What I think is that as we evolve as a species our concept of "God" will continue to evolve. We started out worshipping the sun and the moon, we then moved on to "revealed" religions, and today I would say we are in the atheistic "science as religion" era. To move on, we need to understand that "nature" is driven by a mental process that creates everything we observe from underlying chaos.

    Alan Moore or Grant Morrison?
    tumblr_mer9x18jrU1qgwsj9o1_400.jpg
    Gnosticism.:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5812
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Do you always play the man rather than the ball?
    Please!

    I'm "playing the ball" in this case. Just because you cannot come up with anything it is not my fault.

    Saying your argument is useless is not playing the man, because it is not a comment on you, but what you say.


  • Options
    #5813
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    I'm "playing the ball" in this case. Just because you cannot come up with anything it is not my fault.

    Saying your argument is useless is not playing the man, because it is not a comment on you, but what you say.

    Look this is becoming a slagging match at this stage. Best start over.
    I claim that their is no empirical evidence for a lot of things we as humans use to get on with life. You seem to be saying 'you are wrong' without proposing an alternative.
    Then you complain about spelling and again repeat 'you are wrong'.
    If you cant do better than just refuse without refuting I'm done with you.


  • Options
    #5814
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I claim that their is no empirical evidence for a lot of things we as humans use to get on with life. You seem to be saying 'you are wrong' without proposing an alternative.

    As Zombrex, has said show us proof of all this stuff that cannot be quantifed by empirical evidence. Everything you've previously listed has been shown to be empiricly measurable.

    I don't need to propose an "alternative" all I have to do is show that you are wrong, which I and others have done.


  • Options
    #5815
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    As Zombrex, has said show us proof of all this stuff that cannot be quantifed by empirical evidence. Everything you've previously listed has been shown to be empiricly measurable.

    I don't need to propose an "alternative" all I have to do is show that you are wrong, which I and others have done.

    Link?


  • Options
    #5816
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Then why would he have asked that the interview in question not be published until after his death? Because it had nothing to do with science and reflected his personal beliefs.

    Do you even know who Karl Popper was? Popper's "personal beliefs" were what science in the second half of the 20th century is largely based upon.

    The idea that Popper's views on science were an "entirely different matter" to his views on anything else just shows how utterly out of touch you actually are. Science is not a philosophy limited to a laboratory or a bunsen.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    How confident are you in your understanding of what reality is?
    A lot less confident that you, apparently, since I'm happy that there are things I don't know, I don't feel the need to make nonsense up to make reality more appealing. Reality is what it is, I feel no need for it to validating to me personally.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Arguably the best scientific theory we have is Quantum Theory. It has survived almost 100 years of attempts to falsify it and mathematically is accurate to any number of orders of magnitide you try and throw at it. Of course like any scientific theory it may be falsified someday. What quantum theory unambiguously describes is an underlying reality that is non-local and indeterminate. However, every scientific observable fact we have is always local and determinate (the various double slit experiments).

    The Irish genius John Stewart Bell resolved this dilemna with his theorem
    which proves* there is no possible underlying reality that is local and determinate that can result in our observed universe. Put in lay man's terms what Bell's theory tells us is that this universe that appears local and determinate to us is built upon a non-local, indeterminate reality.

    If you reflect on this long enough you can only come to one conclusion. The underlying reality of the universe is based on magic (the only word we have to describe it).

    No that is not the conclusion I (or anyone else who has a clue about science) comes to nagirrac. The conclusion we come to is "we don't know".

    "Magic" is the conclusion you come to because when faced with "we don't know" you seem compelled to fill that gap with what ever nonsense you find most appealing or romantically sounding.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    We have no means whatsoever, currently at least, to understand this reality based on scientific observation.

    Which is why it is really stupid to fill this gap of knowledge with any old guess you come up with, particularly when you are just making stuff up as you go and then saying "prove me wrong" or its your "world view"
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Bell's theory however proves that reality is non-local and indeterminate. It proves that in our underlying reality all things are possible and thus the only plausible conclusion is that nature selects from the "all things possible" to give us the universe we observe.

    What the fudge are you talking about, it does not "prove" that at all.

    Stop making stuff up.

    Popper must be rolling in his grave.


  • Options
    #5817
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Hmmm. We may be taking across each other at this stage. I never said intangibles were unmeasurable, just unmeasurable by science, I can use as the pain scale but it's always relative to me, my 10 may not be the same as your 10, it's a self reference that can never be more than a guide.

    That doesn't matter, it is still measurable. There is no "measurable but not measurable by science". There is just measurable, and as you say these things are measurable.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    The problem I have with your position, and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you, is that it leads to the same conclusion that Calvin predestination leads, to a clockwork universe.
    I don't think either of us are claiming that.
    Those two things have little to do with each other. If the universe is clockwork so is love. If the universe isn't clock work, neither is love. You could replace "love" there with anything. We can measure the temp of water at boiling, does that mean the universe is or isn't clockwork?

    How we define, measure or evaluate love will have no baring on the clockwork nature of the universe or undetermined nature of the universe.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    No, the argument is we cant measure them empirically but it doesn't matter because we can measure them relatively.

    All empirical measurement is relative. The only question is relative to what. The classic example of this is simple movement. You are going 5km an hour. That is fine for general use, but the first question a scientist would ask is "5km an hour relative to what."

    If you say "I'm in a lot of pain" a doctor, who cannot jump into your head and assess your pain, and as you point out has no way to measuring your pain next to his, would ask "a lot of pain relative to what"
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I cannot quantify them for someone or thing that can't feel to them.
    Yes you can, you can quantify it based on your scale. Even if the emotion of love only existed in your head then it would be possible to measure and study it, using the scientific method.


  • Options
    #5818
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    The idea that Popper's views on science were an "entirely different matter" to his views on anything else just shows how utterly out of touch you actually are. Science is not a philosophy limited to a laboratory or a bunsen.

    No that is not the conclusion I (or anyone else who has a clue about science) comes to nagirrac. The conclusion we come to is "we don't know".

    "Magic" is the conclusion you come to because when faced with "we don't know" you seem compelled to fill that gap with what ever nonsense you find most appealing or romantically sounding.


    So, if I understand you correctly, your logic is that it is impossible for someone to hold a set of beliefs (say for example, be a Christian) and hold true to the scientific method. What absolute balderdash.

    You seem wedded to the philosophy of science. Here's what Richard Feynmann, an atheist, had to say on the matter: "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds". I believe Feynmann was a most excellent scientist, how come he did not agree with you, as apparently you speak for science?

    Everything you have posted on this thread indicates that your worldview is that the only path to knowledge is through the philosophy of science. What absolute nonsense. In particular coming from someone who has such a narrow grasp of what science tells us. In fact, every time a discussion starts on science it is quickly apparent you are out of your depth. The evolution discussion on A&A recently a good example, you don't even get the fact that evolution as a scientific fact is a separate matter to the mechanisms of evolution, something you only gave up on when another more knowledgable poster corrected you.

    You have been at the same nonsense again on this thread, Darwin was right, Lamark was wrong. Well, quess what Batman, Lamark was also right. Darwin proposed a very broad mechanism for evolution, natural selection of inheritable traits. This could cover literally any underlying molecular mechanism, which is why there have been several mechanisms found since Darwin and all fit under his general theory. Lamark proposed that traits that emerge during the lifetime of an organism can be inherited which was rejected as impossible. This has now been shown to be true, it is called epigenetic inheritance. So, Darwin was right and Lamark was also right, and the fact that you can state today that Lamark was wrong just indicates you do not understand epigenetic inheritance.

    So, here we go again. It is obvious now you do not understand what quantum theory is telling us and what Bell's theory is telling us. Bell's theory is not telling is "we don't know", it is telling us that our reality is non-local. Do you understand that expression and what it means? or do I have to take the time to educate you again?


  • Options
    #5819
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Link?

    Here you go.


  • Options
    #5820
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    nagirrac wrote: »
    You seem wedded to the philosophy of science. Here's what Richard Feynmann, an atheist, had to say on the matter: "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds". I believe Feynmann was a most excellent scientist, how come he did not agree with you, as apparently you speak for science?
    You are so misrepresenting Feynman here I have to wonder if it is intentional. His issue was with philosophy not the scientific method.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

    http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/12/attacks-on-philosophy-by-scientists/

    He isn't the only scientist to say philosophy contributes nothing to science. Off the top of my head, I can point to Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss.

    Edit: I'll leave Feynman express his own view point again.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E383eEA54DE


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5821
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    You are so misrepresenting Feynman here I have to wonder if it is intentional. His issue was with philosophy not the scientific method. [/youtube]

    .. and Karl Popper was a philosopher, not a scientist, who developed the modern Philosophy of Science which zombrex keeps banging on about.

    I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with the scientific method, as a scientist I have followed it religiously in my career as does any professional scientist.

    It is quite possible to conduct science professionally and also speculate on observations and evidence that are not well understood or understood at all.

    Many leading scientsist do it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement