| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/09/2009 09:56:05 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I have to agree here. I mean, sure you can make up an explanation and believe it all you want, but that doesn't make it true. It makes it a belief. And I think that's the frustrating thing about religions is they try to overstep bounds from "belief" to "absolute truths".
With the lamp. No natural explanation does not mean its ghosts. What about faeries? What about aliens? What about people from another dimension? The answer is just as Shannon said, there is no answer. Unexplained.
But that's a hard concept for people to grasp. So they DO fill in the blanks and then DO believe it to be fact or truth, sometimes even MORE than the tangible and provable. And this I just can't wrap my brain around. |
That was something that Doc had problems with me in another religion thread. He wanted to know what I thought about an afterlife. I told him I had no thoughts because I had turned it over in my mind for some time with no conclusion, and I figured that it made more sense for me to decide I had no thoughts on it. I just don't have any real take on it one way or the other, and it seems to me more important to me to do the best I can here and simply let the cards fall where they may.
He seemed to think that I HAD to have an opinion one way or the other and couldn't seem to wrap his mind around the idea that I simply choose to make no choice to give it any thought at all.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2009 10:53:04 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Hmmm. I love how I did a whole rant again and got one sentence, one word really, cherry picked out. Which will it be this time? |
I wasn't cherry picking. I promise. I'm asking questions to understand your position because it is different than mine. You said the goal was to have good intentions and do good deeds, but I was unclear on where you got the idea of "good"? You tried to head off people saying, "well, what if someone thinks murder is good", but you didn't really answer that question (or the general one it asks). What about people who disagree with your definition of good? |
|
|
|
04/09/2009 10:55:45 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...if that is all ruled out. If we have no known possibilities left, where does that leave us? |
It leaves us with "unexplained." It's also a Catch-22 for superstitious beliefs: a supernatural explanation at that point would be totally unfounded unless some evidence is presented, but any tangible/verifiable evidence offered would suggest a natural explanation. |
OK, we can agree then. if "unexplained" doesn't have any preconceived notion where the ultimate answer will reside, then it's all good. If it does, then we're back to the argument from before. I guess my feeling is that nobody is that open-minded in reality. Everybody has their preconceived notions and operates on them. |
|
|
|
04/09/2009 11:01:54 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That's another issue I have with you, Jason, I do not accept YOUR view that absolute morality is possible only through God.....for that very reason....because YOU say so.
It's your view, and your opinion.
Morality is fluid......it's patently obvious simply by observing other cultures. There are some things we do that are wholly immoral in other societies and cultures that are outright blasphemous, and some things that are done elsewhere are incomprehensible to us.
And that's the shift in morality. I think it's fundamentally imp[ossible to even state what absolute morality is simply because by definition, it HAS to be different to different societies.
Either that, ot it has to be very basic and simple to be able to cross cultural lines. |
Well, it certainly is my view and opinion, but I think it's logically true. I forgot that I had discovered at the end of the last time we had this conversation that I am using some confusing language. Perhaps I should straighten that out.
When I speak about absolute morality, I mean Moral Universalism. I do not feel one can adhere to Moral Universalism without subscribing to some Supreme Being. Read the wiki and get back to me with your thoughts. |
|
|
|
04/09/2009 11:20:18 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Hmmm. I love how I did a whole rant again and got one sentence, one word really, cherry picked out. Which will it be this time? |
I wasn't cherry picking. I promise. I'm asking questions to understand your position because it is different than mine. You said the goal was to have good intentions and do good deeds, but I was unclear on where you got the idea of "good"? You tried to head off people saying, "well, what if someone thinks murder is good", but you didn't really answer that question (or the general one it asks). What about people who disagree with your definition of good? |
But I DID address that in my reply. Are you still not understanding or are you explaining why you asked in the first place?
In either case I'll answer again: I don't mind as long as its not interfering with other people's rights (which obviously includes not hurting others). Vegans don't believe its good to eat animal products. And that is fine with me, but if they start trying to take away my cheese, it's war. :) If they want to fight to make conditions more humane for the cows and that happens to make the price of my cheese go up some, then I'm ok with that.
Same goes for religion. Believe what you want and I am fine with it, but when you start infringing on my rights, or the rights I don't yet have but feel I should (like Gay marriage and adoption) then its time to take action. I will not hold back or play nice on the other persons life and choices because I don't feel the other party is giving me the same courtesy. If you can question the morality of my partners, I can question the validity of your religion. But it seems when the ball goes into the other persons court its somehow always a foul. HOW DARE I question God! hah. It's all so stupid.
ETA: In the case of abortion I'm on the fence. That is to say, I'm pro choice HOWEVER, I understand the oppositions want to end abortion and the views that it stems from. I believe it is a truly debatable subject and holds a lot of moral dilemmas because there is some entity involved without a say. However, I think Gay rights are often lumped in with abortion as "moral issues" or "family issues" but its complete lunacy. Two consenting adults wishing to spend their time together how they choose is not a moral issue for anyone to try and stop. To try and "protect" anyone from. I understand the desire to stop abortion. I don't understand the desire to stop gay marriage.
Message edited by author 2009-04-09 23:28:34. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:31:32 AM · #256 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Nullix:
But if you do know about God and you reject God, you'll end up in his absence. Your choice. |
Shall I assume that this God you speak of could be one of several denominations.
Ray |
That isn't the Christian way of thinking. The Christian way of thinking is that there is only one God, not several.
However, if you mean one God who is know by serveral denominations, then yes. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:46:27 AM · #257 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Hell is the absence of God. Well define God? Is god the feeling I get when I've reached the top of a mountain and I'm overwhelmed with something more than happiness? Something full? Life? Is God the voice in my head that says 'bring that scarf' when it's hot outside, but then the night turns cold and I'm glad I did? Is God the feeling I get when I love someone and I think there are moments of pure understanding even in complete silence? Is God the ocean that holds me weightless as I swim?
|
Those things are a small reflection of God's love.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 11:04:26 AM · #258 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Hmmm. I love how I did a whole rant again and got one sentence, one word really, cherry picked out. Which will it be this time? |
I wasn't cherry picking. I promise. I'm asking questions to understand your position because it is different than mine. You said the goal was to have good intentions and do good deeds, but I was unclear on where you got the idea of "good"? You tried to head off people saying, "well, what if someone thinks murder is good", but you didn't really answer that question (or the general one it asks). What about people who disagree with your definition of good? |
But I DID address that in my reply. Are you still not understanding or are you explaining why you asked in the first place?
In either case I'll answer again: I don't mind as long as its not interfering with other people's rights (which obviously includes not hurting others). Vegans don't believe its good to eat animal products. And that is fine with me, but if they start trying to take away my cheese, it's war. :) If they want to fight to make conditions more humane for the cows and that happens to make the price of my cheese go up some, then I'm ok with that.
Same goes for religion. Believe what you want and I am fine with it, but when you start infringing on my rights, or the rights I don't yet have but feel I should (like Gay marriage and adoption) then its time to take action. I will not hold back or play nice on the other persons life and choices because I don't feel the other party is giving me the same courtesy. If you can question the morality of my partners, I can question the validity of your religion. But it seems when the ball goes into the other persons court its somehow always a foul. HOW DARE I question God! hah. It's all so stupid.
ETA: In the case of abortion I'm on the fence. That is to say, I'm pro choice HOWEVER, I understand the oppositions want to end abortion and the views that it stems from. I believe it is a truly debatable subject and holds a lot of moral dilemmas because there is some entity involved without a say. However, I think Gay rights are often lumped in with abortion as "moral issues" or "family issues" but its complete lunacy. Two consenting adults wishing to spend their time together how they choose is not a moral issue for anyone to try and stop. To try and "protect" anyone from. I understand the desire to stop abortion. I don't understand the desire to stop gay marriage. |
I think you are just describing a tension that's found between Moral Universalism (now that I have the term right) and Moral Relativism. It's foreign for you to hear someone say, "What's right for me is right for you. What's wrong for me is wrong for you." and it's foreign for that person to hear you say, "What's right for me is right for me and may not be right for you. What's wrong for me is wrong for me and may not be wrong for you." The two positions are at odds with each other and naturally lead to conflict or, at least, a lack of understanding. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 12:52:58 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...if that is all ruled out. If we have no known possibilities left, where does that leave us? |
It leaves us with "unexplained." It's also a Catch-22 for superstitious beliefs: a supernatural explanation at that point would be totally unfounded unless some evidence is presented, but any tangible/verifiable evidence offered would suggest a natural explanation. |
OK, we can agree then. if "unexplained" doesn't have any preconceived notion where the ultimate answer will reside, then it's all good. If it does, then we're back to the argument from before. I guess my feeling is that nobody is that open-minded in reality. Everybody has their preconceived notions and operates on them. |
No it means we just don't know what the natural answer is. You seem hellbent in believing there is an alternative to the natural despite zero evidence for one.. By your logic Isaac Newton should have tried to explain that apple with supernatural explanations rather than to keep at it and dig for a natural one.
Message edited by author 2009-04-10 12:55:27. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 12:55:48 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That's another issue I have with you, Jason, I do not accept YOUR view that absolute morality is possible only through God.....for that very reason....because YOU say so.
It's your view, and your opinion.
Morality is fluid......it's patently obvious simply by observing other cultures. There are some things we do that are wholly immoral in other societies and cultures that are outright blasphemous, and some things that are done elsewhere are incomprehensible to us.
And that's the shift in morality. I think it's fundamentally imp[ossible to even state what absolute morality is simply because by definition, it HAS to be different to different societies.
Either that, ot it has to be very basic and simple to be able to cross cultural lines. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, it certainly is my view and opinion, but I think it's logically true. I forgot that I had discovered at the end of the last time we had this conversation that I am using some confusing language. Perhaps I should straighten that out.
When I speak about absolute morality, I mean Moral Universalism. I do not feel one can adhere to Moral Universalism without subscribing to some Supreme Being. Read the wiki and get back to me with your thoughts. |
And I didn't mean to take anything from your viewe by that statement, rather that our views will differ if for no other reason that we are different. This quote below kind of eliminates the whole Supreme Being arguments simply because in order for the morality to be universal, it has to cross over the lines of religion for the people who just don't believe in a Supreme Being.
Moral universalism (also called universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals", regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or other distinguishing feature.
One advantage that I feel I have is an 84 year old friend of mine who is an absolute atheist and yet he's one of the people I most admire for his sense of morality and ethics.
He walked with Dr. King, he was instrumental in the formation and upholding equal rights activities all over the country, he is/was a physics professor, and he's just about the kindest,. most decent person I know. He's in my small group at church, and I have had the pleasure of gettinmg to know him REALLY well.....and I am proud and humbled to call him my good friend.
I strive to be as good, decent, and kind of a human being as he. If anything, he reinforces my belief that morality as it applies to living on this earth is directly in the hands of the society/species.
Anywho....back to you, Doc!.....8>)
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 12:59:21 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
ETA: In the case of abortion I'm on the fence. That is to say, I'm pro choice HOWEVER, I understand the oppositions want to end abortion and the views that it stems from. I believe it is a truly debatable subject and holds a lot of moral dilemmas because there is some entity involved without a say. |
I'd like to state my stance on this, which seems, to me anyway, to be a total no-brainer.....
What on earth gives any male any right to tell any woman what she can or cannot do with her body?
The idea that some male could tell some woman that she must incur the risk of pregnancy to term is reprehensible.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:00:45 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
But if you do know about God and you reject God, you'll end up in his absence. Your choice. |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Shall I assume that this God you speak of could be one of several denominations.
Ray |
Originally posted by Nullix:
That isn't the Christian way of thinking. The Christian way of thinking is that there is only one God, not several.
However, if you mean one God who is know by serveral denominations, then yes. |
Okay, fine.....which denomination is "Righter" about their version?
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:08:01 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by yanko:
No it means we just don't know what the natural answer is. You seem hellbent in believing there is an alternative to the natural despite zero evidence for one.. By your logic Isaac Newton should have tried to explain that apple with supernatural explanations rather than to keep at it and dig for a natural one. |
I never said to stop trying for the natural explanation and your first sentence is "closed".
I've used this analogy before an I think it's appropriate. Tyler sets out to dig a hole to the center of the earth (we'll just assume the earth is solid dirt for this thought experiment). He starts digging and each shovel of dirt looks the same as the last as he progresses downward. What he does not know is that he is digging inside a metal railroad boxcar that is buried in the ground and not visible. His shovel cannot dig through the boxcar wall.
The dirt represents knowledge of the natural world. As we dig we progress in our understanding of the natural world. Each shovelful, or discovery, reveals more dirt and there appears to be no impediment to the ultimate goal of complete knowledge (getting to the center of the earth). However, the hidden boxcar represents a limitation to our knowledge that we cannot overcome. The takehome message is that Tyler's experience is exactly the same as someone who is not digging in that boxcar up until the very point he comes across the metal wall and cannot proceed. One cannot point back at all our successful natural discoveries and say with assurance that our path to complete knowledge is unimpeded or possible. It only takes one unanswerable discovery to throw the entire system off and reveal that natural explanations may not be sufficient. Whether or not you think that will happen is opinion, but each opinion is valid. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:16:47 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
No it means we just don't know what the natural answer is. You seem hellbent in believing there is an alternative to the natural despite zero evidence for one.. By your logic Isaac Newton should have tried to explain that apple with supernatural explanations rather than to keep at it and dig for a natural one. |
I never said to stop trying for the natural explanation and your first sentence is "closed".
I've used this analogy before an I think it's appropriate. Tyler sets out to dig a hole to the center of the earth (we'll just assume the earth is solid dirt for this thought experiment). He starts digging and each shovel of dirt looks the same as the last as he progresses downward. What he does not know is that he is digging inside a metal railroad boxcar that is buried in the ground and not visible. His shovel cannot dig through the boxcar wall.
The dirt represents knowledge of the natural world. As we dig we progress in our understanding of the natural world. Each shovelful, or discovery, reveals more dirt and there appears to be no impediment to the ultimate goal of complete knowledge (getting to the center of the earth). However, the hidden boxcar represents a limitation to our knowledge that we cannot overcome. The takehome message is that Tyler's experience is exactly the same as someone who is not digging in that boxcar up until the very point he comes across the metal wall and cannot proceed. One cannot point back at all our successful natural discoveries and say with assurance that our path to complete knowledge is unimpeded or possible. It only takes one unanswerable discovery to throw the entire system off and reveal that natural explanations may not be sufficient. Whether or not you think that will happen is opinion, but each opinion is valid. |
Huh? When you reach the metal of the boxcar, you merely begin digging in other directions until you fully reveal the full boxcar, gain an understanding of what was impeding you, and then begin digging again from another vantage point. Which happens all the time in the real-world side of your analogy. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:23:48 PM · #265 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
No it means we just don't know what the natural answer is. You seem hellbent in believing there is an alternative to the natural despite zero evidence for one.. By your logic Isaac Newton should have tried to explain that apple with supernatural explanations rather than to keep at it and dig for a natural one. |
I never said to stop trying for the natural explanation and your first sentence is "closed".
I've used this analogy before an I think it's appropriate. Tyler sets out to dig a hole to the center of the earth (we'll just assume the earth is solid dirt for this thought experiment). He starts digging and each shovel of dirt looks the same as the last as he progresses downward. What he does not know is that he is digging inside a metal railroad boxcar that is buried in the ground and not visible. His shovel cannot dig through the boxcar wall.
The dirt represents knowledge of the natural world. As we dig we progress in our understanding of the natural world. Each shovelful, or discovery, reveals more dirt and there appears to be no impediment to the ultimate goal of complete knowledge (getting to the center of the earth). However, the hidden boxcar represents a limitation to our knowledge that we cannot overcome. The takehome message is that Tyler's experience is exactly the same as someone who is not digging in that boxcar up until the very point he comes across the metal wall and cannot proceed. One cannot point back at all our successful natural discoveries and say with assurance that our path to complete knowledge is unimpeded or possible. It only takes one unanswerable discovery to throw the entire system off and reveal that natural explanations may not be sufficient. Whether or not you think that will happen is opinion, but each opinion is valid. |
Huh? When you reach the metal of the boxcar, you merely begin digging in other directions until you fully reveal the full boxcar, gain an understanding of what was impeding you, and then begin digging again from another vantage point. Which happens all the time in the real-world side of your analogy. |
It's an analogy and shouldn't be taken beyond what it is worth. The boxcar represents a limitation on knowledge. For purposes of the thought experiment, you cannot get out of the boxcar. Certainly you can keep digging all the dirt out that is inside it, but you cannot achieve your goal (getting to the center of the earth). The reality of our situation is that even given an infinite amount of time, we may not discover all the secrets of the universe and some of those unsolvable problems may be the smoking gun for another reality (ie. a "non-natural" one).
The analogy actually also reveals that we are most definitely in a boxcar in the sense each of us has a limited life. I think we can all agree we will not competely understand the universe before you or I die. So we are forced to make the guess as to whether this will be achieved after our death or not, but it is impossible to gain enough information to allow that guess to be assured as truth. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:24:05 PM · #266 |
Doc, I won't quote all of that mainly because my iPhone won't let me so I'll just answer here. How can you be open minded when you offer up hypetheticals that are suppose to make me believe that somethings are unanswerable. How in your limited existence on this planet (let alone humanity's) do you come to such a conclusion? If thats not close minded I don't know what is.
Message edited by author 2009-04-10 13:29:04. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:28:29 PM · #267 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=K10DGuy]
It's an analogy and shouldn't be taken beyond what it is worth. The boxcar represents a limitation on knowledge. For purposes of the thought experiment, you cannot get out of the boxcar. Certainly you can keep digging all the dirt out that is inside it, but you cannot achieve your goal (getting to the center of the earth). The reality of our situation is that even given an infinite amount of time, we may not discover all the secrets of the universe and some of those unsolvable problems may be the smoking gun for another reality (ie. a "non-natural" one).
The analogy actually also reveals that we are most definitely in a boxcar in the sense each of us has a limited life. I think we can all agree we will not competely understand the universe before you or I die. So we are forced to make the guess as to whether this will be achieved after our death or not, but it is impossible to gain enough information to allow that guess to be assured as truth. |
I'm sorry, but that's just completely off-the-wall.
Obviously we'll never understand EVERYTHING, but that analogy is an analogy of closed-thinking. Humanity doesn't generally dig themselves into a corner and then sit there pouting about it. I'm also now lost again on where exactly you're going. Are you saying 'we can't explain everything, therefore there must be a god'? Or are you just now arguing for the sake of arguing?
Message edited by author 2009-04-10 13:33:23. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:33:42 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...if that is all ruled out. If we have no known possibilities left, where does that leave us? |
It leaves us with "unexplained." It's also a Catch-22 for superstitious beliefs: a supernatural explanation at that point would be totally unfounded unless some evidence is presented, but any tangible/verifiable evidence offered would suggest a natural explanation. |
OK, we can agree then. if "unexplained" doesn't have any preconceived notion where the ultimate answer will reside, then it's all good. If it does, then we're back to the argument from before. I guess my feeling is that nobody is that open-minded in reality. Everybody has their preconceived notions and operates on them. |
No it means we just don't know what the natural answer is. You seem hellbent in believing there is an alternative to the natural despite zero evidence for one.. By your logic Isaac Newton should have tried to explain that apple with supernatural explanations rather than to keep at it and dig for a natural one. |
To put it into perspective, if your house was robbed without obvious signs of forced entry, you wouldn't consider the possibility that it was burglarized by Bugs Bunny. Maybe if investigators found white gloves, gray fur and traces of celluloid film at the scene, you'd raise a skeptical eyebrow, but an animated figure probably still wouldn't be on the menu for consideration because no cartoon characters have EVER been shown to actually exist. Even if you don't have any evidence, there's no plausible reason to expect the suspect will be a cartoon character. Most people treat fairies, unicorns, mermaids and Zeus the same way. It doesn't make you closed-minded to discount the entire class of cartoon characters as possible culprits, but it WOULD make you closed-minded to declare that Bugs Bunny was the burglar and stop there. At that point, you're claiming that you KNOW the culprit (without any actual evidence) and discounting other possibilities. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:41:30 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Obviously we'll never understand EVERYTHING, but that analogy is an analogy of closed-thinking. Humanity doesn't generally dig themselves into a corner and then sit there pouting about it. I'm also now lost again on where exactly you're going. Are you saying 'we can't explain everything, therefore there must be a god'? Or are you just now arguing for the sake of arguing? |
What he said. If you dug up every square inch of the boxcar, you would have a complete understanding of your environment- its size, shape, hardness, texture, etc., but anything beyond simply remains unknown. It would not in any way validate an assertion that mermaids or Smurfs lie just beyond the barrier. Believing that they do in spite of the obvious barrier to any evidence is not open-mindedness. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:45:13 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Doc, I won't quote all of that mainly because my iPhone won't let me so I'll just answer here. How can you be open minded when you offer up hypetheticals that are suppose to make me believe that somethings are unanswerable. How in your limited existence on this planet (let alone humanity's) do you come to such a conclusion? If thats not close minded I don't know what is. |
Maybe it makes more sense if I approach it this way. Some of us believe in a dual nature. The natural world isn't all there is. People who only believe in a natural world tend to ask, "where's the proof in that?". My question to you is, what would that proof look like? It would look like an unsolvable problem that we cannot answer (the "moving lampshade" or consciousness or abiogenesis or the anthropic principle or something). As we progress along answering questions we come across, every one is possible proof for this alternate reality. Most of the questions we've come across, so far, are not that proof. Certainly none of the ones we have satisfactory natural answers for. But it only takes one and that question will not look any different than any other question until we realize we just can't answer it.
Someone tells you that some quarters have a smiley face stamped on the back instead of the usual "tails". Every quarter you come across looks the same on the heads side and you flip them over and it's always the usual tails. Using the information you have so far, can you be assured that the next one you flip isn't going to have the smiley staring back at you?
Message edited by author 2009-04-10 13:46:55. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:46:13 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Obviously we'll never understand EVERYTHING, but that analogy is an analogy of closed-thinking. Humanity doesn't generally dig themselves into a corner and then sit there pouting about it. I'm also now lost again on where exactly you're going. Are you saying 'we can't explain everything, therefore there must be a god'? Or are you just now arguing for the sake of arguing? |
What he said. If you dug up every square inch of the boxcar, you would have a complete understanding of your environment- its size, shape, hardness, texture, etc., but anything beyond simply remains unknown. It would not in any way validate an assertion that mermaids or Smurfs lie just beyond the barrier. Believing that they do in spite of the obvious barrier to any evidence is not open-mindedness. |
Believing that they do could in spite of the obvious barrier to any evidence is not open-mindedness.
Message edited by author 2009-04-10 13:46:22. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:58:02 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As we progress along answering questions we come across, every one is possible proof for this alternate reality. Most of the questions we've come across, so far, are not that proof. Certainly none of the ones we have satisfactory natural answers for. But it only takes one and that question will not look any different than any other question until we realize we just can't answer it.
Someone tells you that some quarters have a smiley face stamped on the back instead of the usual "tails". Every quarter you come across looks the same on the heads side and you flip them over and it's always the usual tails. Using the information you have so far, can you be assured that the next one you flip isn't going to have the smiley staring back at you? |
A quarter could be made to have smiley face in it without breaking any laws of physics or nature. You're free to believe that some quarters can magically transform into a live duck and we just haven't found one yet, but don't expect everyone to share your optimism (particularly when you also claim that similar ancient beliefs in money that could change into waterfowl were just myths). |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:59:13 PM · #273 |
Doc
If someone told me that I'd be skeptical. Your point? If I told you I am god will you consider that a possibliity? |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 02:03:47 PM · #274 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As we progress along answering questions we come across, every one is possible proof for this alternate reality. Most of the questions we've come across, so far, are not that proof. Certainly none of the ones we have satisfactory natural answers for. But it only takes one and that question will not look any different than any other question until we realize we just can't answer it.
Someone tells you that some quarters have a smiley face stamped on the back instead of the usual "tails". Every quarter you come across looks the same on the heads side and you flip them over and it's always the usual tails. Using the information you have so far, can you be assured that the next one you flip isn't going to have the smiley staring back at you? |
A quarter could be made to have smiley face in it without breaking any laws of physics or nature. You're free to believe that some quarters can magically transform into a live duck and we just haven't found one yet, but don't expect everyone to share your optimism (particularly when you also claim that similar ancient beliefs in money that could change into waterfowl were just myths). |
At this point we are just expressing axiomatic positions and both are unassailable. You have all the evidence in the world to back your position up while I have the fact that you can never get enough evidence to dislodge me from my own position. We therefore stand unmoved as we land blow after blow upon the other. At some point I guess we realize the futility of the fighting and just accept the other position as valid. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 02:04:14 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Doc
If someone told me that I'd be skeptical. Your point? If I told you I am god will you consider that a possibliity? |
No, I already have enough evidence against that theory. ;) |
|
