Science, Proof and Meaning

i would like to add that this is only a line of logic. i don't believe it and will gladly replace it with a different notion if you can present one that makes more sense to me.

 

What we think, and are able to observe about the universe doesn't matter. Something either is, or isn't. Lacking the ability to observe something does not mean there is something to be observed, this is senseless by definition. It means either that you simply cannot observe it, or there is nothing to observe.

I do not claim that there is no more than what we can observe, but asserting that there is more is again, senseless.

What are "better" faculties?

 

the senses, brain function, overall health, level of technology, and i would have to include vantage point as a factor.

i didn't assert that anything specific existed, just that there is obviously more than what i perceive-unless other peoples' observations are invalid.

 

I thought you meant that there is more than is possible to perceive.

i'm still not convinced i really understand you though....

 

that's ok

 

He's saying that because other people have perceived things that he has not, if we allow the validity of the observations of others, the conclussion therefore is that there are things which exist which are not perceived by him (but are perceived by others, who communicate their perception).

 

Oh, i thought that was understood already.

Its why we consider why something is possible.

 

It would be a waste of time. Talking about God's existence in terms of probabilities is pretentious nonsense. Unwin's assumptions are as reasonable as any, but are just that, and he acknowledges this. He uses a Bayesian equation to calculate a 67% probability that God exists, but admits "this number has a subjective element since it reflects my assessment of the evidence." Atheist Michael Schermer has applied his formula to produce a different probability: 2%. Unwin would have no objection; he made his point, which was to illustrate the form a probabilistic mathematical answer would take. And that's as good as it gets.

You seem to be incorrect, for reasons previously explained, unless you're making the seemingly trivial point that since Atheism includes soft as well as hard varieties, it collectively doesn't function to describe a single belief.

 

Heeh:

lol

The 'fact' of observation means there is always more to it.

What do you desire to observe?

 

"More" describes a quantity greater than what already is. The idea that there is "More" than what is, is impossible.

I'd like to know how you came up with this rhetoric.

On the other hand, you still haven't explained how the belief called 'Atheism' by itself, is capable of causing unreasonable action. You've only asserted that is has.

 

Heeh:

Infinity. Motion as proof.

 

I don't have enough information to answer you. (or have the knowledge to use your information)

Could you please explain your propositions?

 

Reality is emergent.

 

Heeh:

Infinity is the difference.

I may say "there is always more to existence", you may counter with "existence is what it is, no more" at which point we have to look critically at the nature of existence itself.

 

between what...

observing motion, and observing motions quantity are different things.

So the universe changes, and bends to our opinion?

Edit: I also dont understand: "The 'fact' of observation means there is always more to it."

 

We change our minds to perceive novel corridors of refraction.

 

Heeh:

Our separate conceptions of the universe, apparently. You say the idea that there is more than 'what is' to the universe is impossible, but it isn't.

You may say infinity = infinity, therefore the universe is only ever what it is (which is true), but you don't seem to acknowledge the paradox that infinity, by virtue of what it is, is forever becoming what it is, hence 'more'.

Really? Do you mean to speak of measurement?

As a conscious part of the universe, we are not only passive, surely?

The universe creates itself-------You human creators! What are you waiting for?! lol

The observers, the 'act' of observation is ongoing.


By the way, what are your thoughts on the big mushroom party? I know Lunarverse is coming! thedope'll be there too. Anyone else?!

 

The word universe takes infinity into account. If infinity 'is', then that is what you are saying when you speak of the universe.

'what is' would include all, and everything you could imagine could be added, because it is what is.

You can not add anything to what is.

My human brain cannot comprehend an event without a beginning, but i believe the universe has always been because we are here and any explanation given would be paradoxical and "Turtle all the way down".

A forever increasing value will always be a forever increasing value, and always has been.

I have no reason to think otherwise.....

Its even selfish to think we are even the only conscious beings that could be.

If we are the creators, what does that make the other conscious animals

I'l be there

 

The word? The "universe" is infinite (that is to say, a word for infinity) but ≠ 1

Yes.

Yes.

lol I think you mean subtract.

And so always becoming more.

Observing motion and observing its 'quantity'---you say there's a difference here, but you'd have to be more specific for me to see it.

Try smiling at people, see what happens!

Why would I think that?!

We learned how to laugh first, that's just how it is. Let's not abuse the pecking order. If we give the microbes time to reach us we'll have the planet of the apes on our hands in no time. lol

Good to hear!

 

tomato tomahto

If I did mean subtract like you are proposing, we could apply newtons third law of equal and opposites that would again leave us with what is.

Infinity only really increases if you try and measure it. Otherwise, it just exists. We have events and we perform actions here on planet earth and our mammalian brains are designed to calculate these things. For a number to continually increase, it would have to have started somewhere.

I realize any first cause explanation is paradoxical, but when all is said and done, we still exist.
I do understand the fact that I exist, and I am satisfied with this conclusion. existence doesn't require anything else, apparently.

Since the 3rd grade i can remember being jokingly ridiculed for smiling so much.

Well, i thought you were saying that our minds are creating this universe.

I'm not so sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughter_in_animals