june gloom on 6/8/2009 at 21:00
If there is no hell, one will be custom-made just for fett.
Beleg Cúthalion on 6/8/2009 at 21:01
Quote Posted by mol
The thing about science is, it doesn't presume to be 100% accurate, like religion does. Science is falsifiable, religion is not.
Do you know the evil word dogmatics? It's a field of theology that thinks about the whole religious concept and adapts it to present times, present methods and of course the status quo in science. This is by no means a presumption of being 100% accurate, while on the other hand evolution and simple natural laws are almost always thrown before us as done and unchangeable.
I should write all that stuff into my signature.
fett on 6/8/2009 at 21:09
Quote Posted by dethtoll
If there is no hell, one will be custom-made just for fett.
Complete with 24/7 Tarantino films and Nick Fucking Cave piped into the room where I'll be ass raped repeatedly by a Wal-Mart CEO while my mother-in-law recounts everything she heard on Sean Hannity last night. Actually that's not too far off from my life right now... :erm:
DDL on 6/8/2009 at 21:11
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I'm more worried about which one fett intends to hit.
Those antlers look, like, painful.
One man's antlers are another man's handholds....
Er...so to speak.
Also, Beleg: you know this whole "theory of evolution", thing? The key part is the first word. Theory. Yes, thus far NOTHING has successfully disproved it, but like all scientific theories, it's not empirically provable. You could disprove it with a single demonstrative experiment. The fact that nobody yet has lends an AWFUL lot of weight to the argument, however.
So yeah: don't tar evolution with that 'lol faith-based fact' brush plzkthx.
mol on 6/8/2009 at 21:16
Evolution and simple natural laws are all subject to the scientific method. They are only "done and unchangeable" until they're not. That's the beauty of science - nothing is ever considered as immutable. We may have discovered immutable things, but science doesn't presume that. Again, science is falsifiable. Religion is not.
Chimpy Chompy on 6/8/2009 at 21:41
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
while on the other hand evolution and simple natural laws are almost always thrown before us as done and unchangeable.
I should write all that stuff into my signature.
I wouldn't bother, that bit about science is wrong.
Chade on 6/8/2009 at 21:54
Quote Posted by Herr_Garrett
Can you come up with anything entirely new, totally unprecedented and not originating in any way from this world?
No.
That alone pretty much proves you are finite. And if you examine yourself, you find there are points over/beyond which you cannot go. You cannot
know what happens after death (even if it is a seeming one), what happened before your birth/creation, that sort of thing.
First of all, there is a difference between
bounded and
finite. In our universe of pure reason, I can drop a pencil on a piece of paper, and I will never drop it on exactly the same point (not to be confused with "it cannot happen"). That's infinity right there. Within very strict bounds. So you've got your terms wrong, although it's not all that important.
My main critisicm of this is: how can you call this "pure reason"? What's pure reason about assuming that your memory accurately accounts for your past? I don't actually have any problems with saying that you are a "bounded being" ... but that's a scientific hypothesis, not a product of pure reason. We can only decide whether it is true or not by assuming that we can accurately observe things.
Quote Posted by Herr_Garrett
The existence of a finite thing proves the existence of the infinite. It is only logical. If you have 1 (one) thing in the whole world which is finite, then the rest is endless. The infinite contains the finite. Yes, now you say that in the endless has something with ends in it, it cannot be endless. But fact is, from the point of view of the infinite, the borders of the finite are totally arbitrary and might as well not even be there.
Now this is where you really lose me. I just went through each sentence, and literally not a single one of is correct. Why does a finite set B have to be contained within an infinite set A? That makes absolutely no sense. And if an infinite set A contains a finite set B, why would I think about arguing that set A therefore cannot be infinite? That's nuts. And why is the location of set B arbitrary relative to infinite set A? That's nuts as well!
This entire paragraph is just using wishy washy definitions to come up with wishy washy inductions to reach wishy washy conclusions that make absolutely no sense at all.
Beleg Cúthalion on 6/8/2009 at 21:56
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
I dunno what to do with that except shrug, move on and stick with the empirical.
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
I wouldn't bother, that bit about science [being presented as unchangeable which it IMHO isn't] is wrong.
Yeah, of course I guess you feel better sticking to your unsure empirical because you can touch it... :p But right now it seems that I either miss a great part of what you want to tell me or things like this and that one:
Quote Posted by mol
...nothing is ever considered as immutable. We may have discovered immutable things, but science doesn't presume that.
...just seem to contradict each other unless the "we" part in "we may have discovered immutable things" refers to an unscientific group. I wish I could throw in something about epistemology but usually that's something I don't deal with. At least in this respect I'm not alone.
Turtle on 6/8/2009 at 22:34
I wish you could throw in some facts.
That'd be cool.
Aja on 6/8/2009 at 22:41
what the fuck Dig Lazarus Dig was a pretty good record
