Originally posted by twhiteheadIts merely a suggestion, i cannot force you to ask for a slice of cake for your experiment in deduction and I do not see the point in providing any Biblical verses either as you have no regard for their validity.
Can't make up your mind can you?
You gave the cake as an example of something for which you cannot deduce the 'why' by examining the ingredients. When I challenge you, you keep on insisting that I do examine the ingredients - and you are even claiming that it might be possible to deduce the 'why' from the ingredients.
And you still haven't been able to find the appropriate verse in the Bible that tells me why the cake was made.
Now of course the illustration of cake was actually awesome for it well illustrates the matter at hand, that is by simply examining how the universe works, its almost impossible to tell why it came into existence and thus science is entirely redundant in this regard and Agers claim that we can use science to make sense of life, when in fact it cannot be adequately used to answer a philosophical question like 'what is art' (a Mandelbrot set may be considered art but its not a definition of art in itself) and we can see how thoroughly deficient science is in this regard. The point is of course that the materialist thinks that science is a panacea for all when it fact for certain things its essentially useless, like telling us why the universe came into existence.
Now if you would like to get your slice of universe and subject it to the scientific method, perhaps you can offer some kind of rational reason why my words are erroneous and how we can use science to tell us 'what is art' and 'why the universe came into existence'.
I propose an alternative hypothesis that people are so dumb because they think that science is a panacea for all.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is irrelevant whether I actually ask for a slice. You originally claimed that observing the slice would tell us nothing whatsoever - now you have done a complete turnaround and are saying that observing the slice will tell us something.
Its merely a suggestion, i cannot force you to ask for a slice of cake for your experiment in deduction
Fail.
and I do not see the point in providing any Biblical verses either as you have no regard for their validity.
In other words, you have no such verses, but rather than admit it, will continue to offer these ridiculous excuses.
Fail.
Now of course the illustration of cake was actually awesome for it well illustrates the matter at hand, that is by simply examining how the universe works, its almost impossible to tell why it came into existence ...
Yet oddly enough you keep asking for a slice of cake - contradicting your original claim.
So, do you, or do you not, admit that you do not have any method whatsoever for determining why the cake was made?
If you have a method, please present it. If you do not have a method, please admit it.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadbut you said your neighbor baked a cake only yesterday, if that was not an opportunity to test my hypothesis then i don't know what is. NO FAIL simply the realization that science is useless for telling us how to make sense of our lives and for that we need metaphysics.
It is irrelevant whether I actually ask for a slice. You originally claimed that observing the slice would tell us nothing whatsoever - now you have done a complete turnaround and are saying that observing the slice will tell us something.
Fail.
[b]and I do not see the point in providing any Biblical verses either as you have no regard for their valid ...[text shortened]... as made?
If you have a method, please present it. If you do not have a method, please admit it.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFail.
but you said your neighbor baked a cake only yesterday, if that was not an opportunity to test my hypothesis then i don't know what is. NO FAIL simply the realization that science is useless for telling us how to make sense of our lives and for that we need metaphysics.
You can't answer the question can you? What is this metaphysics that you wish to use to determine why the cake was made? You can't say. Instead you keep running around in circles refusing to answer a simple question regarding the cake example you yourself brought up.
The best you could come up with was to tell me to examine the cakes ingredients - which is essentially the very science you claim is useless for the task.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is no fail. Science has been shown to be wholly inadequate in answering even basic questions, why this should be difficult to understand I cannot say. Perhaps thats the reason you seem intent on making it personal. Who can tell?
Fail.
You can't answer the question can you? What is this metaphysics that you wish to use to determine why the cake was made? You can't say. Instead you keep running around in circles refusing to answer a simple question regarding the cake example you yourself brought up.
The best you could come up with was to tell me to examine the cakes ingredients - which is essentially the very science you claim is useless for the task.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is nothing personal about it. I asked you to explain what this 'metaphysics' is and how it can solve the problem of why a cake was made.
There is no fail. Science has been shown to be wholly inadequate in answering even basic questions, why this should be difficult to understand I cannot say. Perhaps thats the reason you seem intent on making it personal. Who can tell?
You failed to answer.
You claim science is inadequate, but then when asked about cakes, you immediately promote science as the solution.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieScience fails to answer even the BASIC questions? Like the fact that we live on a planet a few thousand miles across but the universe is billions of light years across and we are supposed to come up with correct answers as to why and how we got here?
There is no fail. Science has been shown to be wholly inadequate in answering even basic questions, why this should be difficult to understand I cannot say. Perhaps thats the reason you seem intent on making it personal. Who can tell?
I think scientists are doing a good job right now but the fact they don't have all the answers just tells me you are grousing at the idea they are human after all and don't have supernatural ability but have to figure everything out the hard way, using reason and evidence.
So like evolution, 200 years ago there weren't even any fossils to examine much less classify till Darwin came along, and showed a flawed but important way life works.
You make all these ridiculous charges that science can't even answer the basic questions when in fact science in TOTAL is less than 400 years old.
So why don't you instead just hold off on the huge generalities so science can actually ANSWER those basic questions?
You are calling scientists down for being human. That is not even a LITTLE bit fair.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by sonhouseI believe he is mainly referring to those scientists who are willingly ignorant of God and His creation.
Science fails to answer even the BASIC questions? Like the fact that we live on a planet a few thousand miles across but the universe is billions of light years across and we are supposed to come up with correct answers as to why and how we got here?
I think scientists are doing a good job right now but the fact they don't have all the answers just tell ...[text shortened]... stions?
You are calling scientists down for being human. That is not even a LITTLE bit fair.
08 Jul 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59If I may, I hold that intelligence tests are merely sophisticated forms of trickery, designed to misdirect the participant's attention while stealing his wallet.
This old chestnut is put about by people who fail IQ tests!!!
Granted the old IQ tests were very fallible, and granted that modern tests
have wide margin of error. BUT they are the only way.
A test requires a tester, requires a person(s) responsible for gathering and then winnowing the questions, who then determines the acceptable responses.
Of that same person(s), the test requires a valuation for each response and some sort of graduated scale for the results.
The test also requires participants and an audience--- sometimes, often times, overlapping.
The first question which must be asked when considering intelligence tests: what is their purpose?
If the response is related to gauging intelligence or some such nondescript generality, do not pass go or collect $200.
The last seven words preceding this sentence testify for the defense; only those who understand the reference can make any sense of the phrase.
This is what skews intelligence tests to such a degree as to render them nearly useless.
But more to the point.
Is intelligence by any standard a desirable thing?
What is the desirable thing?
09 Jul 14
Originally posted by RBHILLThe thing is that no one can do anything unless he or she is given the ability to do it. Atheists can take for granted these things.
Because atheists are so prideful and think that they can do things on their own. So they don't need a god.
An atheist could not even tie his shoes, blink his eyes, use his fingers, and even spit. We all can take many things for granted.
Our Creator is over us. He allows all of us, who can, to do even very simple things.
09 Jul 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn many cases all science does is bring about more questions
There is no fail. Science has been shown to be wholly inadequate in answering even basic questions, why this should be difficult to understand I cannot say. Perhaps thats the reason you seem intent on making it personal. Who can tell?
Manny