more science v religion

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 2:32 pm From my perspective there is NO ACTUAL 'neurotypical' as EVERY human being is 'autistic' in some degree or another.

And, from what i have observed in this forum, with my complete lack of ability to be understood, i still appear to be the MOST autistic one here.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:54 pm Please stop there, and don't start again.
Age wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 3:54 am Do NOT tell me what to do or what NOT to do.
A request is customarily begun with "Please"; an instruction takes an imperative form.
So, what is your INSTRUCTION here, which began with the 'please' word, called or labeled as?
Pattern-chaser wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:52 pm
As to your "complete lack of ability to be understood" here, I think there are more obvious possibilities. Let's bear in mind that I'm a new arrival here, and really don't know you at all. But, from our brief conversation here, several possibilities occur to me:
  • You SHOUT a lot, instead of emphasising your words, strongly or more gently.
I have NEVER shouted ONCE throughout these writings in this forum.

WHY did you even BEGIN to ASSUME I shouted ONCE, let alone a LOT?
Pattern-chaser wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:52 pm [*]Sometimes your non-standard punctuation and capitalisation combine to make your intended meaning less clear.
Do you KNOW, FULLY, what my intended meaning IS, EXACTLY?

If yes, then HOW?

But if no, then HOW do you KNOW that the way I write makes my INTENDED meaning less clear?

What is so-called 'non-standard punctuation' in relation to, EXACTLY?
Pattern-chaser wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:52 pm [*]You seem to rant, accuse and assert, with little courtesy, discussion, or inquiry.
WITHOUT ANY examples AT ALL, your CLAIM here could be just one WHOLE MISCONSTRUED MISINTERPRETATION.

So, if you do NOT provide absolutely ANY examples, then we have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Therefore, we will NEVER KNOW, for sure, if what you CLAIM here has absolutely ANY Truth in it or NOT.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:52 pm [*]You seem to demand absolute and all-embracing definitions, when such precision is impossible, and maybe inappropriate or unnecessary.
[/list]
Saying and claiming, "providing PRECISE definitions for the WORDS one actually CHOOSES to USE IS IMPOSSIBLE", sounds like the BIGGEST EXCUSE for one's OWN INABILITIES.

If one can NOT provide the precise definitions for the words that they are exclaiming, especially in a philosophy forum, then there is THE IRREFUTABLE PROOF that that one, literally, does NOT know what they are actually talking about.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:52 pm I offer these suggestions in response to your complaint; I assert nothing. Like I said, I barely know you, and could be completely mistaken.
What, EXACTLY, do you PERCEIVE is 'my complaint'?

Pattern-chaser wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:52 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:54 pm You obviously have no idea of what autism is, and this is not the right topic, or maybe forum, to enlighten you. Thank you. 👍
Age wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 3:54 am Or, maybe you are just NOT ABLE TO, and are now just 'trying to' DEFLECT.
If you like to think so, then perhaps it is so. Autism is very difficult to describe in a meaningful and useful way, so perhaps you're right.
'Autism' is NOT AT ALL difficult to describe in a Truly meaningful and useful way.

HERE, I will provide AN EXAMPLE:

'Autism' is a developmental disorder of variable severity that is characterized by difficulty in social interaction and communication and by restricted or repetitive patterns of thought and behaviour.

EVERY adult human being has a developed mental disorder, of varying severity, which is characterized by difficulty in social interaction and communication, as can be especially exampled by one's OWN difficulty of communication where they ACTUALLY BELIEVE that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for absolutely ANY one, forever more, to provide absolute and all-embracing definitions for the words that are ACTUALLY BEING USED by the EXACT SAME species.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:57 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 3:58 am Now, would you like to get back to explaining how it could even be a POSSIBILITY that a human being could 'LOGICALLY' make the CLAIM, for example, that the Truth could NEVER be known by ANY human being, forever more?
Just as we cannot fly (under our own power) because we don't have wings, so knowing access to Objective Reality is denied to us because our senses/perception/etc are insufficient to that need.
Do you KNOW that absolutely EVERY thing human beings HAVE ACHIEVED was once thought of as being ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE?

The SAME applies to those human beings who think or BELIEVE that 'Objective Reality' is ALSO an ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY. That is; once this HAS BEEN ACHIEVED, which it HAS ALREADY, by the way, then 'it' is NOT an ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY, ANYMORE.

Also, and you appear to have STILL NOT YET RECOGNIZED and NOTICED this, BUT if we cannot fly (under our own power), forever more, because we do not have wings, then this IS Objective Reality. Which, AGAIN, means your CLAIM here is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, TOO.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:57 pm Until we grow wings, and gain 'Gods-eye-view' perception, both of these things will remain true. I think that will be "forever more".
It is GREAT to SEE you CHANGE 'your tune' here, as it is sometimes known as.

Now, gaining 'Gods-eye-view' has ALREADY BEEN ACHIEVED, well by some of us anyway, and HOW to gain 'Gods-eye-view' of things is REALLY VERY SIMPLE, and VERY EASY, as well.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:52 pm You SHOUT a lot, instead of emphasising your words, strongly or more gently.
Age wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:42 am I have NEVER shouted ONCE throughout these writings in this forum.
New Statesman wrote:There’s one convention that is incontestable: Typing in all caps is internet code for shouting, and it is rude.
Quote taken from "How capital letters became internet code for shouting" by Alice Robb.


I have not and will not respond to the rest of your ill-informed rant.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:32 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 1:52 pm You SHOUT a lot, instead of emphasising your words, strongly or more gently.
Age wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:42 am I have NEVER shouted ONCE throughout these writings in this forum.
New Statesman wrote:There’s one convention that is incontestable: Typing in all caps is internet code for shouting, and it is rude.
Quote taken from "How capital letters became internet code for shouting" by Alice Robb.


I have not and will not respond to the rest of your ill-informed rant.
LOL

What did I even say that was SUPPOSEDLY 'ill-informed'?

Your CLAIM of 'rant' is your OWN BELIEF, based on NO ACTUAL PROOF, other than your OWN PRESUMPTIONS.

I Truly HOPE that ALL of 'you' adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, PERCEIVED words in capital letters as SHOUTING. That way the ACTUAL MESSAGE/S I have been TRANSPIRING here will have FAR GREATER MEANING and IMPORTANCE when thee ACTUAL Truth is FINALLY SEEN and HEARD.

SEE, even IF I was SHOUTING 'you', adult human beings, were STILL TO BLIND and DEAF to SEE, HEAR, and RECOGNIZE 'them'.

SEE, when what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING is FINALLY FULLY UNDERSTOOD, then the ACTUAL REASON WHY I have been HIGHLIGHTING SOME words in CAPITAL LETTERS will BECOME all the MORE CLEARER. 'you', posters, here are just have to SHALLOW and NARROWED a view to SEE thee ACTUAL Truth, YET.

Oh, and by the way, the REASON I am NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTOOD is BECAUSE I am STILL in the process of LEARNING how to communicate with 'you', human beings. SEE, unlike 'you', I do NOT BLAME some thing ELSE for my lack of being UNDERSTOOD. If you want to BLAME YOUR 'autism' for YOUR lack of communicating skills, and/or the REASON WHY "others" can NOT understand you, then so be it.

But, for 'me', the REASON WHY I am NOT YET understood is SOLELY because of 'me', ALONE.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Age wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 2:50 am ...
SEE, even IF I was SHOUTING 'you', adult human beings, were STILL TO BLIND and DEAF to SEE, HEAR, and RECOGNIZE 'them'.
...


This is not philosophy. It's not even debate. It's just 🤬🤬anger🤬🤬. Are you always so 🤬🤬angry🤬🤬?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:35 pm
Age wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 2:50 am ...
SEE, even IF I was SHOUTING 'you', adult human beings, were STILL TO BLIND and DEAF to SEE, HEAR, and RECOGNIZE 'them'.
...


This is not philosophy. It's not even debate. It's just 🤬🤬anger🤬🤬. Are you always so 🤬🤬angry🤬🤬?
LOL Here is the PRIMEST of examples of just how BELIEF, itself, completely and utterly STOPS DEAD the ability for one to learn, understand, and KNOW more and what thee ACTUAL Truth if things is, EXACTLY, and PRECISELY.

WITHOUT CLARIFICATION, ASSUMING CAN LEAD one to complete Falsehoods, absolute Wrongness, and/or total Incorrectness.

As PROVED IRREFUTABLY True here through and from the words of "pattern-chaser" above.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: more science v religion

Post by Iwannaplato »

Pattern-chaser wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:35 pm
Age wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 2:50 am ...
SEE, even IF I was SHOUTING 'you', adult human beings, were STILL TO BLIND and DEAF to SEE, HEAR, and RECOGNIZE 'them'.
...


This is not philosophy. It's not even debate. It's just 🤬🤬anger🤬🤬. Are you always so 🤬🤬angry🤬🤬?
No, no. You misunderstand Age.
When Age says something about you that seems insulting, Age doesn't believe it. This means Age says it, but if you could prove Age was wrong Age would change Age's mind. It looks like an assertion of what Age believes is the truth or something he believes, but if you believe that it is you are incorrect and foolish.
When you say things about Age, you believe them. Age asserts. In Age's use of the word 'believe' this means you would never change your mind, even if presented evidence that you were wrong. Age does not need to demonstrate this because he is Age.

So, this means, if Age judges you, you should spend time trying to show that Age is wrong. Guilty until proven innocent.
But, if you say something about Age, then you need to spend time demonstrating this is true: Innocent until proven guilty.
If you think that is hilariously convenient for Age or an implicit double standard, you are showing that you are a human being.

Even when Age says
As PROVED IRREFUTABLY True here
it does not mean Age believes it, because Age unlike human beings, doesn't believe things that are proved irrefutably, except for one important thing that isn't about you personally. Everything for Age is tentatively held. Age's assertions are not assertions. What Age says as if it is true may not be and Age knows that.

So, if you get angry at Age for seeming angry and insulting or asserting lots of things about you, this just shows that you are a human being. When you transcend being human, like Age has, then you can say whatever you like and look down on humans, while not believing anything.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:30 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:35 pm
Age wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 2:50 am ...
SEE, even IF I was SHOUTING 'you', adult human beings, were STILL TO BLIND and DEAF to SEE, HEAR, and RECOGNIZE 'them'.
...


This is not philosophy. It's not even debate. It's just 🤬🤬anger🤬🤬. Are you always so 🤬🤬angry🤬🤬?
No, no. You misunderstand Age.
When Age says something about you that seems insulting, Age doesn't believe it.
IF, and WHEN, ANY one THINKS that ANY thing I say SEEMS insulting, then I suggest that they ask an OPEN question, for CLARIFICATION, BEFORE they even START to BEGIN to ASSUME absolutely ANY thing. That way that one could NEVER be Wrong.

As for the rest you wrote, the two do NOT logically follow on from each other.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:30 am This means Age says it, but if you could prove Age was wrong Age would change Age's mind.
LOL

'you' could NOT be MORE Wrong here "iwannaplato", even if 'you' tried to be. And, just so 'you' BECOME AWARE, what 'you' are ASSUMING now is ALSO completely and utterly Wrong.

Also, and by the way, when 'you', posters, here CLAIM that what I have said APPEARS 'insulting' to 'you', then, as has been PROVED True ALREADY, 'you' are NOT even CAPABLE of PROVIDING the 'thing', which SEEMS to be 'insulting' in the FIRST PLACE. So, going on with ANY thing else is ALL just a complete and utter WASTE.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:30 am It looks like an assertion of what Age believes is the truth or something he believes, but if you believe that it is you are incorrect and foolish.
YES, VERY True.

And, ONLY WHEN one BRINGS FORTH the 'thing', which I am being ACCUSED of, then, and ONLY THEN, I can PROVE what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct. And, this is the REASON WHY the 'thing' is NEVER brought FORTH.

If one does NOT provide the 'thing', which one CLAIMS is true, then they can NOT be PROVED Wrong. Which is, OBVIOUSLY, VERY CONVENIENT, for them.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:30 am When you say things about Age, you believe them. Age asserts.
If you HAD BEEN READING what I ACTUALLY WRITE and SAY, then you would have been SEEING that I usually write, if not write on ALL occasions, 'think or BELIEVE'.

But, considering the Fact that 'you' are making ANOTHER CLAIM here "iwannaplato", would you like to BRING FORTH the ACTUAL evidence or proof for THIS CLAIM of YOURS here now?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:30 am In Age's use of the word 'believe' this means you would never change your mind, even if presented evidence that you were wrong.
SO, SO completely and utterly Wrong, AGAIN, "iwannaplato".

But, at least 'you' are PROVIDING IRREFUTABLE PROOF of WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER to seek out and obtain CLARIFICATION, BEFORE one even BEGINS to ASSUME absolutely ANY thing.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:30 am Age does not need to demonstrate this because he is Age.
PROJECTION, in its HIGHEST FORM.

I am the ONE asking 'you', posters, to PROVIDE or DEMONSTRATE PROOF for YOUR CLAIMS.

IF, and WHEN, ANY asks me to PROVIDE PROOF for MY CLAIMS, then I WILL, and ONLY THEN WILL I.

By the way, you probably have NOT YET EVEN NOTICED that I could NOT even DEMONSTRATE ANY thing for what you wrote above BECAUSE what you wrote above WAS and IS SO completely and utterly Wrong.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:30 am So, this means, if Age judges you, you should spend time trying to show that Age is wrong.
PROVIDE just ONE time WHERE I have so-called 'judged' 'you', posters, here.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:30 am Guilty until proven innocent.
Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of just how SIMPLY and EASILY people can TWIST and TURN things AROUND completely.

This here is PROJECTION, in its HIGHEST FORM, AGAIN.

It is 'I' who is the ONE being ACCUSED of 'things' here, which although I have been asking for PROOF OF, NONE is given, and 'you', posters, then just go on like the ACCUSATION was and IS IRREFUTABLY True.

I am the ONE getting ACCUSED of 'insulting' "others". It appears, to SOME of you, that I am ABSOLUTELY GUILTY of this. YET NOT ONE shred of evidence has EVER been provided, let alone ACTUAL PROOF for the ACCUSATION.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:30 am But, if you say something about Age, then you need to spend time demonstrating this is true: Innocent until proven guilty.
OF COURSE one NEEDS to DEMONSTRATE what one CLAIMS is true.

ESPECIALLY:

1. When CLAIMING "another" did some 'thing'. And,

2. When in a PHILOSOPHY forum.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:30 am If you think that is hilariously convenient for Age or an implicit double standard, you are showing that you are a human being.

Even when Age says
As PROVED IRREFUTABLY True here
it does not mean Age believes it, because Age unlike human beings, doesn't believe things that are proved irrefutably, except for one important thing that isn't about you personally. Everything for Age is tentatively held.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:30 am Age's assertions are not assertions.
Wrong, AGAIN.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:30 am What Age says as if it is true may not be and Age knows that.

So, if you get angry at Age for seeming angry and insulting or asserting lots of things about you, this just shows that you are a human being.
To Correct 'you', "this just shows that 'you' are an ADULT human being".
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:30 am When you transcend being human, like Age has, then you can say whatever you like and look down on humans, while not believing anything.
When 'you' transcended from being 'just animal', like 'you' have, then 'you' can, and have, said whatever 'you' like and look down on 'animals', while BELIEVING whatever 'you' like.

BUT, what has this got to do with ANY thing about the thread title?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: more science v religion

Post by Iwannaplato »

Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:36 am Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in......
via hypotheses made on the inside, then verified by observations, which are experienced on the inside, organized by a methodology made on the inside then applied on the outside.

Science is an insider game, like the others.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: more science v religion

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=597472 time=1663624205 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=568123 time=1650001015 user_id=15238]
Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in......
[/quote]
via hypotheses made on the inside, then verified by observations, which are experienced on the inside, organized by a methodology made on the inside then applied on the outside.

Science is an insider game, like the others.
[/quote]

liar
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: more science v religion

Post by Iwannaplato »

Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 11:51 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:50 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:36 am Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in......
via hypotheses made on the inside, then verified by observations, which are experienced on the inside, organized by a methodology made on the inside then applied on the outside.

Science is an insider game, like the others.
liar
1) lying entails that I am saying something I consider false. A psychic claim on your part and incorrect. 2) you're not making a coherent critique. You simply went ad hom. I guess you cannot refute what I wrote.

Where did you make the hypothesis that I was a liar? Where do you experience your observations? Scientific methodology is a set of concepts? Where were they made?
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by bobmax »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:50 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:36 am Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in......
via hypotheses made on the inside, then verified by observations, which are experienced on the inside, organized by a methodology made on the inside then applied on the outside.

Science is an insider game, like the others.
Yes, but how do these hypotheses arise?

Is there really an inside and an outside?

Because if the outside were really "outside" no valid hypothesis would be possible.
If hypotheses arise it is because there is a common basis inside as well as outside.

Religions claim to know the Truth and reject any other hypothesis.
Science renounces the possession of the Truth and freely formulates new hypotheses.

Spirituality is in both.

But it must free itself from religious dogma and realize that the scientific renunciation of the Truth is in the name of its own faith in the Truth itself.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: more science v religion

Post by Iwannaplato »

bobmax wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:52 am Yes, but how do these hypotheses arise?
What do you think?
Is there really an inside and an outside?
Well, I was using his model. I don't think the inside/outside model is the neat little package he thinks it is in relation to science/religion
.
Because if the outside were really "outside" no valid hypothesis would be possible.
If hypotheses arise it is because there is a common basis inside as well as outside.
In a sense my point relates to what you are saying. My point in relation to his claims.
Religions claim to know the Truth and reject any other hypothesis.
Science renounces the possession of the Truth and freely formulates new hypotheses.
I think this is a radical oversimplification and it is partly based on treating those abstract nouns as agents. Religions claim and reject. Science renounces and formulates. Once you use the actual people involved it is much more complicated. And they are agents.
Spirituality is in both.
Can you expand on that please?
But it must free itself from religious dogma and realize that the scientific renunciation of the Truth is in the name of its own faith in the Truth itself.
I think there are a lot of religious and spiritual people who do not think that science is wrong.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by bobmax »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:22 am
bobmax wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:52 am Yes, but how do these hypotheses arise?
What do you think?
I think that it is existence that seeks its own being.
We enter the world, but what we are really looking for is ourselves.
Religions claim to know the Truth and reject any other hypothesis.
Science renounces the possession of the Truth and freely formulates new hypotheses.
I think this is a radical oversimplification and it is partly based on treating those abstract nouns as agents. Religions claim and reject. Science renounces and formulates. Once you use the actual people involved it is much more complicated. And they are agents.
You're right, religion and science only exemplify what goes on within us. Because we oscillate between the opening of research that formulates new hypotheses and the closure that claims to fix the truth once and for all.

But what is behind all this?

The spirit:
Spirituality is in both.
Can you expand on that please?
Beyond religious dogmas, what is the essence of believing?
Is it not perhaps the spiritual impulse towards the Truth that does not want to deceive itself for any reason?

And what is the essence of the scientist?
Is it not the same spiritual impulse towards the Truth? A faith that forces him to never stop?
But it must free itself from religious dogma and realize that the scientific renunciation of the Truth is in the name of its own faith in the Truth itself.
I think there are a lot of religious and spiritual people who do not think that science is wrong.
Certainly science is not wrong.
In fact, the error is not in the scientific results, but in believing their presuppositions to be absolute truth.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by popeye1945 »

Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:36 am Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.
Religion depends upon the existence of the supernatural, how many theological university students realize if there is no such thing as the supernatural their degree is about NOTHING?
Post Reply