Pics For Sharing & Debating

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Not even close. First and foremost, I am attempting to prove nothing.

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense etc...

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

"If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"

The absence of an observer does not alter the physical world or the resultant sound waves from episodic events.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

...you assert that anything currently unverified through the scientific method does not exist until such verification occurs. If this is not your opinion, please correct me.

If science has yet to find a way to 'measure' something, it will.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I fully accept science and the scientific method as valid tools (and in most cases the best and only tool we have) of understanding the great "I AM" of the universe. At the same time, however, I suggest that the existence of a thing is not determined by the ability to perceive it through humanity's five senses (or any enhancement to the same).

That's odd. I do.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

To me, the truth of this assertion is found by the fact that things which can only be perceived through one of our senses do not "cease to exist" if our ability to perceive through that sense did not exist. For example, the color orange would exist if the entire world was sightless and no one could see it (or any other color). To fully understand "orange" you must have the physical sense of sight. Sure, it can be explained as an expression of light waves, but, ultimately, it's tangible existence cannot be "proved" to a sightless person.

So if we could convert light waves to sound waves you'd agree that it'd be possible for the blind to 'hear' a color? It's already happening so this solution won't be far off.

Yay, science!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense etc...

Ah yes, briliant logic.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

The absence of an observer does not alter the physical world or the resultant sound waves from episodic events.

Agreed. Thus, observable or not, it existence is accepted as a given.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

If science has yet to find a way to 'measure' something, it will.

Prove it.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

That's odd. I do.

It is not odd. It is a acknowledgement of your absolute faith in science.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

So if we could convert light waves to sound waves you'd agree that it'd be possible for the blind to 'hear' a color? It's already happening so this solution won't be far off.

And, likewise, you would admit they cannot see and, thus, would never perceive orange as a sighted person would. Further, there understanding of orange as anything other than a sound would be totally reliant on the statements of those they believe to have perceived orange as something other than sound.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Agreed. Thus, observable or not, it existence is accepted as a given.

The tree can be seen before its collapse and afterwards. The resulting noise, through comparisons, can be estimated. At some point we have physical examples of the tree existing in both states.

If you want to wheel our another couple of deities for us to compare to the one your team refuses to produce to settle the argument, then go ahead.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

...

If science has yet to find a way to 'measure' something, it will.



...

RR, here is where your statement of faith in seed form. From that simple statement, all the rest of your trust in science flows.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

RR, here is where your statement of faith in seed form. From that simple statement, all the rest of your trust in science flows.

CRR, please look at the scientific method and see if it's a progressive or recessive activity?

Why would anyone think that we will discover less or regress on what we are currently able to explain?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

CRR, please look at the scientific method and see if it's a progressive or recessive activity?

Why would anyone think that we will discover less or regress on what we are currently able to explain?

Of course, the scientific method is progressive. The faith stems not from the assertion that we can discover more; it stems from the assertion that, through the scientific method, we can discover all.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

CRR, please look at the scientific method and see if it's a progressive or recessive activity?

Why would anyone think that we will discover less or regress on what we are currently able to explain?

I believe we will continue to discover more, but you don't say we will discover more, you say science will one day find a way to measure everything. That is a statement of faith, and you believe it with all that is in you, but nothing in peer reviews, or scientific exploration makes that a provable statement. Maybe there is something that science will never fully explain. Maybe not. I would claim to be an agnostic in that depth of scientific faith.

Science, and the scientific method, is a great tool for understanding and learning about what is around us. The human race is better for its use and the more we can learn and expand it's knowledge base, the better we all will be. But it does not reveal all, nor does it in and answer every question that describes the human condition, and I believe it's not likely to, in this lifetime, or 100 lifetimes from now. If there is an asymptote of understanding, in my belief, God is the vertical truth, and science is the 1/x progressing closer and closer, but never touching or exceeding the axis.