Pics For Sharing & Debating

[That Guy]

>>Still waiting for the science on how you prove and fully explain the existence of beauty in any painting to a person lacking sight.

LOT of assuming, eh?

it's also a bit silly forcing someone to prove something when you're answer is just going to to be "because i said so" or "god wills it" or whatever.

prove to me scientifically why life springs spontaneously from peanut butter.


I'm still waiting.


let's not force false and petty/silly arguments. how do you explain mozart to the deaf, dumb, and blind? i mean really. humans don't have an innate natural sense of magnetism (unlike birds), but that doesn't mean it's magic or doesn't exist, and there's plenty of evidence to prove it's existence and how it works. I don't know of many blind visual art critics, and i imagine there's a good reason for that.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by That Guy

>>Still waiting for the science on how you prove and fully explain the existence of beauty in any painting to a person lacking sight.

LOT of assuming, eh?

it's also a bit silly forcing someone to prove something when you're answer is just going to to be "because i said so" or "god wills it" or whatever.

prove to me scientifically why life springs spontaneously from peanut butter.


I'm still waiting.


let's not force false and petty/silly arguments. how do you explain mozart to the deaf, dumb, and blind? i mean really. humans don't have an innate natural sense of magnetism (unlike birds), but that doesn't mean it's magic or doesn't exist, and there's plenty of evidence to prove it's existence and how it works. I don't know of many blind visual art critics, and i imagine there's a good reason for that.

First, since I don't believe life comes from peanut butter, I guess I won't try to prove it. Secondly, whether you believe it or not, my answer would never be "b/c God says so". I may quote the Bible or philosophers as support for a rhetorical point, but, to me, "because" has never been an acceptable response to any thoughtful question.

The point of my question was very simply to point out that a thing's existence is not tied to our ability to perceive the thing. Our own quest for knowledge is constantly demonstrating that things exist beyond what we could perceive yesterday.

Did magnetism exist prior to our ability to describe through the scientific method? Of course it did, it's existence was not tied to our perception/ discover/description of it.

You, Rat and Matty may be right, all things in existence may be perceivable through the scientific method. Given our finiteness, I doubt that to be true - even as we enhance our ability to perceive, we "see" more things we assumed didn't exist yesterdays. You apparently believe all things are discoverable to finite minds. More power to you. I respect your faith in the scientific method.

I can't prove God exists through finite means and would be rightly mocked if I asserted that I could. Likewise, I have yet to see proof that science will provide an explanation for everything in existence. To be clear, I am not saying that "Since you can't prove God doesn't exist, he must therefore exist." Rather, even as science opens more doors and brings more questions, the purpose of it all - if there is one - appears to me to beyond science's ken.

As to my beliefs, essentially, it is my belief that the truth of universe - the Judeo/Christian's "Great I Am" of the universe - exists beyond our finite perception. In turn, all religion is just humanity's limited and flawed attempt to understand that which we cannot perceive. If you really want to discuss my beliefs, how I came to them and what their limits are, I am happy to discuss them at length outside the public forum. To be certain, however, I do not believe in "intelligent design[,] 7 days of creation[, or] the 1000 year old history of earth".

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I respect your faith in the scientific method.

I would say that the differences we're laboring under are largely semantic, you feel our belief in scientific method is 'faith'. I would assert that, due to the peer review and scientific method, it's a solid, proven process for all things.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I would say that the differences we're laboring under are largely semantic, you feel our belief in scientific method is 'faith'. I would assert that, due to the peer review and scientific method, it's a solid, proven process for all things.

I agree that the scientific method is a "a solid, proven process". When something is proven through legitimate peer reviewed scientific process, I do not dispute its existence. The belief, however, that "all things" are discoverable through that process is an act of faith.