Questions to determinists (and scientists)...

[Bensozia]

Well, all petty arguments aside, I see so many people bicker about whether or not we should believe in a non-scientifically proven reality. Some say it's stupid to believe in the spiritual world, others contend that God exists and that they have witnessed miracles or other paranormal phenomena.

I say that people are free to believe what they want to and that we can't prove or disprove the existence of a spiritual world since we can't grasp it.

But whatever.

What I would like to ask:

- Do you really think, we, as finite and mortal beings, can fathom the entirety of reality, including the universe?

- If so,how can a mortal, limited being can understand the nature of something infinite and unlimited?

- Can you reasonably assert that science and logic are infallible, even though they're wielded by inherently faulty beings (ie humans) ?

- Can you disprove without a single doubt the possibility of an ethereal world/reality, given that we can't see, touch or examine it as it is?


Please, before you put words and intentions in my mouth, just know that I simply ask for knowledge and answers, not for a row,not for another pointless argument.

Thanks.

[Duelist]

can you prove without a doubt the existence of and ethereal world?

Until you do, I will maintain that it doesn't exist.

[Rude Louis]

can you prove without a doubt the existence of and ethereal world?

Until you do, I will maintain that it doesn't exist.

Well, there's the null hypothesis.

[PirateJoe]

- Do you really think, we, as finite and mortal beings, can fathom the entirety of reality, including the universe?

No, in fact it's pretty well established that there are certain truths we cannot prove (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems). That in and of itself, however, is NOT evidence for a supreme being.

- Can you reasonably assert that science and logic are infallible, even though they're wielded by inherently faulty beings (ie humans) ?

The scientific method is distinctly different from scientists themselves. So while a scientist may have bias, and thus his implementation of the scientific method is flawed, the scientific method itself remains untouched.

That's not to say our scientific or logic methods are infallible, or rather, our implementations of those ideals, but they are by far the best tools we have for discovering truth. No other system even comes close.

- Can you disprove without a single doubt the possibility of an ethereal world/reality, given that we can't see, touch or examine it as it is?

No, we can't. Just because you can't disprove something doesn't make it valid or truthful though.

not for another pointless argument.


No such thing. :D

[Rust]

- Do you really think, we, as finite and mortal beings, can fathom the entirety of reality, including the universe?

I'm not sure. But whether we can or cannot, however, is pretty irrelevant. Niether Science, Materialism nor Naturalism require that we can/do.

- If so,how can a mortal, limited being can understand the nature of something infinite and unlimited?

Who says the entirety of reality is infinite and unlimited? Don't you have to understand the very entirity of reality in order to know if it's infinite and unlimited to begin with?

- Can you reasonably assert that science and logic are infallible, even though they're wielded by inherently faulty beings (ie humans) ?

I wouldn't assert that Science is infallible at all. It's definitely fallible. But Materialism and Naturalism do not require Science to be infallible.

- Can you disprove without a single doubt the possibility of an ethereal world/reality, given that we can't see, touch or examine it as it is?

No, I cannot. That I cannot disprove it does not mean it's a reasonable viewpoint to take. A view point doesn't magically get substantiated just because scientists cannot disprove "without a single doubt".

[Ambient]

can you prove without a doubt the existence of and ethereal world?


10 points for originality

:rolleyes:

[Rust]

So is the OP going to discuss anything now that people have answered him? Or was this just a discussion-less questionnaire?

[Ambient]

some of us live outside of zoklet

[Rust]

Who said otherwise? I know you want to attack everything I say, but can you please try to be reasonable? I'm merely asking when and if the OP is going to do something more with this thread given that he made no indication that this would be more than just some questions and given that he has made more than a dozen posts on zoklet since making this thread (look at his profile). Not to mention that my post served to bump the thread which was falling.

In short, spare me the snarky come-back.

[Bensozia]

Who said otherwise? I know you want to attack everything I say, but can you please try to be reasonable? I'm merely asking when and if the OP is going to do something more with this thread given that he made no indication that this would be more than just some questions and given that he has made more than a dozen posts on zoklet since making this thread (look at his profile). Not to mention that my post served to bump the thread which was falling.

In short, spare me the snarky come-back.

Do I have to justify how I run a thread that I've started when the replies I've got where very satisfactory?

Maybe I should have said it, I'll admit.

Oh and BTW, I'm a woman so please stop referring to me as male, it feels funny.

[Bensozia]

I'm not sure. But whether we can or cannot, however, is pretty irrelevant. Niether Science, Materialism nor Naturalism require that we can/do.

I beg to differ. If we can't there is no point of being categorical about things like the composition of the entire universe or the existence of aliens. Or any other subject/being whose existence has yet to be scientifically validated.

Who says the entirety of reality is infinite and unlimited? Don't you have to understand the very entirity of reality in order to know if it's infinite and unlimited to begin with?

Not exactly. If reality were finite and limited, there would be no more unanswered questions, or at least none that would seem impossible to prove. And it's not the case currently, there are still many things that we are merely unable to know for a fact.

I wouldn't assert that Science is infallible at all. It's definitely fallible. But Materialism and Naturalism do not require Science to be infallible.

What do you call Materialism? I know about Naturalism but I never heard of materialism in any other form than greed for material things...


No, I cannot. That I cannot disprove it does not mean it's a reasonable viewpoint to take. A view point doesn't magically get substantiated just because scientists cannot disprove "without a single doubt".

I never said such a thing. Of course it's not "reasonable". Reason only allows us to perceive the world as it is, not what can possibly exist beyond it. I'm not trying to substantiate the existence of another reality, I'm just trying to know how you see this matter.

[Bensozia]

No, in fact it's pretty well established that there are certain truths we cannot prove (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems). That in and of itself, however, is NOT evidence for a supreme being.

Of course it's not. But God is not the matter here. I'm not religious.

The scientific method is distinctly different from scientists themselves. So while a scientist may have bias, and thus his implementation of the scientific method is flawed, the scientific method itself remains untouched.

That's not to say our scientific or logic methods are infallible, or rather, our implementations of those ideals, but they are by far the best tools we have for discovering truth. No other system even comes close.

That's a fact. But it's good to hear someone say that science is not the epitome of absolute truth from time to time.

No, we can't. Just because you can't disprove something doesn't make it valid or truthful though.


Exactly. And the other way around is just as true. To me at least, there are some things where the most reasonable stance is "we don't know yet".

[Rust]

Do I have to justify how I run a thread that I've started when the replies I've got where very satisfactory?

No, you don't have to justify anything, just as I don't have to keep my mouth shut and decided to ask what I asked.



Oh and BTW, I'm a woman so please stop referring to me as male, it feels funny.

Done.

[Rust]

I beg to differ. If we can't there is no point of being categorical about things like the composition of the entire universe or the existence of aliens. Or any other subject/being whose existence has yet to be scientifically validated.

Except the position of Science isn't that those things cannot exist, it's that they haven't being proven to exist. You can hold that position quite well without having to understand the entirety of the universe.

Not exactly. If reality were finite and limited, there would be no more unanswered questions, or at least none that would seem impossible to prove. And it's not the case currently, there are still many things that we are merely unable to know for a fact.

I don't see how you can conclude that "reality being finite" implies no unanswered questions. That's a non-sequitor. If reality is finite and humanity dies off tomorrow lets say, have all the questions been answered? That's assuming that they are even answerable in the first place! Who says there can't be unanswerable questions in a finite universe?

You're reaching conclusions that don't necessarily follow from the premises.


What do you call Materialism? I know about Naturalism but I never heard of materialism in any other form than greed for material things...

"the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies."

The definition aside, the point was that Science doesn't have to be infallible. So, while you didn't explicitly say it had to be infallible, the question loses it's weight when regardless of the answer our position still stands.


I never said such a thing. Of course it's not "reasonable". Reason only allows us to perceive the world as it is, not what can possibly exist beyond it. I'm not trying to substantiate the existence of another reality, I'm just trying to know how you see this matter.

I know you didn't say it, but I'm pointing out how the question isn't really important precisely because the fact that we can't prove it beyond any doubt (which is a stronger burden than even one society uses to put people to death I should mention) wouldn't really change anything. If either possible answer (i.e. "we can prove it and here's how" or "we can't") nets us the same result (i.e. "Our position is still a reasonable") then I find it hard to see the importance of the question; barring maybe curiosity and if that's the case then, fine.

[Axiom]

What I would like to ask:

- Do you really think, we, as finite and mortal beings, can fathom the entirety of reality, including the universe?

Everything in this universe is finite and mortal, but future humans may not find it necessary to know everything. As far as I understand few scientists even have that goal in mind.


- If so,how can a mortal, limited being can understand the nature of something infinite and unlimited?

Whoah, slow down man - The universe is large, but it is far from infinite. Newton & Einstein believed the universe was infinite, their contemporaries do not however. It is a closed system of that is expanding at a decreasing rate, that maintains the exact same level of energy within the system.

Having said that I believe it would be easier to discover all the secrets of the universe than it would be to guess what another person is thinking...


- Can you reasonably assert that science and logic are infallible, even though they're wielded by inherently faulty beings (ie humans) ?

Anyone who is a scientist would never call his/her work infallible for that very reason. It is easy to mistakenly interpret results and as such the scientific method for experiments actually requires the scientist to outline the falsifiability of his result. If it can't be falsified, then it IS NOT science. This is why science teachers refused to teach the infallible Intelligent Design Hypothesis...


- Can you disprove without a single doubt the possibility of an ethereal world/reality, given that we can't see, touch or examine it as it is?

If it can not be seen, touched or examined then the scientific method can not be followed. Can I disprove it? No, but when we can see, touch & examine it, then that is proof enough that it does exist...

At this stage nobody can be certain. But if it has zero effect on this reality then scientists would not care to study it to begin with...

[PirateJoe]

Of course it's not. But God is not the matter here. I'm not religious.

Quite alright, I just assumed that might be the case, as this is the religion forum


That's a fact. But it's good to hear someone say that science is not the epitome of absolute truth from time to time.


Well, in any case, science, and by extension logic and reason, is the epitome of absolute "truths" that can be proved. Everything else is pure conjecture.