Atheism is incompatible with science

[Habitat]

13 minutes ago, Piney said:

He's very evasive on the subject. 

What am I evading ?

[Piney]

15 minutes ago, Habitat said:

What am I evading ?

You don't actually state where you draw your sources from. 

[Piney]

27 minutes ago, Horta said:

Meister Eckhart is one oft quoted favourite I think.

32 minutes ago, Piney said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meister_Eckhart#Rehabilitation

Interesting.

This is the only Catholic mystic I read about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus

[Habitat]

8 minutes ago, Piney said:

You don't actually state where you draw your sources from. 

Many and varied, an amalgam. 

[psyche101]

8 hours ago, pallidin said:

Well, I can clearly see that you are attacking me, whereas I have done nothing to deserve it

Nah, how did you describe it? 

I'm offering an alternative opinion. 

8 hours ago, pallidin said:

I do not understand why you have directly wrote inflammatory statements towards me, but oh well.

Try reading your post again that I quoted. As Dan pointed out, you are a flamebaiting troll. 

8 hours ago, pallidin said:

You do realize you have violated Forum rules?

How so, by offering an alternative opinion? Like you did? 

[psyche101]

8 hours ago, pallidin said:

Back on topic, it is clear that Science fully recognizes quantum "weirdness" and the potentiality of seemingly bizzare events.

This necessarily includes the supernatural, as quantum physics demands extra-dimensions.

No it doesn't. That's just your lev of extreme ignorance showing through. You do realise these extra dimensions predicted by QM reside in our spacetime don't you? In fact, I'll bet you don't. 

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, pallidin said:

Science provides for extraordinary possibilities. Both atheists and agnostics will have none of that.

God is not an extraordinary possibility, its a idea man came up with. And its wrong. You obviously don't understand science at all, yet are presumptuous enough to pretend you do. 

[Horta]

29 minutes ago, Habitat said:

No, I am quite comfortable with facts. But if you feel the need to discredit what you say is "faux", you'd be better employed asking yourself where that drive comes from. 

Apparently not.

Logical reasoning is generally considered an integral part of philosophy. When you abandon that, it's better described as waffle...

As you point out quite regularly, your philosophy requires the abandonment of logical reasoning and critical thought as a pre requisite. We are "ignorant" for clinging to such things...remember?  It claims certain "knowledge" must be accessed in an entirely different way. So "faux" philosophy might have been a bit generous.

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, pallidin said:

And yet, both positions dismiss important, recognized, scientific findings of probability bizzareness.

 

Not at all, you don't understand science and in some half baked Ken  Ham fashion create your own disjointed gibberish incorporating science terms with religious ones. 

[psyche101]

5 hours ago, pallidin said:

Sorry, I'm not a "The World is all about me" type person.

I beg to differ. 

You most certainly are. 

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Horta said:

Apparently not.

Logical reasoning is generally considered an integral part of philosophy. When you abandon that, it's better described as waffle...

As you point out quite regularly, your philosophy requires the abandonment of logical reasoning and critical thought as a pre requisite. We are "ignorant" for clinging to such things...remember?  It claims certain "knowledge" must be accessed in an entirely different way. So "faux" philosophy might have been a bit generous.

You clearly are ignorant, but I certainly never characterised logical thinking as anything other than de rigeur in its sphere of application, but unlike you, I do not believe it to be unlimited in its application. It only deals with the interrelationships within a system(s), not the ultimate genesis of systems. Think of the word rational and its close relative, ratio.

[Horta]

Just now, Habitat said:

You clearly are ignorant, but I certainly never characterised logical thinking as anything other than de rigeur in its sphere of application, but unlike you, I do not believe it to be unlimited in its application. It only deals with the interrelationships within a system(s), not the ultimate genesis of systems. Think of the word rational and its close relative, ratio.

Another longwinded and emotional way of saying "yes" by implication, while trying to avoid the question...again via the well known ad hominem...

A simple "yes" would have done habitat.

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, pallidin said:

Hard science, to an A&A is "dismissive"

No it's not, you simply have no idea what your talking about. 

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Horta said:

Another longwinded and emotional way of saying "yes" by implication, while trying to avoid the question...again via the well known ad hominem...

A simple "yes" would have done habitat.

I never said people were ignorant for being rational and logical, but where rational and logical fails, as it clearly does with the "riddle of existence", it is futile to imagine it must be the only way of knowledge. That is just a faith.
 

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

Look out! No where to run.  It's a truth tsunami.

No. It's not. The Dolphin appears to hate science as much as you do. 

[Horta]

21 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I never said people were ignorant for being rational and logical
 

Au contraire. You do this quite regularly. You have pointed out many times that is our great impediment, apparently.

Quote

 but where rational and logical fails, as it clearly does with the "riddle of existence", it is futile to imagine it must be the only way of knowledge. That is just a faith.

Thus your "philosophy" (note the inverted commas), in it's particular "sphere", relies on the very negation of logical reasoning. Doesn't it?

[Will Due]

26 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No. It's not. The Dolphin appears to hate science as much as you do. 

 

 I love science!

Do you hate God?

Be honest. 

 

 

[Habitat]

19 minutes ago, Horta said:

Au contraire. You do this quite regularly. You have pointed out many times that is our great impediment, apparently.

Thus your "philosophy" (note the inverted commas), in it's particular "sphere", relies on the very negation of logical reasoning. Doesn't it?

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I am saying, locked as you are in an obsession that rational and logical thinking are the only processes that lead to knowledge, anything else is seemingly useless, which begs the question of how evolution would have preserved such things. Any ideas on that front ? You are also labouring  under the misapprehension that mysticism and reason are in some implacable opposition, when in fact there is no real contradiction, when both are properly applied.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Habitat

[Horta]

35 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I never said people were ignorant for being rational and logical, but where rational and logical fails, as it clearly does with the "riddle of existence", it is futile to imagine it must be the only way of knowledge. That is just a faith.
 

You are also starting to "hedge your bets" here while beating around those bushes. To be clearer,  your stated position isn't only that rational or logical reasoning has not provided an explanation, it is that it can never provide an explanation. Those are very different things. This is correct, no?

This is not only philosophical braggadocio, it is a claim to tremendous knowledge in itself. It would in fact require understanding the "riddle of existence", to be able to know this.

It's basically another plea to ignorance. "I can't see it happening, therefore it can't happen". Thus faux philosophy (to be kind).

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The example asked how you would know, and what evidences you would use to KNOW, if you were alone and had no one else to support tor validate your experience

We don't need the company of others to know what we are eating or doing.  The personal evidences are clear and obvious.

Hi Walker

Why would I be in that position? If I am not making a claim then there is not much reason right, we eat and I don't have to prove what I ate to myself because the evidence is that after I ate my belly was quite tight that's all the evidence I need.

jmccr8

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, Horta said:

This is not only philosophical braggadocio, it is a claim to tremendous knowledge in itself. It would in fact require understanding the "riddle of existence", to be able to know this.

As I have said before, you are invited to propose a solution, any solution, it does not have to have a scintilla of truth to it, completely fictitious, and it will be immediately shot down in flames, by logic itself, no further tests required. No-one can even posit an idea to test, let alone a way of testing it. There is no understanding that old riddle by logic, though it is clear some still have the faith ! The mystics say it can be understood, and they actually do lay out the way to test that idea. Which has to be admitted, is more practical than what reason has to offer, in this matter, which is just crickets chirping, with the occasional crow call that says "science can crack this". But offers no way to do it.

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

god is a name like dog.

no.  I am trying to be clear and honest 

if it walks like a god, talks like a god, and has the powers of a god, then a sensible human might think of it as a god.

But god, like dog, is only a word/label human attach to beings with certain  qualities  

the rest is irrelevant to the point i was making

You have to decide for yourself if such things are real. I am just telling you about my experiences with them

Humans make mental constructs about all real things. We also build constructs about unreal things.The trick is how to work out which is which.  

 

 

Hi Walker

So no real answer as to what the big g is or does. I take the religious descriptions of gods as being where the bar is set to jump and if it does not conform to the description then it is not real and as of yet no gold medal for high jump.

jmccr8

[Horta]

Just now, Habitat said:

As I have said before, you are invited to propose a solution, any solution, it does not have to have a scintilla of truth to it, completely fictitious, and it will be immediately shot down in flames, by logic itself, no further tests required. No-one can even posit an idea to test, let alone a way of testing it. There is no understanding that old riddle by logic, though it is clear some still have the faith ! The mystics say it can be understood, and they actually do lay out the way to test that idea. Which has to be admitted, is more practical than what reason has to offer, in this matter, which is just crickets chirping, with the occasional crow call that says "science can crack this". But offers no way to do it.

Thanks for the invite but I don't feel inclined to indulge your deflections at the moment. 

Anyway, my basic objection has little relevance to your request.

Quote

"rational, logical reason can never explain the riddle of existence"

The above would be true or false according to your personal "philosophy" habitat?  Or would you rather I trawl through numerous threads where you have expressed exactly that?

A succinct, direct answer would be fine. Only requires one word...

 

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, Horta said:

I generally don't give likes at all lol.

So apologies to the posters who go to such effort. It isn't that I don't like the posts, I do, and it's nothing personal.

Similar things have been shown to have detrimental effects in social media studies. It also does help marginalise those with weird or non mainstream beliefs and helps form "cliques" (which are probably unavoidable when 3 or more humans interact with each other lol).

I have been trying to find a way to disable the entire function.

Perhaps I should just lighten up a bit lol.

Hi Horta

Each to their own, for me it is an expression of how they post a response many times liking the posts of both sides of a discussion because of the effort that they invest. I also like a good laugh and give people a like for their sense of humor. I do not have to agree with a persons position but can like the way they present it. I read in several areas of the forum and there are times when I am catching up on many pages in several discussions and use my likes.

jmccr8

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Horta said:

Thanks for the invite but I don't feel inclined to indulge your deflections at the moment. 

You are clearly the one that wants to be indulged, you want to know whether I think reason can ever answer the "riddle of existence" the answer is obviously no, as you yourself appear to realise, going by your weaving and dodging the invitation to profer any kind of rational explanation, any old fabrication will do !