Morality Defined

The truth is Dixie, we can't prove anything, we cannot have absolute knowledge. Why do you think Descartes got himelf tied into knots. The best he could come up with was 'cogito ergo sum', the only knowledge he could truely know absolutely was that because he was thinking he must exist. And that is not on stable ground, all you can really deduce from 'cogito' is that cognation exists.

This 'proof' that you demand is not possible. To know things, we have to use the best methods available to us.

So explain why you think that faith by revelation is a better method of knowing than through repeated observation?
 
Because all theories are tentative doesn't mean there is no such thing as a scientific fact.
Click to expand...

Well, a "fact" is something non-tentative and conclusive, so... yes, it means exactly that.

Science proposes theories which suggest what the facts might be.

When we say that science is tentative we mean that their are no ABSOLUTE facts and no ABSOLUTE proofs. You're interpreting that as science not having any facts or proofs at all which is scientifically illiterate.
Click to expand...

Well, no... you seem to be the illiterate one here. Something is either an absolute fact or not a fact at all. There is no such thing as an "almost fact."
 
Dixie said:
I know you haven't presented any theory on origin of life in this thread.
Read it.
Click to expand...


Dixie, don't sulk, it isn't becoming.

You haven't asked me to. We were discussing proof, knowledge, and which method is better at gaining it.

If you want to discuss the origin of life, follow the argument and we will get to it. But first answer the question about which is a better method of knowing, faith or repeated observation.
 
Well, a "fact" is something non-tentative and conclusive, so... yes, it means exactly that.

Then tell us something of which you have absolute knowledge. Tell us a fact.
 
AnyOldIron said:
The truth is Dixie, we can't prove anything, we cannot have absolute knowledge. Why do you think Descartes got himelf tied into knots. The best he could come up with was 'cogito ergo sum', the only knowledge he could truely know absolutely was that because he was thinking he must exist. And that is not on stable ground, all you can really deduce from 'cogito' is that cognation exists.

This 'proof' that you demand is not possible. To know things, we have to use the best methods available to us.

So explain why you think that faith by revelation is a better method of knowing than through repeated observation?
Click to expand...

Arnold, if you can't prove anything, and can't have absolute knowledge, how can you be absolutely positive regarding ID?

Who says ID is backed only by revelation of faith? That is your assumption based on a flawed perception of observation. We have repeatedly observed predictable complex patterns are never random and always require intelligent input.
 
Arnold, if you can't prove anything, and can't have absolute knowledge, how can you be absolutely positive regarding ID?

This leads exactly to my next point.

So how do we know anything?

Wouldn't you agree that through repeated observation (empiricism) has demonstrated itself the best method of knowing anything about anything.

Who says ID is backed only by revelation of faith? That is your assumption based on a flawed perception of observation. We have repeatedly observed predictable complex patterns are never random and always require intelligent input.

So if you are willing to follow the scientific method with this statement, if I can produce an example of complex patterns that are randomly developed (or rather what you would describe as random, I would describe them as through cause and effect) it would negate your argument?

You did say 'never'.
 
I already did this Arnold.

FACT: You have presented NO theory on origin of life in this thread.

PROOF: Read the thread!

Ok, I'll use that.

How do you know I haven't? You could look through these pages and not see my opinion on abiogenesis, but what if I am a computer genius and can hide my post only from you?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Arnold, if you can't prove anything, and can't have absolute knowledge, how can you be absolutely positive regarding ID?

This leads exactly to my next point.

So how do we know anything?

Wouldn't you agree that through repeated observation (empiricism) has demonstrated itself the best method of knowing anything about anything.

Who says ID is backed only by revelation of faith? That is your assumption based on a flawed perception of observation. We have repeatedly observed predictable complex patterns are never random and always require intelligent input.

So if you are willing to follow the scientific method with this statement, if I can produce an example of complex patterns that are randomly developed (or rather what you would describe as random, I would describe them as through cause and effect) it would negate your argument?

You did say 'never'.
Click to expand...

Crystals and Snowflakes have already been discussed. No two are alike, so they are not predictable, and are also dependent on non-random chemical and environmental input, and do not qualify.

Yes, please give me an example of predictable complex patterns which occur completely randomly without intelligent input. This should be interesting!!
 
AnyOldIron said:
I already did this Arnold.

FACT: You have presented NO theory on origin of life in this thread.

PROOF: Read the thread!

Ok, I'll use that.

How do you know I haven't? You could look through these pages and not see my opinion on abiogenesis, but what if I am a computer genius and can hide my post only from you?
Click to expand...

If you have hidden your post, you haven't presented your post.
 
Okay Arnold, I know you are into science and experiments and all... so let's conduct a little science experiment to prove my theory that randomness doesn't produce predictable patterns. You need 81 coins. Standing on a kitchen chair, drop the coins on the floor... doesn't matter if you drop them one at a time or all at once. Do this repeatedly until you obtain the predictable pattern of 9 symmetrically spaced rows of 9 coins, all face up, with head at the top. Observe the results, and repeat this experiment until random chance produces the predicted pattern. Let me know your results.
 
Dixie said:
Okay Arnold, I know you are into science and experiments and all... so let's conduct a little science experiment to prove my theory that randomness doesn't produce predictable patterns. You need 81 coins. Standing on a kitchen chair, drop the coins on the floor... doesn't matter if you drop them one at a time or all at once. Do this repeatedly until you obtain the predictable pattern of 9 symmetrically spaced rows of 9 coins, all face up, with head at the top. Observe the results, and repeat this experiment until random chance produces the predicted pattern. Let me know your results.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top