Pics For Sharing & Debating

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.

>>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.

and joe, there are entire fields of study devoted to perception and brain logic, but you'd probably want to ask them or google a subject matter expert for specifics instead of asking random people on a football forum how beauty is perceived or judged or similar like it's some sort of i-win button.

generally non-observable effects aren't assumed to exist. dark matter has never been observed, but is assumed due to otherwise unexplainable (but existing) observable mass.


but i don't know, what are you beliefs? intelligent design? 7 days of creation? the 1000 year old history of earth?

MODS (not you, JR), could we please get a poll to see the god botherers Vs. smug elitist 'life-without-a-safety=net' types, please? Probably better if it's phrased 'Religious Vs. Non-Religious'.

I'll donate $20?

KTHANXBAI

>>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".

and joe, there are entire fields of study devoted to perception and brain logic, but you'd probably want to ask them or google a subject matter expert for specifics instead of asking random people on a football forum how beauty is perceived or judged or similar like it's some sort of i-win button.

generally non-observable effects aren't assumed to exist. dark matter has never been observed, but is assumed due to otherwise unexplainable (but existing) observable mass.


but i don't know, what are you beliefs? intelligent design? 7 days of creation? the 1000 year old history of earth?

It is not and was not intended as an "I win" button. In that you see it as such, you are truly missing the point. Rather, it was intended to demonstrate the rhetorical point that a thing's existence is not tied to the ability to perceive it.

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.

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.

...

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.

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?