(2017-09-05, 01:14 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]What? What exactly have we explained in complete detail?
Ummm. Almost nothing.
Big bang?
Time?
Gravity?
Why speed of light?
Multiple dimensions?
The nature of matter?
The nature of consciousness?
The extent of the universe?
The nature of life and death?
Yeah, we haven't inserted God,,, but we also have discovered diddly.
I'm not saying God is need to explain anything, but you have GOT to be kidding me...
I never implied there aren't things to discover. I implied we know more than people like you two are acknowledging.
(2017-09-05, 01:06 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]The irony is apparent when anyone makes such a statement using a sophisticated electronic device. You're not the first or the last to do that.
There's no irony Steve.
Science has, and continues, to do an exceptional job while swimming in its lane (e.g., discoveries that fueled the engineering which allows us to communicate via these electronic devices). This insistence that it can swim in other lanes (e.g., explaining consciousness, explaining why there are natural laws at all, etc.) is not scientific. Science may, ultimately, expand its lane to explain some/all of these things, but there is no "science" to base this upon. Many scientists concede this quite comfortably.
It is striking how dogmatic and faith based folks can sound while insisting they are purely science oriented.
(2017-09-05, 01:20 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I never implied there aren't things to discover. I implied we know more than people like you two are acknowledging.
Of course you realize that statement is meaningless. Unless I were to recite a list of EVERYTHING we know, you could make that statement.
OK, but less pedantically: most of what we know is how stuff seems to interact.... We know very, very, little about the fundamental nature of anything... And your statement seems completely oblivious to that fact. And I am assuming intentionally so. Or, maybe not.. ??
(2017-09-05, 01:38 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]OK, but less pedantically: most of what we know is how stuff seems to interact.... We know very, very, little about the fundamental nature of anything... And your statement seems completely oblivious to that fact. And I am assuming intentionally so. Or, maybe not.. ??
You did read my post #34. The answer is "not".
(2017-09-05, 01:21 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]There's no irony Steve.
Science has, and continues, to do an exceptional job while swimming in its lane (e.g., discoveries that fueled the engineering which allows us to communicate via these electronic devices). This insistence that it can swim in other lanes (e.g., explaining consciousness, explaining why there are natural laws at all, etc.) is not scientific. Science may, ultimately, expand its lane to explain some/all of these things, but there is no "science" to base this upon. Many scientists concede this quite comfortably.
It is striking how dogmatic and faith based folks can sound while insisting they are purely science oriented.
It's not faith and it's not dogmatic. Understanding nature via science has been very successful. How do "you" know what is beyond science? What you are really saying is scientists are not clever enough. It's implicated too that answers will be found by non science, perhaps via intuition?
Whom might these scientists be. Are they expressing a fact or their opinion? Do you know?
(2017-09-05, 01:47 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]You did read my post #34. The answer is "not".
Of course I did, it is the subject of my post.
So I guess that means I disagree this post of yours too, whatever number it may be...
OK so here goes---
#34 clip- Quite a mystery isn't it. Look at it this way. Science pushes away the veil of mystery. So far we've been able to explain this universe without inserting God, gods or a conscious organizer.
Unnecessary Note#1-> I've added a bit of
bold to the disagreeable bit...
Unnecessary Note #2-> Of course I added "in detail" in my original response just to be clear about the fact that, of course science has explained a bit here and there.
Unnecessary (I thought) Note 3->
My contention is/was that: science really HASN'T pushed away much of he mystery, nor "explained" much
I hate parsing something that seems quite clear.
Is this as tedious to others to read, as it is for me to write?
(2017-09-05, 01:59 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]It's not faith and it's not dogmatic. Understanding nature via science has been very successful. How do "you" know what is beyond science? What you are really saying is scientists are not clever enough. It's implicated too that answers will be found by non science, perhaps via intuition?
Whom might these scientists be. Are they expressing a fact or their opinion? Do you know?
I don't know what is beyond science Steve. I don't know if there is anything beyond science. I am likely jaded by my hope that there is something beyond science, but my point here is that no one knows if our pursuit of science will prove explanatory in these matters. So far it hasn't to any real measure.
My point here is that you seem to be espousing some form of faith that science will, ultimately prove successful in explaining all things. Relatedly, that this explanation will prove notions such as soul, God, continuation of consciousness as nonsensical and false.
Feel free to clarify if I've misstated.
(2017-09-05, 02:19 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Is this as tedious to others to read, as it is for me to write?
Yes, and Steve's unwillingness to move anywhere into a middle ground in this discussion feels disingenuous.
(2017-09-05, 01:06 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]The irony is apparent when anyone makes such a statement using a sophisticated electronic device. You're not the first or the last to do that.
Oh, wow, total change of subject now...
Are you saying that the existence of computers automatically prohibits the realization that our knowledge of the universe is still very primitive, filled with holes, and ultimately very limited?
Or maybe that having mastered the manufacturing of transistors is the key to the deep mysteries of the universe?
I am not sure if there's something very profound you're trying to say, or you're just confused...
(2017-09-05, 02:34 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, and Steve's unwillingness to move anywhere into a middle ground in this discussion feels disingenuous.
I promise I will hesitate before writing another one like it...
I don't like the tone...
