dan marvin stated: "All of these will be debunked very shortly: R.A.T.E."
And R.A.T.E. will be debunked on Public Broadcasting Network's science program NOVA just like NOVA did the "intelliegent Design" Highschool text book last month.
Most Christians are thoroughly embarassed by YEC. I think it serves as an excellent example of faith (which may be why most Christians are thoroughly embarassed by it).
The secondary sciences cannot disprove creationism, since these sciences do not deal with universals. They rather deal with particulars.
The fact that a biologist accepts that each particular cat, for instance, participates in "catness" is an unconscious vestige from an ancient philosophical past that most scientists, it seems, have conscience spurned. I say "conscience" equivocally, here, since far from making one "with knowledge" the abandoning of the "prime science" of philosophy has created a world in which there is no absolute context within which the secondary sciences can reside. But I digress...
Just as the empiriometric sciences cannot perform an experiment proving or disproving the existence of "catness"--since this is immaterial knowledge, and ergo must be proven philosophically--so a scientific experiment cannot be performed proving or disproving the existence of "Existence" (viz. God in colloquial language). These secondary sciences can only speak of individual things exercising the act of existing.
GordonBlood: "The funny thing Harry is that as a Christian I thought PBS did a wonderful job on that documentary."
You know enjoyed the "intelligent Design" Highschool also. The moral of that story is that you cannot trick or lie to people to 'make' them believers. Even though well intentioned it has a blow-back effect and they lost credibility.
God is the only one that can win our hearts, mankind just gets in the way. We are only instructed to preach the word in season and out of season and stay in the Word.
del, that was entirely word salad. I know what each word means, but the syntax, man, the syntax!
I don't know where you get the idea that science is interested in "catness". We don't care--honestly! Who, what, when, where, and how...if why is a meaningful question, we leave that to the poets.
It is true that science cannot prove existence (which does NOT equate with God, as you so clumsily try to do). Indeed, science does not PROVE anything; we leave that to the mathematicians. Assuming existence, science can justifiably infer many things, and these inferences have proven themselves to be valid due to their predictive nature.
Metaphysics, not so much. Make me a metaphysical computer, or a metaphysical cancer treatment, then we can talk about your so-called "primary science". Until then, I will continue to rely upon professional philosophers on the same basis I currently do--when ordering my sandwich for lunch at the local deli.
(I am being slightly unfair--professional ethicists do impact my daily life, to tell me such things as "Don't torture animals without cause" and "Don't experiment on humans without their informed consent." Thank God they are around to keep me in line!)
I hope you don't mind if I quote you in my post. You said:
"Metaphysics, not so much. Make me a metaphysical computer, or a metaphysical cancer treatment, then we can talk about your so-called "primary science". Until then, I will continue to rely upon professional philosophers on the same basis I currently do--when ordering my sandwich for lunch at the local deli."
Your assertion here is philosophical; you performed no scientific experiment to prove that the empirical sciences are first in the order of knowledge. And really, philosophy offers the only defense of science availible; there has never been, nor never can be, an experiment performed which demonstrates a law of the validity of experiments. The scientific method cannot, as a set of ideas, be made the subject of an experiment. Or rather, it does not contain within itself its own reason for validity.
Indeed, you rightly made a philosophical appeal to the genuine advantages of engineering (albeit, not really a science at all, but an applied art using the sciences of physics, mathematics, et al) and medicine. I happen to agree with you; these things demonstrate the value of the empirical sciences. They are, however, secondary. Let me explain.
If you do not think that the world is understandable (and, more to the point, is understandable *to us*), then you have very little motive to do science. Without the philosophical argument that our intellects apprehend sensible things through the corporal senses, we cannot even claim to know that there is a man with cancer for whom to develop a cure. Indeed, an ardent defense of the senses is possible, and needful in this post-descartian era, with its belief that the only things we can know are our ideas.
Now, the reason why I equate the words "existence" and "God" is because of the nature of universals. I brought up "catness" for this very reason. "Catness" contains every perfection of the being "cat", without existing as any particular cat. We can know "catness" exists, because if it did not, neither could cats; "catness" would not be predicable of anything.
Likewise, we know existence exists. Otherwise, we could not say, "There is a tree", or "I have an apple." Existence, like any universal, must contain within itself every perfection possible in particulars predicated by it. In the case of existence, this would include consciousness, knowledge, and reason--since these are clearly accidents proper to existing things.
If existence did not contain them, it would not be existence properly speaking, but a thing exercising the act of existing, since there would be some perfection of existence lacking to it, and thus have both potentiality and actuality. This would clearly be a violation of itself, and it would therefore point to some other principle of existence. Barring that, there would be no existence, and thus, nothing existing.
9 comments:
All of these will be debunked very shortly: R.A.T.E.
A very important date is coming up, don't forget the Tea Party, 07.
We must continue the r3VOLution!
dan marvin stated: "All of these will be debunked very shortly: R.A.T.E."
And R.A.T.E. will be debunked on Public Broadcasting Network's science program NOVA just like NOVA did the "intelliegent Design" Highschool text book last month.
Why do you want to debunk Christianity?
Why do you even care?
Oh wait, I know, Christianity is the cause of all the problems in the world, right?
The funny thing Harry is that as a Christian I thought PBS did a wonderful job on that documentary.
Most Christians are thoroughly embarassed by YEC. I think it serves as an excellent example of faith (which may be why most Christians are thoroughly embarassed by it).
The secondary sciences cannot disprove creationism, since these sciences do not deal with universals. They rather deal with particulars.
The fact that a biologist accepts that each particular cat, for instance, participates in "catness" is an unconscious vestige from an ancient philosophical past that most scientists, it seems, have conscience spurned. I say "conscience" equivocally, here, since far from making one "with knowledge" the abandoning of the "prime science" of philosophy has created a world in which there is no absolute context within which the secondary sciences can reside. But I digress...
Just as the empiriometric sciences cannot perform an experiment proving or disproving the existence of "catness"--since this is immaterial knowledge, and ergo must be proven philosophically--so a scientific experiment cannot be performed proving or disproving the existence of "Existence" (viz. God in colloquial language). These secondary sciences can only speak of individual things exercising the act of existing.
GordonBlood: "The funny thing Harry is that as a Christian I thought PBS did a wonderful job on that documentary."
You know enjoyed the "intelligent Design" Highschool also. The moral of that story is that you cannot trick or lie to people to 'make' them believers. Even though well intentioned it has a blow-back effect and they lost credibility.
God is the only one that can win our hearts, mankind just gets in the way. We are only instructed to preach the word in season and out of season and stay in the Word.
del, that was entirely word salad. I know what each word means, but the syntax, man, the syntax!
I don't know where you get the idea that science is interested in "catness". We don't care--honestly! Who, what, when, where, and how...if why is a meaningful question, we leave that to the poets.
It is true that science cannot prove existence (which does NOT equate with God, as you so clumsily try to do). Indeed, science does not PROVE anything; we leave that to the mathematicians. Assuming existence, science can justifiably infer many things, and these inferences have proven themselves to be valid due to their predictive nature.
Metaphysics, not so much. Make me a metaphysical computer, or a metaphysical cancer treatment, then we can talk about your so-called "primary science". Until then, I will continue to rely upon professional philosophers on the same basis I currently do--when ordering my sandwich for lunch at the local deli.
(I am being slightly unfair--professional ethicists do impact my daily life, to tell me such things as "Don't torture animals without cause" and "Don't experiment on humans without their informed consent." Thank God they are around to keep me in line!)
Shygets...
I hope you don't mind if I quote you in my post. You said:
"Metaphysics, not so much. Make me a metaphysical computer, or a metaphysical cancer treatment, then we can talk about your so-called "primary science". Until then, I will continue to rely upon professional philosophers on the same basis I currently do--when ordering my sandwich for lunch at the local deli."
Your assertion here is philosophical; you performed no scientific experiment to prove that the empirical sciences are first in the order of knowledge. And really, philosophy offers the only defense of science availible; there has never been, nor never can be, an experiment performed which demonstrates a law of the validity of experiments. The scientific method cannot, as a set of ideas, be made the subject of an experiment. Or rather, it does not contain within itself its own reason for validity.
Indeed, you rightly made a philosophical appeal to the genuine advantages of engineering (albeit, not really a science at all, but an applied art using the sciences of physics, mathematics, et al) and medicine. I happen to agree with you; these things demonstrate the value of the empirical sciences. They are, however, secondary. Let me explain.
If you do not think that the world is understandable (and, more to the point, is understandable *to us*), then you have very little motive to do science. Without the philosophical argument that our intellects apprehend sensible things through the corporal senses, we cannot even claim to know that there is a man with cancer for whom to develop a cure. Indeed, an ardent defense of the senses is possible, and needful in this post-descartian era, with its belief that the only things we can know are our ideas.
Now, the reason why I equate the words "existence" and "God" is because of the nature of universals. I brought up "catness" for this very reason. "Catness" contains every perfection of the being "cat", without existing as any particular cat. We can know "catness" exists, because if it did not, neither could cats; "catness" would not be predicable of anything.
Likewise, we know existence exists. Otherwise, we could not say, "There is a tree", or "I have an apple." Existence, like any universal, must contain within itself every perfection possible in particulars predicated by it. In the case of existence, this would include consciousness, knowledge, and reason--since these are clearly accidents proper to existing things.
If existence did not contain them, it would not be existence properly speaking, but a thing exercising the act of existing, since there would be some perfection of existence lacking to it, and thus have both potentiality and actuality. This would clearly be a violation of itself, and it would therefore point to some other principle of existence. Barring that, there would be no existence, and thus, nothing existing.
Post a Comment