|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: For ISLAME: Is there such a thing as "Divine Knowledge? |
 |
|
Having only recently returned to this forum, I was not afforded the pleasure of ISLAME's multi year effort to establish the triviality of science and the crushing superiority of "divine knowledge" over "scientific knowledge." Only quite by accident did I fall into awareness of his mission... but admittedly, the awareness remains dim.
In recent exchanges, ISLAME has insisted that all arguments come down to the opposition of "scientific knowledge" vs. "divine knowledge," but he has been a bit reticent regarding showing us examples. Perhaps that is because he has none. Or perhaps it is because he is unwilling to defend them. Or perhaps I simply have been unable to glean them from among the 65 pages and almost 1000 posts of his favorite thread.
So... I wanted to give him a chance on a clean sheet of paper to make his demonstration.
Now... to be fair I will start with five examples of "scientific knowledge" to give a basis for comparison with the examples I am so anxious for him to provide. These are all examples of "knowledge" gained by practice of the endeavor we call "science," in no particular order.
1. The universe is a very large place. Galaxies were not even recognized until the late 19th century, and thought to be small nebular objects at a not very great distance. As late as the 1920s, human beings believed that the universe was entirely dominated by the single disk of gas and stars we call the "Milky Way." We now know the universe to consist of multiple billions of galaxies of which our own milky way is just one.
2. Plate tectonics. In the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, geologists assumed that the Earth's major features were fixed, and that most geologic features such as mountain ranges could be explained by vertical crustal movement, as explained by geosynclinal theory. We now know that the crust of the earth is composed of dynamic plates in constant motion, floating on the plastic mantle below. It is one of the most powerful explanatory discoveries in history.
3. Radioactivity. In March of 1896 Antoine Henri Becquerel was researching phosphorescence and flourescence when he put some wrapped photographic plates away in a darkened drawer, along with some crystals containing uranium. Becquerel's discovered that the plates were exposed during storage by invisible emanations from the uranium. The emanations did not require the presence of an initiating energy source--the crystals emitted rays on their own! Although Becquerel did not pursue his discovery of radioactivity, others did and, in so doing, changed the face of both modern medicine and modern science.
4. The Genetic Code. The discovery of the DNA molecule by Watson & Crick unlocked the foundations of biology and revolutionized all associated sciences.
5. The Asteroid that Wiped Out the Dinosaurs. The discovery that mass extinction events in earth history are sometimes cosmic in origin not only changed our understanding of geology and evolution, but set the satge for understanding the fate of other organisms on the planet, to include ourselves.
So... ISLAME, the question is to you:
Can you show us five comparable examples of "divine knowledge?"
Then perhaps we can have a real discussion.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ISLAME
Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 389
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Huxley for giving me this honour. Generally, i base my arguments on refutations of my posts, but however, i welcome your approach. Major players of evolution and Science have all been spanked and thrashed by yours truly in the past, and you can bet that you will not be any exception. However, my request to you is please proclaim your Atheism first to one and all. You represent Science so it is not wise to believe in God, this creates much confusion and does not make for a fun or intelligent debate. Belief in Science does not allow belief in supernatural. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
All the points you listed above are things that are but a part of life. The basic concept of divine knowledge is but as an answer for the origin of life. So you have made no scientific discoveries, those things you listed were always there and are a part of life. So don;t act like as if they were not there before and Science "discovered" them. It is also not wise to keep on insisting that "Science discovers". For example, you as a Scientist, what have you discovered?. Millions of scientists actually do not discover anything. It is humans who make discoveries, so when the percentage of Scientists making any great discovering is just 0.1% or less, then we have no reason to believe that "Science discovers". In fact there is no such thing as "scientific knowledge" in this world. There is no Science. How can there be Science when Life dictates it? If there was Science, we would have been able to predict the future. We would not be having an infinite regress as an answer for life.
There is life and there is knowledge. No science. Let me make an attempt to list some arguments for divine knowledge.
1) The existence of knowledge. Nothing can happen without knowledge allowing it to happen. This universe, this life, is nothing more than a combination of knowledge. So we have to agree that in the beginning there was knowledge even if there was nothing else. Existence of knowledge by itself cannot be and does not serve any purpose. How can knowledge exist by itself without a source? Unless of course the knowledge is the source. It is the existence of such a knowledge that holds the key to answer for life.
2)The miracle of faith. People all over the world belonging to different religions have talked about miracles. This simply proves that divine knowledge is not religion god specific, but rather attributes specific. The common factor is faith. However, atheists are more keen to use this as a means for god bashing, rather than asking themselves why miracles happen across all religions?
3)The existence of Love. Love is a powerful feeling that makes us do good things, and appreciate the good things in life. Love is the basic idea behind religion. But Love is not scientifically evidenced yet it remains the most important part of our life. Love is the foundation for life. This fact does not make sense from Atheism/Evolution point of view, but from a divine knowledge point of view, it makes perfect sense.
4)The existence of spirits, near death experiences, miracles, all prove towards an unknown, best understood only with religion. This existence only makes sense with religion and belief in God. Psychics, personal experiences all over the world points towards such an unknown. This should be taken seriously as proof of something beyond human knowledge.
5)The issue of non-existence to existence, which we humans prove every time another human is born. I was non-existant 100 years ago. But the question remains. Was i there all the time as "knowledge" and waiting to be born? Just like electricity was always there, but "found" only thousands of years later? You can think of it this way. when songwriters think of a tune, where do they get that tune from? They get it from the "knowledge bank" of nature. And what about people who get brilliant idea suddenly? Since both smart and stupid people get brilliant ideas, we cannot say that it is in the brain. I think it is all about the connection of the brain to that "knowledge" out there. I will elaborate on this point further if you did not get it.
_________________
i am sorry but having more questions on a subject is not knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Popeye
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Islame,
I am confused by some of the terms you use and I struggle to understand;
Science, Knowledge, Belief, Experience have different meanings and different entries in the Dictionary.
What, for instance, do you mean by Divine Knowledge?
God's own intellect/ Knowledge that pertains to God or our interpretation of God's intellect/ Emanation from God ?
_________________
Surtout, pas trop de zele. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ISLAME wrote: |
| Thanks Huxley for giving me this honour. Generally, i base my arguments on refutations of my posts, but however, i welcome your approach. Major players of evolution and Science have all been spanked and thrashed by yours truly in the past, and you can bet that you will not be any exception. However, my request to you is please proclaim your Atheism first to one and all. You represent Science so it is not wise to believe in God, this creates much confusion and does not make for a fun or intelligent debate. Belief in Science does not allow belief in supernatural. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. |
Alas... I cannot "proclaim my atheism" as it would be a lie for me to do so. If you are incapable of defending your beliefs against a non-traditional theist, then just say so. But I will not misrepresent my beliefs just because you want me to.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| All the points you listed above are things that are but a part of life. The basic concept of divine knowledge is but as an answer for the origin of life. So you have made no scientific discoveries, those things you listed were always there and are a part of life. So don;t act like as if they were not there before and Science "discovered" them. |
They were all there before science discovered them. But the knowledge was not. And as per your own insistence, the issue here is between "scientific knowledge" and "divine knowledge," not between scientific discovery and divine discovery.
It is my hope that we will not be subject to more of these irrelevant diversions on your part, and that we can focus back on the real issue being discussed.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| In fact there is no such thing as "scientific knowledge" in this world. There is no Science. How can there be Science when Life dictates it? If there was Science, we would have been able to predict the future. We would not be having an infinite regress as an answer for life. |
Nothing in that paragraph appears to either make sense or reflect truth. It is nothing more than four bald assertions and an absurd question. In response to each:
1. I have given you 5 examples of scientific knowledge, so there rather clearly is such a thing as scientific knowledge in this word. I am waiting for you to give counterexamples of divine knowledge.
2. There is science, and it is the single most productive eneterprise in all of human history. Your own use of the Internet to communicate with me demonstrates that. Unless you want to maintian that the Internet was always there just waiting to be "discovered."
3. How does life dictate science? Musch of science has nothing to do with life.
4. The future can often be "predicted" because of science. Sometimes in great detail. The predictions are better when the science is more advanced and worse when it is not. Thus there is a direct correlation between scientific knowledge and the quality of our prediction.
5. An infinite regress is just another example of something that already was, and yet did not become "knowledge" until later. And it (as demonstrated in those other threads) is a far superior solution to the origin of the universe than your mysterious "divine nowledge."
| ISLAME wrote: |
| There is life and there is knowledge. No science. Let me make an attempt to list some arguments for divine knowledge. |
Finally.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| 1) The existence of knowledge. Nothing can happen without knowledge allowing it to happen. This universe, this life, is nothing more than a combination of knowledge. So we have to agree that in the beginning there was knowledge even if there was nothing else. Existence of knowledge by itself cannot be and does not serve any purpose. How can knowledge exist by itself without a source? Unless of course the knowledge is the source. It is the existence of such a knowledge that holds the key to answer for life. |
You apparently do not understand what "knowledge" means.
knowl·edge –noun
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
You will note that all of these definitions require a "knower." Knowledge does not exist until it is known by a sentient being.
Therefore you are absolutely wrong to assert that "nothing can happen without knowledge allowing it to happen." Any thing that happens without a sentient being observing it is occurring without any knowledge whatsoever.
So... no, we do not have to agree. In the beginning there was no knowledge whatsoever. In fact, our entire universe existed and operated for (at least) multiple billions of years before knowledge ever existed for the first time.
All the knowledge of which we are aware is human knowledge, and much of it is scientific knowledge. You have yet to give us a single example of divine knowledge.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| 2)The miracle of faith. People all over the world belonging to different religions have talked about miracles. This simply proves that divine knowledge is not religion god specific, but rather attributes specific. The common factor is faith. However, atheists are more keen to use this as a means for god bashing, rather than asking themselves why miracles happen across all religions? |
Where is the divine knowledge here? You have shown none.
Since there does not exist a majority religious belief anywhere on the planet, the one thing that is certain is that the faith of the majority of humanity is false. Whichever faith (if any) is true, it is at best a minority opinion.
If the majority of faith is false, what confidence do you have that any faith is true? Wouldn't the actual status of faith be an argument against divine knowledge? Or at least an indictment of the competence of the divine knower?
| ISLAME wrote: |
| 3)The existence of Love. Love is a powerful feeling that makes us do good things, and appreciate the good things in life. Love is the basic idea behind religion. But Love is not scientifically evidenced yet it remains the most important part of our life. Love is the foundation for life. This fact does not make sense from Atheism/Evolution point of view, but from a divine knowledge point of view, it makes perfect sense. |
Love makes perfect sense from the evolutionary point of view. And it also has rather advanced scientific understanding. Your assertion here is simply false.
You can start here: http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm
| ISLAME wrote: |
| 4)The existence of spirits, near death experiences, miracles, all prove towards an unknown, best understood only with religion. This existence only makes sense with religion and belief in God. Psychics, personal experiences all over the world points towards such an unknown. This should be taken seriously as proof of something beyond human knowledge. |
There are no spirits or miracles... at least you have not shown us any. Most psychics are deliberate frauds, and those who are not have proven unable to demonstrate their skills in a controlled environment. And NDEs are evidence only of what the human brain experiences when near death... though not actually dead.
If any of these phenomena were true, you would expect that someone would somewhere have been able to demonstrate their truth. Yet not a single instance exists where such things have ever been shown to be real. This in spite of million dollar rewards offered for such demonstrations. If you can show otherwise, go here to earn your million dollars:
http://www.randi.org/joom/
| ISLAME wrote: |
| 5)The issue of non-existence to existence, which we humans prove every time another human is born. I was non-existant 100 years ago. But the question remains. Was i there all the time as "knowledge" and waiting to be born? Just like electricity was always there, but "found" only thousands of years later? You can think of it this way. when songwriters think of a tune, where do they get that tune from? They get it from the "knowledge bank" of nature. And what about people who get brilliant idea suddenly? Since both smart and stupid people get brilliant ideas, we cannot say that it is in the brain. I think it is all about the connection of the brain to that "knowledge" out there. I will elaborate on this point further if you did not get it. |
You contradict yourself here. And your confusion appears to derive from admitted ignorance.
First you assert that you were non-existent 100 years ago. Then you change your mind and speculate you did already exist after all. In this way.. whatever point your are trying to make here is hamstrung by your own admitted ignorance. So what conclusion can be drawn from an example that you yourslef have no confidence in?
I am myself a songwriter. My tunes do not come from a "knowledge bank" of nature. They come from my brain.
Both smart and stupid people have brains. So it is rather clear that yes, ideas (brilliant or otherwise) come from the brain.
But... the bottom line here is that we still do not have any examples from you of "divine knowledge" along the lines of the 5 examples of "scientific knowledge" cited in my first post. I would have thought that you would be providing those examples right away.
Do you not have any?
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shoeshiner
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 4684
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh how I wished that this was in the Exclusive Rooms section so that the two of you alone could battle it out. Its not too late for that, would you two mind if this thread was moved to the ER?
_________________
"The curse of man, and cause of nearly all of his woes, is his stupendous capacity for believing the incredible."
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shoeshiner wrote: |
| Oh how I wished that this was in the Exclusive Rooms section so that the two of you alone could battle it out. Its not too late for that, would you two mind if this thread was moved to the ER? |
I'm okay with that.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shoeshiner
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 4684
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Huxley,
I took the liberty to create the thread below in the "Talk to the moderators" section. If ISLAME accepts the proposal as well, then the mods will hopefully move the thread to the ER section.
BTW, this is a interesting subject, can't wait to read both sides of the story.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=57201
_________________
"The curse of man, and cause of nearly all of his woes, is his stupendous capacity for believing the incredible."
H. L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GreatIslam
Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ISLAME wrote: |
Thanks Huxley for giving me this honour. Generally, i base my arguments on refutations of my posts, but however, i welcome your approach. Major players of evolution and Science have all been spanked and thrashed by yours truly in the past, and you can bet that you will not be any exception. However, my request to you is please proclaim your Atheism first to one and all. You represent Science so it is not wise to believe in God, this creates much confusion and does not make for a fun or intelligent debate. Belief in Science does not allow belief in supernatural. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
All the points you listed above are things that are but a part of life. The basic concept of divine knowledge is but as an answer for the origin of life. So you have made no scientific discoveries, those things you listed were always there and are a part of life. So don;t act like as if they were not there before and Science "discovered" them. It is also not wise to keep on insisting that "Science discovers". For example, you as a Scientist, what have you discovered?. Millions of scientists actually do not discover anything. It is humans who make discoveries, so when the percentage of Scientists making any great discovering is just 0.1% or less, then we have no reason to believe that "Science discovers". In fact there is no such thing as "scientific knowledge" in this world. There is no Science. How can there be Science when Life dictates it? If there was Science, we would have been able to predict the future. We would not be having an infinite regress as an answer for life.
There is life and there is knowledge. No science. Let me make an attempt to list some arguments for divine knowledge.
1) The existence of knowledge. Nothing can happen without knowledge allowing it to happen. This universe, this life, is nothing more than a combination of knowledge. So we have to agree that in the beginning there was knowledge even if there was nothing else. Existence of knowledge by itself cannot be and does not serve any purpose. How can knowledge exist by itself without a source? Unless of course the knowledge is the source. It is the existence of such a knowledge that holds the key to answer for life.
2)The miracle of faith. People all over the world belonging to different religions have talked about miracles. This simply proves that divine knowledge is not religion god specific, but rather attributes specific. The common factor is faith. However, atheists are more keen to use this as a means for god bashing, rather than asking themselves why miracles happen across all religions?
3)The existence of Love. Love is a powerful feeling that makes us do good things, and appreciate the good things in life. Love is the basic idea behind religion. But Love is not scientifically evidenced yet it remains the most important part of our life. Love is the foundation for life. This fact does not make sense from Atheism/Evolution point of view, but from a divine knowledge point of view, it makes perfect sense.
4)The existence of spirits, near death experiences, miracles, all prove towards an unknown, best understood only with religion. This existence only makes sense with religion and belief in God. Psychics, personal experiences all over the world points towards such an unknown. This should be taken seriously as proof of something beyond human knowledge.
5)The issue of non-existence to existence, which we humans prove every time another human is born. I was non-existant 100 years ago. But the question remains. Was i there all the time as "knowledge" and waiting to be born? Just like electricity was always there, but "found" only thousands of years later? You can think of it this way. when songwriters think of a tune, where do they get that tune from? They get it from the "knowledge bank" of nature. And what about people who get brilliant idea suddenly? Since both smart and stupid people get brilliant ideas, we cannot say that it is in the brain. I think it is all about the connection of the brain to that "knowledge" out there. I will elaborate on this point further if you did not get it. |
Islame:
Do you believe in life after death?
Do you believe in Hell and Heaven, punishment and reward after death? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ISLAME
Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 389
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greatislam wrote: |
Islame:
Do you believe in life after death?
Do you believe in Hell and Heaven, punishment and reward after death? |
Hello greatislam. I believe life does not end with death. It goes on a spiritual existence. I do not believe in hell and heaven of religion, but i believe the purpose of life is to do good. However, your opinion on this will be as good as mine. I believe, more than after death, there will be rewards and punishments in this life itself.
| shoeshiner wrote: |
Hi Huxley,
I took the liberty to create the thread below in the "Talk to the moderators" section. If ISLAME accepts the proposal as well, then the mods will hopefully move the thread to the ER section.
BTW, this is a interesting subject, can't wait to read both sides of the story.
|
Thanks for the effort shoeshiner. However, Huxley must first proclaim himself as an Atheist for this debate to go on. I see no reason to debate with someone who himself is unscientific by believing in God, then questions another person who believes in God.
| popeye wrote: |
Hello Islame,
I am confused by some of the terms you use and I struggle to understand;
Science, Knowledge, Belief, Experience have different meanings and different entries in the Dictionary.
What, for instance, do you mean by Divine Knowledge?
God's own intellect/ Knowledge that pertains to God or our interpretation of God's intellect/ Emanation from God ? |
Hello popeye. Divine knowledge is God. It is just a neutral way to refer to God. Science is just a human understanding of life but not life itself. For example, it will rain in spot A tomorrow is an example of Science making a prediction. but when it does not rain in spot A tomorrow, it instead becomes sunny, it is Life overuling the authority of Science. Knowledge is whatever we know and whatever we don't know. for anything to happen or not to happen, knowledge must permit it. Knowledge can exist without humans finding it out, as is evidenced by electricity, concept of internet existing for thousands of years without us knowing it. This proves that knowledge in general, not necessarily scientific knowledge only, can exist in a state of unknown.
| huxley wrote: |
| Alas... I cannot "proclaim my atheism" as it would be a lie for me to do so. If you are incapable of defending your beliefs against a non-traditional theist, then just say so. But I will not misrepresent my beliefs just because you want me to |
How can you stand up for Science, when you, yourself are being unscieitific? It is unscientific to believe in God, whether as a traditional theist or whatever. I am not a traditional theist myself. It will end up as a debate pitting one unscientific man against another unscientific man.
| huxley wrote: |
They were all there before science discovered them. But the knowledge was not. And as per your own insistence, the issue here is between "scientific knowledge" and "divine knowledge," not between scientific discovery and divine discovery.
It is my hope that we will not be subject to more of these irrelevant diversions on your part, and that we can focus back on the real issue being discussed. |
The question of life is life itself, not what it is made up of. Going back to my famous cake analogy, of course there will be ingredients when there is a cake. If you discover first the ingredient as sugar, and then a thousand years later you discover there is flour, does it really answer who made the cake or where it came from? Wasnt the cake always made of sugar and flour? That was the knowledge and will remain one, regardless if we manage to find all the ingredients or not. So, there is just knowledge and the way you found out could have been by using Science, but it does not make it a scientific knowledge.
If there indeed was scientific knowledge, then it should be able to tell us where the cake came from or who made it?
| huxley wrote: |
Nothing in that paragraph appears to either make sense or reflect truth. It is nothing more than four bald assertions and an absurd question. In response to each:
1. I have given you 5 examples of scientific knowledge, so there rather clearly is such a thing as scientific knowledge in this word. I am waiting for you to give counterexamples of divine knowledge.
2. There is science, and it is the single most productive eneterprise in all of human history. Your own use of the Internet to communicate with me demonstrates that. Unless you want to maintian that the Internet was always there just waiting to be "discovered."
3. How does life dictate science? Musch of science has nothing to do with life.
4. The future can often be "predicted" because of science. Sometimes in great detail. The predictions are better when the science is more advanced and worse when it is not. Thus there is a direct correlation between scientific knowledge and the quality of our prediction.
5. An infinite regress is just another example of something that already was, and yet did not become "knowledge" until later. And it (as demonstrated in those other threads) is a far superior solution to the origin of the universe than your mysterious "divine nowledge."
|
1)What you listed are not scientific knowledge, but knowledge in general. We got those knowledge using the knowledge that life is made up of. The so called Science is but a human understanding of life, but not life itself. One has to experience divine knowledge. In fact, i could even say that those knowledge you listed above are examples of divine knowledge because they are part of life.
2)Yes the internet was always there waiting to be discovered. Was it not? But the question is, did they find Science in the internet? Or used Science to find the internet?. So rather they find Science in their discoveries and do not use Science to make discoveries. So scientific knowledge does not exist, only the knowledge of life exists.
3)Life dictates science because, when they discover how something works in life, they call it Science. They do not use Science to find the internet, but they found science in the internet. This means Science refers to how things are made, how things work in life, or how things simply are as per human understanding. Science continiously has to change its views many times, when the truth of life differs. For example, they used to glorify smoking as being good for health, but when people began to get cancer from it, they said smoking CAUSES cancer. But when not all people got cancer from it, they changed their stance and said smoking MAY cause cancer. Later, they became confused and stuck with Smoking is injurious to health.
4)Give examples of how Science predicts the future? Like what will happen tomorrow? Remember it must be 100% accurate. some psychics and religious fortune tellers mind you can predicted future accurately.
5)You failed to demonstrate infinite regress is the answer. your conclusion was "the universe always was" but you tell me we cannot say "the chair always was". You want to use the logic from the chair argument, but then deny us when i use the logic from the universe argument. If i ask you "what made the universe?" and you say X and then i ask you where X came from, and you say Y and then i ask you where Y came from you say Z, these XYZ would be the Cause in the Cause and Effect. When Huxley made the chair, there is no need to go into infinite regress for an answer. Cause=huxley, effect=chair.
In your universe argument effect=universe, cause=xyz to infinity. So this is not human example of cause and effect that you have listed.
| huxley wrote: |
You will note that all of these definitions require a "knower." Knowledge does not exist until it is known by a sentient being. Therefore you are absolutely wrong to assert that "nothing can happen without knowledge allowing it to happen." Any thing that happens without a sentient being observing it is occurring without any knowledge whatsoever.
So... no, we do not have to agree. In the beginning there was no knowledge whatsoever. In fact, our entire universe existed and operated for (at least) multiple billions of years before knowledge ever existed for the first time.
All the knowledge of which we are aware is human knowledge, and much of it is scientific knowledge. You have yet to give us a single example of divine knowledge.
|
Then isnt Science making all those studies and research in pursuit of knowledge? If knowledge is only what we know, then why pursue it like Scientist do? There is no truth in what you say. Knowledge must allow for something to happen or not to happen. Even in the beginning, for the universe to operate, knowledge must allow it to operate. the big bang also cannot happen without knowledge allowing it to happen. You again say entire universe, meaning 100% of it i suppose, still making statements about the 95% of the unknown and unaccounted for universe. just like when you say "the universe always was".
| huxley wrote: |
Where is the divine knowledge here? You have shown none.
Since there does not exist a majority religious belief anywhere on the planet, the one thing that is certain is that the faith of the majority of humanity is false. Whichever faith (if any) is true, it is at best a minority opinion.
If the majority of faith is false, what confidence do you have that any faith is true? Wouldn't the actual status of faith be an argument against divine knowledge? Or at least an indictment of the competence of the divine knower?
|
There again an Atheist goes into religion bashing. Theists across all religion, when they have divine experiences, only proves that God is not religion specific. It does not prove that there is no divine being. It proves that somebody does answer the prayer. Logically speaking i would think that NO miracles across all religion would prove something against divine knowledge. However, this is not the case.
Rather God seems to be more attributes specific than anything else.
| huxley wrote: |
| Love makes perfect sense from the evolutionary point of view. And it also has rather advanced scientific understanding. Your assertion here is simply false |
 yeah rite. one unicellular cell saying "i love u" to another multicellular cell makes perfect sense to u? Love makes only perfect sense to human beings. human beings even die for love. Yet this foundation for life, this emotion called love, is never scientifically evidenced. To understand this feeling and emotions, divine knowledge is signficant and makes sense. You cannot even prove to me that you love your wife or kids, if i were to ask you for scientific evidence.
| huxley wrote: |
There are no spirits or miracles... at least you have not shown us any. Most psychics are deliberate frauds, and those who are not have proven unable to demonstrate their skills in a controlled environment. And NDEs are evidence only of what the human brain experiences when near death... though not actually dead.
If any of these phenomena were true, you would expect that someone would somewhere have been able to demonstrate their truth. Yet not a single instance exists where such things have ever been shown to be real. This in spite of million dollar rewards offered for such demonstrations. If you can show otherwise, go here to earn your million dollars: |
They are reported all over the world. Even UFOs are. Unless you want to say everybody is lieing. but Science takes the easy way out. Something it cannot explain, it puts it in the "coincidences, unsolved mysteries" bin. And they consider that as an answer, much like they consider infinite regress as an answer. I can bet that even among your own immediate relatives, or people they know, you will hear stories of the unknown or of a miracle. For me, i have experienced it myself. It just happens. Of course, if you want to experience it, you have to make an effort. As for psychics, there are some real good ones, if you simply bother to find out or read up. If i were to offer you a million dollars to prove your love for your mother, i bet that you will never be able to take it too. But that does not mean you do not love ur mother.
quote="huxley"] You contradict yourself here. And your confusion appears to derive from admitted ignorance.
First you assert that you were non-existent 100 years ago. Then you change your mind and speculate you did already exist after all. In this way.. whatever point your are trying to make here is hamstrung by your own admitted ignorance. So what conclusion can be drawn from an example that you yourslef have no confidence in?
I am myself a songwriter. My tunes do not come from a "knowledge bank" of nature. They come from my brain.
Both smart and stupid people have brains. So it is rather clear that yes, ideas (brilliant or otherwise) come from the brain.
But... the bottom line here is that we still do not have any examples from you of "divine knowledge" along the lines of the 5 examples of "scientific knowledge" cited in my first post. I would have thought that you would be providing those examples right away.
Do you not have any? [/quote]
I was non existant 100 years ago in this physical world, same way internet was non-existant back then. But it does not mean that i was not existing as knowledge out there, waiting to be born. I am talking about non-existence, which makes sense if you apply divine knowledge to it.
If it was in your brain, why you did not get it earlier? Was it there even when you were born? Does not our brain contain what we learn only? Unless you copied the tune from someone else, after hearing it, and it played in your brain, then that tune cannot come from your brain. you learnt music, and there is music in the "knowledge bank" of nature, you got your tune from there. So it was not in your brain at all, but totally outside of your brain. You made that connection.
IT is all about making that connection my friend.
Divine knowledge is experienced, you have to make an effort. It takes time and faith, but you will find if you seek it positively.
_________________
i am sorry but having more questions on a subject is not knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Popeye
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ISLAME wrote: |
Hello popeye. Divine knowledge is God. It is just a neutral way to refer to God. Science is just a human understanding of life but not life itself. For example, it will rain in spot A tomorrow is an example of Science making a prediction. but when it does not rain in spot A tomorrow, it instead becomes sunny, it is Life overuling the authority of Science. Knowledge is whatever we know and whatever we don't know. for anything to happen or not to happen, knowledge must permit it. Knowledge can exist without humans finding it out, as is evidenced by electricity, concept of internet existing for thousands of years without us knowing it. This proves that knowledge in general, not necessarily scientific knowledge only, can exist in a state of unknown. |
It seems to me you are inventing concepts because you like the echo they make in your brain.
The invention of the Internet and the discovery of electricity have to do with human ingenuity, they are not eternal concepts.
Science is merely enquiry, it presumes that causes are natural because it cannot successfully investigate microbes if they were Jinns or spirits.
Weather forecasts never claim to predict with 100% accuracy but they are often better than a rain dance.
Knowledge cannot exist without somebody experiencing and confirming.
Can you show me another way that Knowledge can be observed in the natural Universe?
_________________
Surtout, pas trop de zele. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ISLAME wrote: |
| Thanks for the effort shoeshiner. However, Huxley must first proclaim himself as an Atheist for this debate to go on. I see no reason to debate with someone who himself is unscientific by believing in God, then questions another person who believes in God. |
The only sensible interpretation of such a silly demand is that ISLAME is afraid to continue the conversation. This is reasonable given the "spanking" (his word) that he has received from me in other threads to this point.
He clearly wishes to avoid more of the same.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| How can you stand up for Science, when you, yourself are being unscieitific? It is unscientific to believe in God, whether as a traditional theist or whatever. I am not a traditional theist myself. It will end up as a debate pitting one unscientific man against another unscientific man. |
You have denied that there is anything such as "science" at all. How then do you pretend to label anything "unscientific?" You are contradicting yourself. Again.
| ISLAME wrote: |
The question of life is life itself, not what it is made up of. Going back to my famous cake analogy, of course there will be ingredients when there is a cake. If you discover first the ingredient as sugar, and then a thousand years later you discover there is flour, does it really answer who made the cake or where it came from? Wasnt the cake always made of sugar and flour?That was the knowledge and will remain one, regardless if we manage to find all the ingredients or not. So, there is just knowledge and the way you found out could have been by using Science, but it does not make it a scientific knowledge.
If there indeed was scientific knowledge, then it should be able to tell us where the cake came from or who made it? |
If the cake actually has a maker, science should be able to answer that question. More importnatly, if the cake has a maker, science should be able to tell us something about the character of that maker. I am prepared to discuss what science tells us on that issue.
How about you?
| ISLAME wrote: |
| 1)What you listed are not scientific knowledge, but knowledge in general. We got those knowledge using the knowledge that life is made up of. The so called Science is but a human understanding of life, but not life itself. One has to experience divine knowledge. In fact, i could even say that those knowledge you listed above are examples of divine knowledge because they are part of life. |
Knowledge gained by the formal enterprise of science is "scientific knowledge." Run away from that as much as you like, but it only makes you look like somebody who prefers to run away than discuss the issues.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| 2)Yes the internet was always there waiting to be discovered. Was it not? But the question is, did they find Science in the internet? Or used Science to find the internet?. So rather they find Science in their discoveries and do not use Science to make discoveries. So scientific knowledge does not exist, only the knowledge of life exists. |
No. The Internet was not always there. Science was not used to "find" the internet. It was original knowledge created by science that did not preexist its invention.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| 3)Life dictates science because, when they discover how something works in life, they call it Science. They do not use Science to find the internet, but they found science in the internet. This means Science refers to how things are made, how things work in life, or how things simply are as per human understanding. Science continiously has to change its views many times, when the truth of life differs. |
I do not believe that you have a clear understanding of what "life" means. As a result, you use it in so many different ways that you end up only confusing yourself.
Take a moment, take a breath, and define "life" so we will finally know what you are talking about.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| For example, they used to glorify smoking as being good for health, but when people began to get cancer from it, they said smoking CAUSES cancer. But when not all people got cancer from it, they changed their stance and said smoking MAY cause cancer. Later, they became confused and stuck with Smoking is injurious to health. |
Smoking does cause cancer. Just as drunk driving causes autombile deaths.
Just not all the time.
What about that simple truth confuses so?
| ISLAME wrote: |
| 4)Give examples of how Science predicts the future? Like what will happen tomorrow? Remember it must be 100% accurate. some psychics and religious fortune tellers mind you can predicted future accurately. |
On March 24, 1993, astronomers Carolyn and Eugene M. Shoemaker and David Levy discovered a previously unknown comet in a photograph taken at the Palomar Observatory in California. It was named Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, and was the first comet observed to be orbiting a planet.
Observing the comet, astronomers predicted that its fragments would collide with Jupiter starting on July 16, 1994 and ending on July 22, 1994.
They were exactly correct.
| ISLAME wrote: |
5)You failed to demonstrate infinite regress is the answer. your conclusion was "the universe always was" but you tell me we cannot say "the chair always was". You want to use the logic from the chair argument, but then deny us when i use the logic from the universe argument. If i ask you "what made the universe?" and you say X and then i ask you where X came from, and you say Y and then i ask you where Y came from you say Z, these XYZ would be the Cause in the Cause and Effect. When Huxley made the chair, there is no need to go into infinite regress for an answer. Cause=huxley, effect=chair.
In your universe argument effect=universe, cause=xyz to infinity. So this is not human example of cause and effect that you have listed. |
The demonstrating is in fact so compelling that you completely stopped trying to argue against it. You finally just through up your hands in surrender and asserted that you simply found the idea "unnacceptable." The rest of this paragraph bears little resemblance to your previous "spankings."
The chair was not "always." It is part of the infinite regress. As is Huxley. As is Huxley's parents. Every effect has a cause... including all these effects you have listed.
The universe, however, is neither an effect nor a cause. It is everything that exists or has ever existed.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| Then isnt Science making all those studies and research in pursuit of knowledge? If knowledge is only what we know, then why pursue it like Scientist do? There is no truth in what you say. Knowledge must allow for something to happen or not to happen. Even in the beginning, for the universe to operate, knowledge must allow it to operate. the big bang also cannot happen without knowledge allowing it to happen. You again say entire universe, meaning 100% of it i suppose, still making statements about the 95% of the unknown and unaccounted for universe. just like when you say "the universe always was". |
You are completely wrong. Knowledge does not exist until a sentient being "knows" it. Science does pursue knowledge, because each time it discoveres something new it has created knowledge where none previously existed.
The universe requires zero knowledge to operate, as shown by the fact for at least some part of its history there could not have been any sentient "knowers" and yet it operated just fine.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| There again an Atheist goes into religion bashing. Theists across all religion, when they have divine experiences, only proves that God is not religion specific. It does not prove that there is no divine being. It proves that somebody does answer the prayer. Logically speaking i would think that NO miracles across all religion would prove something against divine knowledge. However, this is not the case. |
You have yet to show us a single miracle. They do not appear to exist, and you seem incapable of demonstrating otherwise.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| yeah rite. one unicellular cell saying "i love u" to another multicellular cell makes perfect sense to u? |
No. It doesn't. What a goofy thing for you to say.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| Love makes only perfect sense to human beings. |
You apparently have never seen a mother fox with her children.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| human beings even die for love. Yet this foundation for life, this emotion called love, is never scientifically evidenced. To understand this feeling and emotions, divine knowledge is signficant and makes sense. You cannot even prove to me that you love your wife or kids, if i were to ask you for scientific evidence. |
I already gave you a link that demonstrates you are wrong here. Why did you not go read it?
| ISLAME wrote: |
| They are reported all over the world. Even UFOs are. Unless you want to say everybody is lieing. |
Many people are lying. Many others are merely deluded. No one has ever been able to demonstrate that they were telling truth.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| but Science takes the easy way out. |
Nonsense.
Science takes the path of the harder right rather than the easier wrong by testing such phenomena to see if they are real or not.
They are not real.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| Something it cannot explain, it puts it in the "coincidences, unsolved mysteries" bin. And they consider that as an answer, much like they consider infinite regress as an answer. I can bet that even among your own immediate relatives, or people they know, you will hear stories of the unknown or of a miracle. For me, i have experienced it myself. It just happens. Of course, if you want to experience it, you have to make an effort. As for psychics, there are some real good ones, if you simply bother to find out or read up. If i were to offer you a million dollars to prove your love for your mother, i bet that you will never be able to take it too. But that does not mean you do not love ur mother. |
What a pathetic weasel wiggle. It amounts to an admission that you cannot prove any of this, in spite of your insistence that millions of these events occur all over the world, all the time.
Yet you are unable to demonstrate a single one.
So much for "divine knowledge."
| ISLAME wrote: |
| I was non existant 100 years ago in this physical world, same way internet was non-existant back then. But it does not mean that i was not existing as knowledge out there, waiting to be born. I am talking about non-existence, which makes sense if you apply divine knowledge to it. |
You are speaking nonsense. Stop all the dancing and do the one thing you were asked to do in this thread.
DEMONSTRATE the existence of "divine knowledge."
| ISLAME wrote: |
| If it was in your brain, why you did not get it earlier? |
It was not "in my brain." It did not preexist. It was an original innovation by my brain.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| Was it there even when you were born? |
Nope.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| Does not our brain contain what we learn only? |
Nope.
| ISLAME wrote: |
Unless you copied the tune from someone else, after hearing it, and it played in your brain, then that tune cannot come from your brain. you learnt music, and there is music in the "knowledge bank" of nature, you got your tune from there. So it was not in your brain at all, but totally outside of your brain. You made that connection.
IT is all about making that connection my friend. |
Nope. It never existed until I created it in my brain.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| Divine knowledge is experienced, you have to make an effort. It takes time and faith, but you will find if you seek it positively. |
Divine knowledge apparently does not exist.
You have yet to demonstrate a single example.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ISLAME
Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 389
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huxley wrote: |
The only sensible interpretation of such a silly demand is that ISLAME is afraid to continue the conversation. This is reasonable given the "spanking" (his word) that he has received from me in other threads to this point.
He clearly wishes to avoid more of the same. |
The opposite is the fact. You have continiously received spanking from myself since we started to debate. And you continue to receive so, which is obvious to the readers.
| huxley wrote: |
| You have denied that there is anything such as "science" at all. How then do you pretend to label anything "unscientific?" You are contradicting yourself. Again. |
Well, your stupidity seems to leaking all over now. I have to "accept" Science in order to debate with you right?. Let me explain it another way. Suppose one person is talking about honesty, faithfulness and how to be a good human being to a group of people. Then i go there and find that this man is a Thief, who every weekend goes to rob a bank, he sleeps with prostitutes every day cheating on his wife, is a peadophile, and is also a murderer of 10 people. So does it suit this man to give a sermon?
| huxley wrote: |
If the cake actually has a maker, science should be able to answer that question. More importnatly, if the cake has a maker, science should be able to tell us something about the character of that maker. I am prepared to discuss what science tells us on that issue.
How about you? |
Well, you are telling us that the cake was always there. This is because you do not know any better yourself.
| huxley wrote: |
| Knowledge gained by the formal enterprise of science is "scientific knowledge." Run away from that as much as you like, but it only makes you look like somebody who prefers to run away than discuss the issues. |
There are no different forms of knowledge. There is just knowledge. You talk as if Science is not part of the knowledge, and was used to get this knowledge, therefore it becomes scientific knowledge. What you call Science is merely part of this knowledge, as derived with human understanding. This is evident from that fact that Science makes millions of corrections all the time because it is based on the knowledge of life. This proves that there is no such thing as science.
quote=" huxley"] No. The Internet was not always there. Science was not used to "find" the internet. It was original knowledge created by science that did not preexist its invention.
[/quote]
There is science IN the internet. There is science IN the TV. There is science IN rockets...and etc etc. So science was not used to make such discoveries, but rather there is science in the discoveries. Science, therefore, is just the way things are in life. How hard is it to imagine that internet could have been invented 100 years ago? or 200 years ago? or 1000 years ago? It is just that human brain did not make that connection with such a knowledge. That knowledge was always there? why is it so difficult for you to understand simple concepts?
You are a songwriter, so what evidence can you give that the tune of the song you wrote is original? Could it be that somone in this world already explored that tune before, but did not record a song? There is a possibility. Rather than the brain producing the tunes, it is probable that both of you or more connected to the same knowledge that exists outside of the brain, to make that tune.
| huxley wrote: |
do not believe that you have a clear understanding of what "life" means. As a result, you use it in so many different ways that you end up only confusing yourself.
Take a moment, take a breath, and define "life" so we will finally know what you are talking about. |
Actually scientists can define life better i think, so take a deep breath and define life for me instead. Be careful, i have already spanked your colleagues before on this issue in my other thread.
Which part of my usage did you not understand?
| huxley wrote: |
Smoking does cause cancer. Just as drunk driving causes autombile deaths.
Just not all the time.
What about that simple truth confuses so? |
Then how do you know the time it does cause cancer and the times it does not? Same for drunk driving. You cannot even give us a definite answer when you guys have millions of research materials for above causes, but then when it comes to the universe, you say "the universe always was". Why dont you use the "just not all the time" part of your argument here?
Smoking does not cause cancer, my relatives lived to the ripe old age of 90, even when they were chain smokers. SMOKING MAY CAUSE CANCER sounds more like it. And when you use Science and the word "MAY" together, it is not a definite answer, but leaves us with other possibilities too.
| huxley wrote: |
On March 24, 1993, astronomers Carolyn and Eugene M. Shoemaker and David Levy discovered a previously unknown comet in a photograph taken at the Palomar Observatory in California. It was named Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, and was the first comet observed to be orbiting a planet.
Observing the comet, astronomers predicted that its fragments would collide with Jupiter starting on July 16, 1994 and ending on July 22, 1994.
They were exactly correct. |
And therefore there is no divine knowledge? Give me concrete evidence of predictions that are more down to earth. Predictions that affect our life or makes an impact.
I am sure they had the data from something that had happened earlier and used it to make an obvious "prediction." This can be put in the coincidence bin also.
There are millions of people all over the world who have accurate divine predictions all over the world. Using birth date numerology, my mom was told that she would have 3 kids (2 boys, 1 girl) and made many other accurate predictions on her life which all rang true eventually. And you talk about distant comet n fragments.
| huxley wrote: |
The demonstrating is in fact so compelling that you completely stopped trying to argue against it. You finally just through up your hands in surrender and asserted that you simply found the idea "unnacceptable." The rest of this paragraph bears little resemblance to your previous "spankings."
The chair was not "always." It is part of the infinite regress. As is Huxley. As is Huxley's parents. Every effect has a cause... including all these effects you have listed.
The universe, however, is neither an effect nor a cause. It is everything that exists or has ever existed. |
Now you say the universe is neither an effect nor a cause, in sharp contrast to your "every effect has a cause" agreement. You have not proved that something can always be, and that something can always exist. Where is your scientific argument. Or is it just an opinion? There is only 1 way you the universe can always be with agreement to the cause and effect, that is cause=universe and effect=universe, but this will become an oxymoron or rather a huxleymoron. Infinite regress is not an answer to huxley and the chair story. Huxley made the chair so where is the need for the infinite regress? A human CAN make a chair, where is the need to question that? Cause and effect, when it involves a human creator, need not go to infinite regress for an answer! If we use cause and effect of Life, as long as some human was there to make it or do something, there is no need for an infinite regress. The whole idea of Cause and Effect is that something does not just happen by itself, or does not make itself. We have humans in the cause and effect to stop the infinite regress. jUST BECAUSE YOU CANNOT PUT HUMANS INTO YOUR CAUSE AND EFFECT, YOU SAY THE ANSWER IS INFINITE REGRESS! More shocking, you say the universe always was, which is not even an infinite regress! BOTH WAYS YOU FAIL TO GIVE ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE NOR ANYTHING TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM, INSTEAD JUST FORMING OPINIONS.
| huxley wrote: |
You are completely wrong. Knowledge does not exist until a sentient being "knows" it. Science does pursue knowledge, because each time it discoveres something new it has created knowledge where none previously existed.
The universe requires zero knowledge to operate, as shown by the fact for at least some part of its history there could not have been any sentient "knowers" and yet it operated just fine. |
There is no need to pursue knowledge or search for knowledge, if only what we know is knowledge. This is so funny, that i just wanna roll down and laugh. It's like a man saying to me "Hey man, i have been fishing in this river for 20 years and now they tell me that there are no fishes here since the last 20 years and the 2 fish i caught 20 years ago were the last ones". And i can just imagine you being that man huxley. Also your argument seems to hint at the famous "when a tree falls in the jungle and noone hears it fall, does it make a sound?" argument.
| huxley wrote: |
| You apparently have never seen a mother fox with her children. |
I have seen that. But i have never seen a mother fox visit the grave or her children every year and cry there. Or a mother fox not eating for weeks after her children died. Nor have i seen a mother fox attending her children's wedding. I also never heard of a fox refusing to steal chicken from a poor farmer saying that it feels sorry for him. I have also not seen a lion feeding a baby human, whereas i have seen a human bottle feeding a baby lion. I have not seen a lion crying over the plight of humans, but i have seen a human hurt over the plight of caged animals.
I am a bit worried for you huxley. Some years back an american thought like you and went to canada to live with the bears, saying they are like us humans and they know how to love. unfortunately, both he and his girlfriend were killed by the bears within a month or two (??).
Will you please promise me you will not do any of these kind of stuff?. Drs later said that guy might have been suffering from some mental disorder.
| huxley wrote: |
What a pathetic weasel wiggle. It amounts to an admission that you cannot prove any of this, in spite of your insistence that millions of these events occur all over the world, all the time.
Yet you are unable to demonstrate a single one.
So much for "divine knowledge." |
I have given you the evidence for divine knowledge already, it is not my fault if you do not believe in them. they happen all over the world.
AND I NEVER SAID THAT I CAN PERFORM MIRACLES, I SAID THEY HAPPENS ALL OVER THE WORLD. I NEVER SAID I CAN SHOW YOU DIVINE EXPERIENCE, BUT I MAINTAIN THAT YOU CAN EXPERIENCE IT IF YOU MAKE AN ATTEMPT.
| huxley wrote: |
| It was not "in my brain." It did not preexist. It was an original innovation by my brain. |
We are born with an empty brain. We learn things from Life. So it proves that knowledge is outside of our brain. Anybody could have though of that tune, in fact, you cannot prove that the tune has never been thought of before since the dawn of humans. Anybody could have hummed that tune thousand of years ago. Becase, that tune is not in the brain, it is outside of the brain as knowledge to be used.
| huxley wrote: |
Divine knowledge apparently does not exist.
You have yet to demonstrate a single example. |
I do not demonstrate it to you. Life demonstrates it for us. When prayers are answered. When faith and good deeds are rewarded. When miracles happen. When there are spiritual encounters.
| huxley wrote: |
| Nope. It never existed until I created it in my brain. |
It always existed. Anybody making that connection could have thought of it. Brains cannot create, if they did, then monkeys would be singing and writing songs now too. We should be able to make human beings out of monkeys, through studies and throught interactions.
Brains are the same, but only the ability to connect to the knowledge of life is different.
_________________
i am sorry but having more questions on a subject is not knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batou
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ISLAME wrote: |
| Brains cannot create... |
Every thought is an act of creation.
_________________
"When I die, since I'm a real skeptic, I'm gonna gripe to the lord and make sure I get back my original investment when I'm reincarnated … "
-Batou |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THHuxley_redux
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ISLAME wrote: |
| Well, your stupidity seems to leaking all over now. I have to "accept" Science in order to debate with you right?. Let me explain it another way. |
No. In order to debate with me you must assemble a coherent argument that does not contradict itself every other post. Either accept science or don't and I will respond as appropriate. But you do not seem able to decide how you feel about the issue.
How do you intend to argue with me when you have apparently not finished arguing with yourself?
| ISLAME wrote: |
| There are no different forms of knowledge. There is just knowledge. You talk as if Science is not part of the knowledge, and was used to get this knowledge, therefore it becomes scientific knowledge. What you call Science is merely part of this knowledge, as derived with human understanding. This is evident from that fact that Science makes millions of corrections all the time because it is based on the knowledge of life. This proves that there is no such thing as science. |
And yet in this same post you go on to argue that there "is science IN the internet." How can there science in the internet if "there is no such thing as science?"
Please... take some time to get your story straight.
That said... it certainly is true that all the different forms of knowledge can be rolled up into one comprehensive category simply called "knowledge." But to insist there are not different forms is like saying there are no such things as "mammals" because "there is just animals."
Certainly you can see how stupid such a claim would be. Yet that is identical to the claim you make here.
Scientific knowledge is all the knowledge that was originally created by the human enterprise we call science. It did not previously exist. It is not the only kind of knowledge. But it does exist.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| There is science IN the internet. There is science IN the TV. There is science IN rockets...and etc etc. So science was not used to make such discoveries, but rather there is science in the discoveries. Science, therefore, is just the way things are in life. How hard is it to imagine that internet could have been invented 100 years ago? or 200 years ago? or 1000 years ago? It is just that human brain did not make that connection with such a knowledge. That knowledge was always there? why is it so difficult for you to understand simple concepts? |
The Internet did not exist 100 years ago because the knowledge necessary to create it did not exist 100 years ago. That is the simple concept you do not appear able to grasp.
Knowledge does not exist until somebody "knows it."
| ISLAME wrote: |
Actually scientists can define life better i think, so take a deep breath and define life for me instead. Be careful, i have already spanked your colleagues before on this issue in my other thread.
Which part of my usage did you not understand? |
Thank you first for admitting that you yourself cannot define "life." It was already clear to me that you had no idea what you meant everytime you used it, thus explaining your own evident confusion.
Here is my definition: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| Then how do you know the time it does cause cancer and the times it does not? |
You don't.
| ISLAME wrote: |
And therefore there is no divine knowledge? Give me concrete evidence of predictions that are more down to earth. Predictions that affect our life or makes an impact.
I am sure they had the data from something that had happened earlier and used it to make an obvious "prediction." This can be put in the coincidence bin also. |
You asked for a specific prediction. I gave you one. Now you ask for more predictions? Why?
Your argument is in tatters. Why should I waste my time slaying again the already slains?
| ISLAME wrote: |
| There are millions of people all over the world who have accurate divine predictions all over the world. Using birth date numerology, my mom was told that she would have 3 kids (2 boys, 1 girl) and made many other accurate predictions on her life which all rang true eventually. And you talk about distant comet n fragments. |
Numerology? Please!!!
If these "millions of... accurate divine predicitons" were true, someone would have won Randi's million dollars by now.
We are still wating for you to make a convincing case of one such example. Your mom's experience with the numerologis sounds pretty typical... a lot of "predictions" are made and years later someone vaguely recalls the ones that "came true" while igoring all the others that did not. I myself used to make money reading palms when I was a teenager and made many such "predictions." Trust me... people only remember the ones that were close... and they don't even have to be that close.
I convinced a lot of people that palm reading was real. It was all fake.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| Now you say the universe is neither an effect nor a cause, in sharp contrast to your "every effect has a cause" agreement. |
I have always said that. You just haven't been paying attention.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| Huxley made the chair so where is the need for the infinite regress? |
Since Huxley is not an uncaused cause, the infinite regress still obtains. He is not the end of the regress.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| More shocking, you say the universe always was, which is not even an infinite regress! BOTH WAYS YOU FAIL TO GIVE ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE NOR ANYTHING TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM, INSTEAD JUST FORMING OPINIONS. |
There you go... faking shock again.
I will repeat the basic arguments just as many times as you pretend they haven't been provided:
If it is true that every effect must have a cause (as the empirical evidence demonstrates) then an infinite regression is the only possibility.
If it is true that something cannot come from nothing (as the empirical evidence demonstrates) then something must have always existed, because something exists now.
You have yet to challenge either of those arguments.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| There is no need to pursue knowledge or search for knowledge, if only what we know is knowledge. This is so funny, that i just wanna roll down and laugh. It's like a man saying to me "Hey man, i have been fishing in this river for 20 years and now they tell me that there are no fishes here since the last 20 years and the 2 fish i caught 20 years ago were the last ones". And i can just imagine you being that man huxley. Also your argument seems to hint at the famous "when a tree falls in the jungle and noone hears it fall, does it make a sound?" argument. |
Actually... yes. It does hint that that famous question. Sadly, the answer to that question again destroys your argument.
If a tree falls in the jungle and no one is there to hear it... it does still make a sound. Sound, after all, is just pressure waves in the medium of air... and those waves will exist even if no one is there to experience them. Sound exists even if knowledge of that sound does not.
LIkewise... the recent photographs of deep space by the Hubble Telescope have revealed billions of distant galaxies. They were there for billions of years, even though no knowledge of them existed until the photographs were taken and then looked at.
Just as the universe existed for billions of years before the first sentient being (possibly not human) existed to be aware of it. It existed for all that time while no knowledge of any sort existed anywhere.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| I have given you the evidence for divine knowledge already, it is not my fault if you do not believe in them. they happen all over the world. |
Show us one.
| ISLAME wrote: |
| AND I NEVER SAID THAT I CAN PERFORM MIRACLES, I SAID THEY HAPPENS ALL OVER THE WORLD. I NEVER SAID I CAN SHOW YOU DIVINE EXPERIENCE, BUT I MAINTAIN THAT YOU CAN EXPERIENCE IT IF YOU MAKE AN ATTEMPT. |
I am attempting to do so by asking you to show us one.
After all... I've shown you examples of scientific knowledge. Now it's your turn.
_________________
Nullius In Verba |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard_The _Lionheart
Joined: 07 Sep 2004
Posts: 6166
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ISLAME wrote: |
| AND I NEVER SAID THAT I CAN PERFORM MIRACLES, I SAID THEY HAPPENS ALL OVER THE WORLD. |
No one is asking you to Perform a miracle, just present some evidence of these miracles. 
_________________
What the world needs is not dogma but an attitude of scientific inquiry combined with a belief that the torture of millions is not desirable, whether inflicted by Stalin or by a Deity imagined in the likeness of the believer. - Bertrand Russell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
