OT: Huckabee, Ughh

Page 11 of 13  
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Thought _you_ were the literate one... :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Literate, somewhat. Omniscient, no.
In digging around, I discovered that the Wallis/Hobbes debate was an Algebra v. Classical Geometry debate (For a good synopis, see: http://courses.science.fau.edu/~rjordan/phy1931/WALLIS/wallis.htm ) But, I guess I am dense; I don't see the connection to the current discussion...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

That's only a small portion. Read in the context of the times and all will become clear...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Or, does not "Leviathan" ring any bells?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb said:

Bombastic first comes to mind...
Greg G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:27:52 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You left out a very important part. The one that says those general conclusions can successfully be used as predictors. That would seem to prove the "unprovable" axiom.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Or perhaps they are not even pertinent questions. When someone asks why are we here, my thought is that due to a miraculous combination of cosmic, planetary, evolutionary and physical occurences, we are here at this point in time and space. That is amazing and wondrous to me. How did it happen? I leave science to answer that.
Being a Bhuddist, science meshes perfectly with my world view. After all, it is based on observation, as is my philosophy. Others have said (and I agree) that the Bhuddist god is so powerful that he does not even have to exist. If he is there, he is there, if he is not, he is not.

And does it help us to predict results. I love the philosophical arguments, but they are outside the realm of science and I look on them as amusements rather than serious search for knowledge.
After all, one cannot know the unknowable. What would be the purpose of trying? Aggravation?
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote:

It cannot - not now, not in principle, not ever. Science examines the mechanical minutae of the *observable* universe. But if the root cause of it all isn't "observable" then science will never see it. Moreover, whether or not there is a root cause - observable or not - isn't likely to be answered by the methods of science as we currently understand them.

Here's a thought experiment for you: Try to understand deep passion (love, hate, aesthetics sense, the joy of a great pet) in solely scientific terms. I don't mean measure whether that passion exists or not - you can do that empirically. I mean *understand* it so well you can convey it objectively to others.

You can't know by science what is unknowable by science. You can "know" things in other ways though. Every time you are deeply moved by beauty/sadness/a great movie/a rare wine ... you have an experience which cannot be objectively conveyed to others, at least not completely. Yet what you "knew" in that existential moment was very real - it just isn't open to pure empiricist deconstruction.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[severe snippage]

I understand that the paragraph I quoted, came from a much larger context, but at what point do deduction and observable science connect? When, as humans, we stumbled upon the scene of our existence, we picked up a rock and concluded that 'somebody' put it there. We still don't know who, or if it was 5 billion years ago...or was it 6000 years ago that somebody created a 4.999994e+9 year-old rock and put it there. Surely if we can attribute the entire universe to a Creator, what's the big deal of that Creator making a few 5 billion- year-old rocks? Hell, even stick a few fossils in there to throw the unbelievers off for a bit. How often do we see the phrase: "Scientists believe that it was a meteor...blah, blah." How can that be?
But that brings us around to what my physics teacher in Holland used to quote: "one fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer."
r
PS, I'm enjoying the back-n-forth going on in here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:43:47 -0800, Robatoy wrote:

I do hope you're being sarcastic.
Of course, there are those who sincerely believe that fossils and rocks are just the creators practical joke - it's the only refutation of the science they can think of.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Moi?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

There's where we part company (again). It's certainly no there yet, but the objective is a "theory of everything". Intimations of what this might look like are beginning to appear and one of these is that there may well be a self-generating beginning out of what looks like nothing. If this proves out to be so, then we will, in essence, be able to observe that beginning and find out the constraints that are in place. Again, read more modern expositions than those with which you apparently are familiar.
...
...

Who knows where our understanding of physiology and biology will lead in another century or millenia? To say it is impossible only leaves it as "impossible now", not that it is inherently unknowable.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

If it's not observable either directely or by inference, then anything we say about it is just someone's opinion.

This business of aesthetics, which Tim seems to think is beyond the domain of science, is likely to surprise him one day. What value do these "moving experiences" have when they can be generated to order in the laboratory?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

I await demonstration ... but am not holding my breath.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Or they're all right. Different deities, different rules, different consequences. Some don't even _have_ deities.

It's my understanding that Buddhism does not require nor does it forbid the existence of a deity. Are any of the Buddha's teachings incompatible with Christianity?

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim might cause he reminds me of those guys arguing about the angels dancing on the head of a needle but Buddhism isn't a religion, never has been, never will be.
Please don't lump a simple way of looking at the way life works into that group of beliefs that call for supernatural events and beings to be true. Buddha was a man, not a god. The Dalai Lama is a man, not a god.
John E.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John E. wrote:

It seems that you are in disagreement with the majority if you consider Buddhism to be other than a religion. If some person associated with it not being a deity makes something not a religion then neither Islam nor Roman Catholicism is a religion--Mohammed wasn't a god and neither is the Pope.

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
To the contrary, many who call themselves Buddhists don't consider it a religion at all. As for the association with a deity, there has been an attempt over time to deify that which we call the Buddha. He himself resisted those efforts as he knew he wasn't a deity. Buddhism suffers from it's own name. That and the unfortunate usage of terms like monks and nuns to describe some of it's practioners. Anyone who reads the Dhammapada should be able to figure out that there are no religious beliefs in Buddhism, not then, not now.
As for the Pope, he is considered God's man on earth by catholic's is he not? His word is taken as infallible to the true believers is it not? Islam has it's Allah and his prophet as well. All efforts to try and keep people in fear of self awareness in my opinion.
John E.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Sorry, Mr. Clarke, but I am a Bhuddist and neither I nor anyone that I know considers Bhuddism to be a religion. A philosophy, yes, but certainly not a religion. Bhuddism requires no faith whatsoever.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 01:52:01 +0000, John E. wrote:

Could be so - but if it is I've got a lot of company in my error :-).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.