It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by edmc^2
btw - I can sum up and explain the entire "Creation" in just 10 words - that even a first grader can understand it.
Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
I pointed out the great chunk of knowledge we have
In response to this, I can't resist posting another Heisenberg quote:
"The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite."
How "great a chunk of knowledge" is it compared to infinity?
You may consider it a nonsene question,
but I think it helps keep in perspective the extent of our scientific knowledge.
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The absolute arrogance being displayed in this thread is utterly astounding.
We are being accused of astounding ignorance,
well then the level of ignorance we display on this topic from your perspective is equal to the level of arrogance you display on this topic from our perspective, that is the reality for both sides.
We have a few posters in the middle which I really do appreciate how they keep the dialogue going and fresh, but really we have two sides that are dug in and entrenched like soldiers during World War 1. Some will just never budge no matter what.
Organic evolution depends on a starting point, people keep saying no it doesn't, maybe in purely scientific terms you can separate them.
And that's ok, the Cosmology issue comes before the Abiogenesis issue, and that needs to be answered too, but that is for a different thread.
It comes down to two basic concepts in the end.
1) Those espousing the no matter in the universe all the way to two humans living on this earth had no help whatsoever from anything.
2)Those espousing an intelligence behind the energy conversion to matter in the universe all the way to two humans living on this earth.
Of coarse there are many variation of beliefs, theories and hypothesis within those two concepts.
And perhaps I should have used "disingenuous concept" verses "false Dichotomy" in the thread title
However in my defense, I was using the word with this dictionary definition in view
division into two parts or classifications, esp when they are sharply distinguished or opposed:
The thesaurus says
difference, difference of opinion, disagreement, disunion, separation, split
We have seen by the expressions in this thread this exists.
Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Proof of ID:
1. i don't understand
2. the world is pretty
3. it makes me happy
Of course I am not humble enough to understand
I'm sorry, but quoting Heisenberg to make a point is the argument from authority.
Secondly, we have no way evidence that there is an infinite amount of knowledge to be gained or that the majority of knowledge to be gained is worth having.
Do we know everything? No. Do we know a lot? Hell yes!
We know a fair amount.
We know how to split atoms, to produce electricity, to send space craft on a planned mission outside of the solar system.
We can gauge and extrapolate rates of radioactive decay in elements.
Not ironic at all, its called the scientific method, not the philosophical method or the idealistic method, or the religious method. Science is a field devoted to obtaining knowledge through observation, and following a set of guidelines for discovery to maintain integrity, objectivity, and a sense of reality.
Originally posted by mysticnoon
Ironically, any claim that science is the only valid method of obtaining knowledge of reality lies outside the very bounds of the the scientific method.
CERN
CERN
Did I not mention that before?
There is no infinite except in abstractions we can create. Thus, there is no infinite body of knowledge.
'm saying we know a great deal about things that apply to the portion of space we occupy on the scale we occupy it.
Or is a billionaire still not a rich guy because he doesn't have most of the world's money?
Science is a field devoted to obtaining knowledge through observation, and following a set of guidelines for discovery to maintain integrity, objectivity, and a sense of reality.
Originally posted by mysticnoon
Yes, CERN is a magnificent achievement of science, but in the final analysis it can only reveal what is knoweable of the material aspect of reality using the scientific method of observation.
There is no infinite except in abstractions we can create. Thus, there is no infinite body of knowledge.
If infinite is understood as something without limitations, then I do belive that an infinite body of knowledge exists. But perhaps that is food for another topic.
That is a more precise way of putting it, and I would not disagree if you further refine the "space" as physical reality,
and "scale we occupy it" as our perception of our sensory participation in this material universe.
Or is a billionaire still not a rich guy because he doesn't have most of the world's money?
No, but if his money is compared to all the money in the world, it is very insignificant, is it not?
reply to post by uva3021
Its idealistic nonsense. There is nothing in this world that we know based on unobserved or unevaluated data.
Making a grand assumption about an existence outside of our "material universe"
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
I'm sorry, but there is no evidence of anything beyond the material world. There is no 'aspect of reality' here, all the reality that has any basis in fact is material.
The infinite is understood as something that is unending. Infinite anything would be something that is logically impossible.
There is no 'physical' about it because it's an unnecessary qualifier unless you can pinpoint the existence of any other reality.
Sensory participation? I'm sorry, but that's not something that makes any sense at all.
You can have a significant amount of something without having even a notable percentage of the total amount of it in existence when there's so damn much of it.