Slashdot Mirror
Talking Science and God With the Pope's New Chief Astronomer
sciencehabit writes: On 18 September, Pope Francis appointed Jesuit brother Guy Consolmagno as the new director of the Vatican Observatory, which employs a dozen astronomers to study asteroids, meteorites, extrasolar planets, stellar evolution, and cosmology. The observatory is based at the pope's summer residence south of Rome and operates a 1.8-meter telescope in Arizona, where the skies are clearer. Science Magazine chatted with Consolmagno about a variety of topics, including whether God gets in the way of doing good astronomy. Consolmagno said, "First of all, I want to provide space for other astronomers to do their work. And I also want to show the world that religion supports astronomy. It is often religious people who most need to see that; they need to know that astronomy is wonderful and that they shouldn't be afraid of it. I often quote John Paul II, when he said [of evolution] that "truth cannot contradict truth." If you think you already know everything about the world, you are not a good scientist, and if you think you know all there is to know about God, then your religious faith is at fault."
about the world, you are not a good scientist," except when talking about global warming, because that science is settled.
The Catholic church has always been supportive of science, though. The main reason there was such a fuss was because some scientists didn't like their control over science, but the whole reason they had that much control was that they'd set up the entire university system to begin with.
Sure you can; I hate your wit.
Here come all the Angry Atheists.
Remember...you can't hate what doesn't exist.
Hate can't exist if an infinite God of love exists.
Hate can't exist if an infinite God of love exists.
Well, the Abrahamic God (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is a hands-off kind of God, giving the human race free will and all that. So, we're free to hate even though He discourages it.
I'm not trying to be churchy, just informative. You have every right to conceive of God's existence or lack thereof in your own way. I'm just saying that the Abrahamic God (as described in the Old Testament) gives the human race free will.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
"Truth is truth, wherever found, On Christian or on heathen ground."
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
of course there will be people who will insist religion and science do conflict. such people do not understand science and/ or religion. if they point to something a scientist or religious figure said, then they are fools who don't understand the topics arguing against other fools who don't understand the topics. they are removing themselves form the realm of people who need to be taken seriously
science and religion simply do not conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do not interact. if you think the realms do interact, you are simply announcing you don't understand what you are talking about
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Seems like a lot of work when you can just read your big book of answers or talk to the guy who you think made it all. Alternatively they could also just wait until heaven and then they'd have their answers. Clearly not enough faith...
Thank you for giving us permission to think. Now that I finally have that freedom I have to ask; is there a hands-on kind of god?
An omniscient God precludes the possibility of human free will. So you're saying that old testament God is not omniscient, and that's something you need to back up.
So something that has no idea about how the world works or our place in it had the credentials to tell us how to live? What could possibly go wrong...
No, it doesn't. If there is actually free will, the future is literally indeterminate. Then there is no "the future", that would be merely a linguistic construct.
"Omniscient" would mean knowing all actual things. Possible things are not things, and an "omniscient" entity need not know them to be "omniscient".
"science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world"
This is incorrect historically.
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--"
AKA the reason we die is because of sin entered the world through disobedience of the first human beings. You can't get around fundamental biblical doctrines or it makes nonsense of the resurrection of christ. Christianity rises or falls with the historical resurrection of christ. Apologists like yourself have no credibility.
The reality is historically medical quackery was based on religious nonsense and all we have to do is put ourselves in the shoes of someone living in those times with our advanced knowledge and imagine our friends and family is getting "treated" by these religious loons and their medical pseudo-science based on their religious beliefs. Christianity is far from the only religion that has done this.
Next omnipotence and failure are opposed to one another, you can't fail to communicate a message you exist if you are omnipotent. The very concept of failure is inimical to omnipotence. This is why people who claim "their god is right" are full of shit. They also suffer from a painful lack of imagination, i.e. my god is so awesome you don't even have to search for him or even believe he exists because a best friend would never ask you to worship him!". People's failure of imagination is why religion survives.
The below gave birth the superstitious nonsense over the centuries that was treated as historically true lets remember, if any god gives misinformation in his "message to us", he is no god, because it is 100% likely human beings and their malfunctioning brain are making this shit up.
"Matthew 8:30-34 New International Version (NIV)
30 Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. 31 The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.”
32 He said to them, “Go!” So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. 33 Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. 34 Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region.'
There's no hate like a leftist's hate. Always raging, wanting to limit the world to their narrow views through various forms of persecution.
At first, I though that spelled "the Pope's New Chief Astrologer".
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
of course there will be people who will insist religion and science do conflict. such people do not understand science and/ or religion. if they point to something a scientist or religious figure said, then they are fools who don't understand the topics arguing against other fools who don't understand the topics. they are removing themselves form the realm of people who need to be taken seriously
science and religion simply do not conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do not interact. if you think the realms do interact, you are simply announcing you don't understand what you are talking about
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world of course there will be people who will insist religion and science do not conflict. such people do not understand science and/ or religion. if they point to something a scientist or religious figure said, then they are fools who don't understand the topics arguing against other fools who don't understand the topics. they are removing themselves form the realm of people who need to be taken seriously science and religion simply do conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do interact. if you think the realms do not interact, you are simply announcing you don't understand what you are talking about You're right back where you started.
An omniscient God precludes the possibility of human free will.
Not at all. An omniscient God can choose where and when to employ His power. I know that sounds like a cop-out, but you have to admit it's true, if in fact there is an omniscient God.
So you're saying that old testament God is not omniscient, and that's something you need to back up.
Listen, I'm not a bible zealot. If anything, I'm inclined to agnosticism. But if you google "evidence of free will in the bible" you will find what I'm talking about.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Poor fellow has not a clue about anything!
Sad.
There is no god. No supremo up in the sky. When you die, you are gone - poof! Your existence is halted. Don't consider my words an expose', consider them for what they are, the truth.
And may God Bless!
"I'm just saying that the Abrahamic God (as described in the Old Testament) gives the human race free will."
And cats do what?
Bert
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--"
Why do you think you're a member of "people"?
Very specifically. Clear, non-arbitrary, scientific DNA-based justifications for what biological structures are in the realm of "ethics" and which are not, will be fine.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
In addition to now being the director of the Vatican Observatory, he's a scifi fan and a regular speaker at scifi cons on astronomy. Very enjoyable and very informative.
He's a serious scientist who also is a Jesuit Brother. That's not a conflict for him.
Here's more info at Wikipedia: Guy_Consolmagno
The Vatican Observatory also runs the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope on Mount Graham near Tuscon. Vatican_Advanced_Technology_Telescope
It's optimized for photometry so it's a good fit with Brother Guy's research on asteroids and other small objects in the solar system.
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
The great thing about religions is that there are so many to choose from!
For example, the bible at times recognizes, condones, and even encourages slavery.
Bible:Exodus 21:20 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,
but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice (source).
Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle. He had sex with his slaves. And he instructed his men to do the same. The Qur'an actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves than it does to telling them to pray five times a day.
For 3,000 years, the Hindu caste system has held the people of India in the grip of religious slavery.
I wonder what the Flying Spaghetti Monster has to say about slavery?
He can also, apparently, choose to never exist.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. Great book.
Also, Fr Consolmagno taught Astronomy & Physics. Dude's nerdy as it gets. He's one of us, guys.
Unfortunately an omniscient God does not preclude the possibility of trolls.
What led you to presume that you were not allowed to think? Perhaps you shouldn't bother asking anything if you already have your mind made up.
You wish.
"You have every right to conceive of God's existence or lack thereof in your own way." -That would be the statement I was jokingly taking out of context. It's less of my mind being made up as it is your inability to change it.
James Blish's After Such Knowledge series.
The first volume, A Case Of Conscience, won not just one, but two Hugo awards.
I recently discovered that these are once again in print. Awesome.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Just like humans, there is no free will. Think of it as a computer game that is running with no external inputs. It will run exactly he same every time given the same starting condition. Just as a pseudo random number generator will always produce the same string of random numbers given the same seed value(s). You can draw a circle around all of the infinite multiverses of all (very large, but still countable) possibilities and this remains as a closed set from which there is no escape.
No, the basis of "nature", quantum behavior, is non-deterministic.
Deterministic behavior at a macro scale is inferred, though there are currently several companies quite comfortable with investing millions of dollars in the notion that quantum behavior can indeed result in large-scale "macro" effects.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I do not have an agenda about changing your mind, but I doubt you were joking.
But what about the other gods in the not so old Old Testamant or even the New Test. What about the gods that are described in relgions that co-existed with Judaism and Christianity and where loosly based on the same scripture (but whose text have unfortunately been burned by other relgious who did no agree. What about the gods that are described the relgion that claims to fix the faults of Judaism and Christianity and chose and rewrote yet other texts based on the same scripture. There are so many gods based on that Abrahamic god who in it self was based on a combination of many other gods that existed at that time, some existed for ages, other newer ideas have been introduced to be part of that Abrahamic god. Meanwhile that god has evolvded over time because of the many translations and before and in between the translations because of the oral tradition to spread religious texts.
There are so many different views on the same god/gods that there is currently a cleansing going on in the middle east to destory alternative views than the most fanatical.
This distruction of alternative views is not the first time. There have been many cases in ancient history where these kind of religion inspired killings took place to introduce a fanatical, intolerant version of the god/gods, after which of course a more tolerant, less fanatic, sometimes even more secular emmerged in a country that was devastated by decades of religious fanaticism.
All these events let the god/gods evvolve in differnet gods. Even in the catholic world, every nation or even region has different version of the same catholic god. On my side of the country, where there have always been anti clergical movements, the god is more secular and its priests are open to anyone with questions about spiritual questions, what's the meaning of life, etc... 200 km to the West, that same catholic god is less tolerant and despises secularism. Divorced people, homosexuals, sinners, etc are not welcome into the church. Children are forced to undergo indoctrination for at least 8 years of their lifes (from the age of 6 to 14) to became good soldiers of that god. This is in one small country. And than I'm not even talking about protestantism that has its own differnet version of god for each 'bible studie group' or 'dominee', just like with the Islamic population. For me its seems that the religion of the false prophet (warned about in both protestant and catholic and orthodox scriptures) has the same basic idea as the protestants, and I'm wondering if protenstantism isn't a direct result of Musslemans fleeing Spain from the Spanish Inquisition to the north converted to Catholicism, but rejected the Roman Empire style of government within the church (pope as replacement of god) and inspired with their excellent theological expertice through years of studies the many disgrunted christian priests and monnics. Or in other words, my suspiscion is that protestantism is the Islamic version of Christianity where the scriptures and dominees are more important than church as a whole, introduced by Spanish Muslims and Jews who fled the Spanish lands after the requonquista and moved to Italy, France, The Low lands, ... and started renaissance by translating their Arabic scriptures into Latin.
Some religions conflict with science. Some do not.
The Catholic concept of the "mysteries" is a convenient device allowing any Catholic the ability to avoid conflict between religion and science. Furthermore, Catholic theology is highly abstract, meaning the points of irreconcilable contention are quite few compared to, say, an animist religion.
Of course, most Catholics adhere to beliefs that aren't strictly required by the theology, or otherwise don't apply their beliefs logically. (That is to say, don't know how to recognize when to employ the above mentioned device.)
http://healthland.time.com/201... Go see a doctor, Jim, it may not be too late.
Before you get all "religion is fine with science", you had better remember that this group exists, and that they and their predecessors have been defining religious thought for a long, long time.
International Association of Exorcists
Why is Snark Required?
http://scottberkun.com/essays/...
No way that omniscience precludes free will. Everything at the neural level is governed by classical mechanics, so you could, with enough information, predict the next step that all elements in a brain will take. Just because you CAN discover that, or just because some external entity could theoretically press pause for long enough to calculate ahead of time, doesn't take YOUR free will away.
"Well, the Abrahamic God (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is a hands-off kind of God, giving the human race free will and all that. So, we're free to hate even though He discourages it." - thats called "spin", its to excuse the non-appearance of this so called god, you know the one that "saves" you when you get lucky in an awful situation but does not get the blame when he doesn't
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Keep that one handy, Jim. I have a feeling that you're going to be using it quite a bit.
Is there a real stance on aliens from the Catholic Church other than "we don't know". How does the end of the world work out when there are other life forms? Does all of the universe end at once? What lies beyond the universe and does it escape this fate? It doesn't seem plausible that humans and ET live together on a bed of clouds and the more that we discover it seems that animals that we share this Earth with have more feelings and awareness than has been credited them. How is it then that humans hold dominion over them? The tenants just don't seem to match up with current knowledge and appear to be written from a mindset of ignorance. I truly don't mean this in a negative way. It just seems as though the more we learn the harder it is to accept the Bible. Everything seems to indicate that "God" thrives on logic. Jesus refutes the temptations of Satan through logical discourse, ancient Hebrew practices of draining the blood of animals and cooking off bacteria is sound advice, and loving each other brings forth a prosperous existence. Why then are there so many falsifications or errors in the Bible? If the scriptures are written from the word of God then he seems to be in the dark or at least enjoying leaving the rest of us in it while warning us of our eternal dam nation if we guess wrong. That doesn't seem like a God of logic.
" religion tells you how to live in the world" - yeah , they do and they kill you if you don't follow their way (thats if you really truly follow all the instructions in your book of choice). - great way to live.
Its amazing how, through science and clear thinking philosophy, knowledge has expanded to the point that some religions have hidden/dropped a lot of the nasty rules like apostasy, not eating pork, shellfish etc
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
Lucky all of religion is silent on how the world works, that's why creationists never have a problem with the the theory of evolution, and the Church was best buddies with Galileo.
Or perhaps, you have a slightly more narrow definition of religion then I am used to.
This is a view called open theism and it is gaining traction in the church. It's major opponent is Molinism. A lot of people have problems with the orthodoxy of open theism, and consider it at very least shaky ground. Most fundamentalists have no idea that this conversation is going on, but then I guess they have no idea about much beyond what is in front of them anyway.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
A lot of people object that compatibilist free will is an oxymoron. These are philosophical positions though, and difficult to prove or disprove.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
"Hands-off" is difficult to defend. Remember, the ancient Jews considered God to be involved in every aspect of creation. There was no "natural" and "supernatural" in the thought. This does no remove the possibility of free will, but will can only be free in so far as it is permitted by God. When we try to impose modern philosophy on the ancient text, the meaning will distort.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Interestingly, three sects around the time of Jesus debated this topic - the Essenes (Determinism), the Pharisees(somewhere in the middle) and the Sadducees(free will). The evidence was debated even within the ancient context. Paul was a Pharisee, and Pharasaical thought deeply influenced early Christianity, until people removed from that context (Augustine, Calvin,etc) brought in the philosophy of determinism.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
"Well, the Abrahamic God (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is a hands-off kind of God,"
Do you mean the same good which people believe flooded the world, killing untold number of human ? Which smote Sodom and Gomorrah under the pretense there was absolutely nobody, not even a child, which was innocent ? Which ordered various Israeli tribe to kill all adult , including children, but keep nubile women for themselves ? Killing children by mauling them with bear ? The one which ordered a father to kill its kids as a test of faith ? Or as a result of a bet ruined the life of another ?
The god of the new testament is somewhat kinder if only by its absence. But the god of the old testament is as far as "hand off" as you can be.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
yeah because flooding the whole of the globe and then putting in contradicting evidence in the earth is totally hands off.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
So we have free will, just not control over our thoughts or actions. Thanks for clearing that up.
As a work, reading the bible offers some really hard challenges to absorb it. When you read the books of the bible as a piece of literature, as opposed to a 'rulebook', you find that it describes human nature pretty well and helps you develop good empathy (and street smarts) for people. I hope you won't judge me as I try to share some things I learned here. I have zero problem with people believing whatever they want.
The most interesting thing I found from reading the bible is just how often it is misquoted or twisted into manipulating people from a point of moral superiority, usually by politicians or rich people. Classic example is 'An eye for an eye', the rest says ' a tooth for a tooth, vengeance is mine says the Lord', so revenge is not an option for people according to the bible only for God, but the saying is twisted so it comes out the opposite way. There are many other examples and most often it is used to divide people or unite opinion against some other people.
I'm a monkey when it comes to being holy and I'm not religious but it's easy to see some people do evil things in Gods name. Conversely I see a lot of Gods work being done by Atheists about which the Bible *specifically* says (in Mathew) not to judge anyone, any more than you should force a belief system down anyone's throat. However that's the freedom we have being human, at least according to the bible.
This sort of work looks at what we don't know about and attempts to describe it. As opposed to 'Intelligent Design' which attempts to describe what it does not know about and say that is how it is, in ignorance of any facts. The concept is called 'limiting the glory of God' in the bible, which is a blasphemous act. Science has been used as a tool to describe the works of God, but it certainly can't be used to prove or disprove the existence of a consciousness that creates universes like bubbles in a champagne glass and can change the laws of nature at any time at will.
How would you prove or disprove something that can at any point in time change the behavior of the laws of nature that you are using to evaluate it's existence?
That's the point, you aren't supposed to know if God exists because that would be tyranny as opposed to freedom. Specifically the point being, you are free to choose for yourself and, according to the bible I read, to decide and make up you mind - for yourself in absence of any proof either way.
And that doesn't mean you're going to Hell either because there is no such thing as Hell so don't feel threatened by that. Armageddon is another one, it doesn't mean the end of the world, it means 'really big change', at least in the context of the bible and Satan, is deception which manifests through human hands to create human misery. If the message divides people, then it is not a work of God at all.
Spirituality is about peoples own journeys, even if it is strictly a human one.
No, the basis of "nature", quantum behavior, is non-deterministic.
But that still doesn't get you free will: just because you don't know the outcome of a coin flip, it doesn't mean that the coin has free will.
I'm deeply amused by the recent leftist backlash against anti-Islamism among atheists. I mean it's been lumbering over the horizon for a while now but the question was which ideology would better serve the requirements of the left, and of course Islam wins hands down. Schisms ahoy!
You are correct. Libertarian free will would requires that there is a component of a person that is not measurable by scientific inquiry, and yet not random internally. In this libertarian free will requires belief in some form of "supernatural". If you reject the possibility of the supernatural, you must either embrace compatibilist free will or conclude that the idea of free will is nonsensical from your point of view.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
" Arizona, where the skies are clearer."
Also, the meth is cheaper, to stay awake at night.
While we're at it, why not prove that black equals white and get killed on a zebra crossing?
bickerdyke
Being able to see everything is not the same as tight control of everything.
Taking a cynical view of religion I can see the message of omniscience as "don't do evil because God can always see you and will punish you later".
So omniscience has nothing at all to do with free will. It just implies an observer at all times.
That sums up all human societies ever quite well, apart from lesser punishments in some of the more enlightened ones. If you really don't fit in with the people around you, and you can't hide it, then shit generally happens.
You do know that "leftist" doesn't mean anything, right? its only purpose is signifying you as a purely reactionary muppet who can only perceive of "us" and "them", of "left" and "right", and who is patently incapable of making any greater distinction. Do you even know what "schism" means? It certainly doesn't sound like it from the way you used it. Which is not particularly surprising, as you don't seem to care what words mean as long as they sound good to you.
science and religion simply do not conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do not interact. if you think the realms do interact, you are simply announcing you don't understand what you are talking about
Well, up to a point. Science has no opinion to offer about whether there is a god or God, but science can and must offer input on any testable claims made by any religion. So far all statements saying that God does something real have tested false. Now, as a very open minded scientist, you still have to say "we don't know if God exists", but I think it is a very reasonable position to take, as a scientist, that since all positive statements about God's reality have been disproven, then he probably doesn't exist in any real sense.
The other part of your claim is also dubious, I think. You seem to claim that morality comes from God: "religion tells you how to live in the world". It is the other way around, actually: we have evolved certain moral behavious, because it gave us better chances of surviving as a social species, and our ideas of God are likely to spring from that as the ultimate 'because'. In a sense, God didn't create us, we created Him.
But we as humans have the ability to go past our natural instinct and will fight them for will or for woe.
4:30 am the alarm wakes me up. I sense no danger, I am not starving, I do not have to go to the bathroom, I am still tired and could sleep. But I don't I get out of bed put on garments that will not keep me warm or cool or protect me from harm, heck that top button is sometimes a little uncomfortable.
I will then eat eat even though I am not starving. Then I will go to a place where I lift heavy weights and run until I am physically exhausted, making me more vulnerable to predators. Then I go to a place where I tinker with a bunch of other objects that don't appear in nature and make them do unnatural things. Without directly looking for food.
Unlike the cat who will sleep as long as it is tired and feels safe, then do actions that it feels as hunting.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"It's major opponent is "
There is a view called apostrophism that says that it's means it is.
And orthodox Christians rejected both molinism and open theism a long time ago. Both middle knowledge (molina's proposition) and the idea that God can learn something new (open theism in knowledge of the future) are answers to a problem that likely does not even exist, predicated on the idea of free will and moral responsibility. There are other solutions to the problem, such as deny free will and thus deny that free will is necessary for moral agency, or even go so far as to deny moral agency and shift it to character. Personally, I deny all 3: that free will is necessary for moral agency, that moral agency is necessary for punishment and that free will even exists. Instead I choose the path of the potter where in the potter makes some vessels to be glorified and in obvious beneficial service, some vessels to be used in other service (think bed pan) and still others to be thrown to the ground, broken and tread upon, all often from the same lump of clay. Romantic notions aside, the clay has nothing to say about how it is formed or used, it is entirely up to the potter. Does that mean it is unfair for the broken pot, or even the bed pan? No both are used as designed and as created by the will of the potter.
Thank you for giving us permission to think. Now that I finally have that freedom I have to ask; is there a hands-on kind of god?
Yes, their names are available in the Fortune list of global banks and corporations. You are free to worship in any of their churches and tithe all of your earnings there. These gods are very interested in every single little detail of your life and will stop at nothing to get involved with you as much as possible. They're happy to influence your destiny, they just don't want you to know that they do.
You're free to "think" you are free whether you believe in God or not.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Nicely said cts. It seems critical thinking is discouraged here these days.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The Christian god loves you so, so, so much, that he died for your sins!
Now, in the of chance you might, maybe, not love him just as much, over there's the place he prepared for you. You know, just in case.
[/sarcasm]
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
The pope was literally Galileo's old college buddy and the Pope actually was the one to tell him he should publish.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Nice. There's hope then you're one of the pots that will be thrown to the ground and tread upon. What is it you say? That you thought you were one of the glorified ones? My, oh, my, isn't that rich? Having the broken pots believe themselves the ones that'll get into the glory is precisely where all the fun is!
Oh? What? You think that's unfair? Here's some mind rape. Now, now, don't be like that. You're now convinced you deserve eternal torture, don't you? Yes, nod, exactly like that, yes. Good boy! I'll leave now. Please keep screaming as high as you can, okay? The sound is quite pleasant, and we wouldn't want me non-pleased, right? Good, good! That's how I like it!
Now, to fix those saved over there. They seem to be getting some horrified expressions in their faces. Breaking their minds so that they feel joy in watching my Hell and sing non-stop praising my torture of their former loved ones is a full time job. Sigh. Oh, well, no infinite sadistic megalomania is complete without a chorus of non-stop screams and hosannas from billions of voices at full lungs, and some god has to make things work around here...
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Struck a nerve, did we? :D I'm good, I've got my popcorn a'popping and my feet on the coffee table to watch the show, so carry on.
It's not as though you have any choice in the matter.
The last thing I care about is the Catholic church. What's next? Evidence for channeling the dead? Palm reading that indicates the end of the world? Ten reasons why we should get a psychic reading over the phone?
There's no hate like a leftist's hate. Always raging, wanting to limit the world to their narrow views through various forms of persecution.
I'm guessing you don't know too many Baptists.
They need to be asked 'which god' more often. Humanity has invented many. Fans of the abrahamic faiths like to pretend there has only ever been one on the table. Don't let them.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
yup, thank you
i have 8 replies to an obviously nontroll comment. so my comment provokes thought, but the 0 rating reflects the lack of intellectual honesty
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Just because you CAN discover that, or just because some external entity could theoretically press pause for long enough to calculate ahead of time, doesn't take YOUR free will away.
I disagree. If you CAN discover that without changing it then it most certainly does take your free will away. Without something like quantum uncertainty, the ability to observe a thing locks it down for all future eternity.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Scientific truth is not the same thing as religious truth. There can be true statements in each system which contradict each other. Whether or not it is meaningful to compare truths arrived at by different methods is debatable.
Science is rooted in empiricism; truth is determined by observation. It's well suited to producing truths about things which can be isolated in an experiment. Things like economies, law/morality, and mathematics are more or less intractable for science, and it cannot make many statements about supernatural beliefs. There is a branch of philosophy which regards the unproven or unprovable as false, but it's a minority viewpoint.
Religion is (perhaps surprisingly) fairly rational, as in rationalism. However, fundamentally its truth is rooted in received wisdom and not subject to test by observation (and to some degree not to reason either). Where religion makes statements about the observable world, it can and often does conflict with empirical truth. Sometimes these things are called miracles.
It is not true that the realms of science, religion, and logic do not overlap. Religion does not always confine itself to the intangible. Scientific theories are always dancing on the limits of observation. Personally, I don't think it's useful to try to reconcile different ways of determining truth, and I think you and John Paul II are with me on this one. I'm not aware of any sensible way to establish a value relation among them; each is necessary in its own domain.
That said, while in my moments of intellectual honesty I am agnostic, believing strongly in something contradicted by empirical truth is not usually something I can take very seriously.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
God doesn't exist. That's about it.
Now, back to science so I can learn more about the world.
Hate can't exist if an infinite God of love exists.
So basically you are claiming that hate cannot exist if infinite love exists, right? Isn't that a bit like saying negative numbers cannot exist because there are infinite positive numbers?
(Disclaimer, I am an atheist)
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Catholic theology has always been tolerant and accepting of science. ... The church, however, has persecuted scientists many times, and surpressed scientific inquiry.
That is a distinction without a difference. Theology is not independent of the church, particularly in a hierarchical organization like the catholic church. Some may wander into other forms of theology but that is a different issue. And no, they have demonstrably not always been tolerant of science. Even today the catholic church has an uneasy relationship with science despite their occasional claims to the contrary. Church doctrine routinely contradicts scientific evidence and interferes with scientific inquiry, particularly when it comes to reproductive science and genetics in recent years.
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
I don't follow a religion and don't need one to tell me how to live in the world. Billions of people around the world do not utilize or require religion to tell them how to conduct their lives. QED your argument is bogus.
of course there will be people who will insist religion and science do conflict.
They frequently do because the religious zealots continue to try to push their unsubstantiated beliefs into science. They keep trying to push creationism into science classrooms. They keep trying to interfere with genetic research and reproductive science. They try to deny the evidence of evolution and push their theology into textbooks. It happens constantly.
science and religion simply do not conflict. they examine entirely different realms that do not interact.
Demonstrably false. The conflict regularly and interact frequently. Mostly of the conflict is from religious people trying to force their beliefs on others and scientific people defending society from their lunacy.
Well, an omnipotent God definitely allows the possibility of human free will. And omnipotence trumps omniscience hands down - someone who cannot decide what he wants to know, and what he doesn't want to know, or only wants to know later, definitely isn't omnipotent. It's kind of like root being able to read your email, but he can decide not to.
Also, things get a bit fuzzy when you consider the timelessness that is implied by omnipotence. You might be able to distinguish between "now" and "not now", but you can't really put things in a sequence of past, present and future.
So we have free will so long as it's socialist? Mmmm-kay...
The old-timey religions with their outdated dogma, fearful worship of imaginary beings and inability to grapple with reason and freedom, have become irrelevant to modern society.
In a last-gasp attempt to stay relevant, they are now co-opting the newest religion, that of eco-nuttism. This is not the kind of environmental study based on science and economics, it is the kind of green worship that is unhinged from reality, with a veneer of respectabilty. The function of Brother Guy is to provide that veneer to prevent a complete return to paganism.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
In this context, the word libertarian simply means that the free will is truly free - i.e. no external factors forced the will to do what it did. Nothing to do with socialism, just a bog standard philosophy term. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Orthodoxy is not determined by these concepts. Which council determined this? Orange?
Perhaps if you read in the context of the 1st century AD, you would not be so confused.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
He forgets that all the pots spoken of in Jeremiah were elect (i.e. part of the Jewish nation). Even his 'election' would not mean that he is not an object of wrath...
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Things like economies, law/morality, and mathematics are more or less intractable for science, and it cannot make many statements about supernatural beliefs.
Economics is very amenable to scientific inquiry. Don't know where you got the idea that it isn't. Economics is studied using the scientific method very effectively. It is a difficult field of study because of its complexity but that is no different from any number of other scientific fields such as meteorology, ecology, geology and others.
Science frequently informs and underpins laws and morals. It also can study their effects.
Mathematics is really a language used by scientists to describe the world. It describes the world around us with uncanny precision. It's not a science but virtually every scientific inquiry utilizes math.
Religion is (perhaps surprisingly) fairly rational, as in rationalism.
Religion is by definition NOT rational. It is faith in an unfalsifiable concept. What rationality it does have is largely argued from false or unprovable premises. Furthermore religions do not restrict themselves to purely logical conclusions from their premises. They frequently cherry pick arguments to support whatever view they wish to hold at the time. No, I disagree that religion is a form of rationalism.
Where religion makes statements about the observable world, it can and often does conflict with empirical truth. Sometimes these things are called miracles.
Those of us who are not beholden to religions call them fictional stories or sometimes unexplained phenomena instead of miracles.
Now that I finally have that freedom I have to ask; is there a hands-on kind of god?
You should ask the ancient Greeks and Romans that question. They had gods putting body parts in young women all the time.
What? No one could possibly be lucky!
An omniscient God precludes the possibility of human free will. So you're saying that old testament God is not omniscient, and that's something you need to back up.
Where in the Old Testament does it say that God is omniscient regarding future human actions?
Alternatively, one explanation is that God knows humans so well that God can predict their actions with a very high degree of accuracy. Humans also have this ability, since a lot of people know how their spouse or children will react to certain situations.
yup, thank you
i have 8 replies to an obviously nontroll comment. so my comment provokes thought, but the 0 rating reflects the lack of intellectual honesty
Indeed. Two separate bodies of knowledge, an idea too big for such small minds.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
As opposed to Science which is amoral by definition !?!?
148 comments, and no "almost fanatical devotion to the Pope"? This place is really going downhill...
and if you think you know all there is to know about God, then your religious faith is at fault."
That's one way to put down the certain "one and the only way" Protestants. A form of faith that makes the believer angry and wanting to hurt others can't lead to the stated goals of the faith.
Don't confuse amoral with immoral.
And evolution is what has given us moral. Individuals who do not commit murder, torture and other disruptive actions have a greater chance of survival and their offspring surviving. With the exceptionally long time period from birth until the offspring can survive on their own, cooperation and herd rules have been selected for.
We don't need any religion to tell us what's moral and not.
Science doesn't tell us, but it sure explains it.
No worries, I think the debate got supplanted with one about climate change.
Considering that priests defined what modern science is I'd say you're incredibly wrong.
See subject & "read em' & weep" Dave420 http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* "EATING YOUR WORDS" != GOOD NUTRITION fool!
APK
P.S.=> How'd they taste, Dave420? Flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat", & washed down with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down?? LMAO @ U, fool... apk
See subject & "read em' & weep" Dave420 http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* "EATING YOUR WORDS" != GOOD NUTRITION fool!
APK
P.S.=> How'd they taste, Dave420? Flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat", & washed down with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down?? LMAO @ U, fool... apk
Even though it does seem that the cat has much more free will then a human, even a cat can be conditioned to take a bunch of actions for an imaginary (actually remembered) reward, it's just harder then with a human or dog.
The difference is that a human can be conditioned over years to take very complex series of actions as you show in your post. I do like how you reference Pavlov by using a bell/alarm to trigger your complex set of conditioned actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
"Omniscient" would mean knowing all actual things. Possible things are not things, and an "omniscient" entity need not know them to be "omniscient".
... or even knowing all possible things. Consensus among many monotheist theologians is the concept of God existing outside of time entirely. So theoretically (umm... conceptually?) an omniscient God would have knowledge of all possible freely-made choices and all possible outcomes of each.
Blows your mind if you think about it that way. But religions often deal in paradoxes, and blowing your mind with them is useful, because once your logical mind is blown away, your heart is open to the concept of a higher power.
Large doses of LSD can work too.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
So God is Hari Seldon?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Well, plenty of other characters basically thought that Hari Seldon was God, so sure, why not.
As I was writing it, though, it did occur to me that all of the predictions made in the books of prophets were pretty much just an imprecise version of psychohistory.
Science is completely deficient regardless of which semantic games you want to play.
As a mystic I find your stance on evolution to be highly ignorant. Parent's, especially mothers, have an innate ability to love their offspring. This has *nothing* to do with evolution although you can keep trying to pretend it does.
Science teaches The Iron Rule (Might Makes Right) which has long been the status quo.
Religion teaches The Golden Rule (Love *is* the highest principle)
> Science doesn't tell us, but it sure explains it.
No it doesn't. It will tell you how to build a bomb, but not whether you should use it or not. Trying to distill morality (who lives and who dies) down to a numbers game is inhumane.
> Individuals who do not commit murder, torture and other disruptive actions have a greater chance of survival and their offspring surviving.
Gee, if only the governments would get the message.
I'd take a mosey through the Greek pantheon. You'll probably find a couple that meddled in the affairs of mortals.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET agrees hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does the same -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts BOTH hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY REAL SECURITY PROS (not menial wannabe rookie like you) DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUT OF YOU SOME MORE?
---
Those security pros?
They INCLUDE ME too you noobie rookie obvious dimwit as I work with those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a fairly regular basis!
I've worked professionally for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer professionally since 1994 (with ME showing you HOW to migrate a hosts file across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
(I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES (which you told me you learned from guides) + WARES TO DO IT 1,000's to MILLIONS USED, probably LONGER THAN YOU HAVE BEEN ALIVE possibly BEING PAID FOR IT -> http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... )
You're all TALK & can't back it -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> YOU say "hosts=bad" (yet they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin privelege (first) to UPDATE them vs. threats online:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You admit using admin priv yourself & how else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows?
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
Since you're MENIAL ASS limited in skills self doesn't code (& didn't even KNOW that) & CLUE/FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best there is) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security toolsl... apk
1 thing's sure. The Lord of Hosts crushed you completely http://slashdot.org/comments.p... Coren22.
http://www.christianpost.com/n...
There are things that no one can explain. Science doesn't have all the answers.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET agrees hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does the same -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts BOTH hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY REAL SECURITY PROS (not menial wannabe rookie like you) DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUT OF YOU SOME MORE?
---
Those security pros?
They INCLUDE ME too you noobie rookie obvious dimwit as I work with those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a fairly regular basis!
I've worked professionally for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer professionally since 1994 (with ME showing you HOW to migrate a hosts file across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
(I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES (which you told me you learned from guides) + WARES TO DO IT 1,000's to MILLIONS USED, probably LONGER THAN YOU HAVE BEEN ALIVE possibly BEING PAID FOR IT -> http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... )
You're all TALK & can't back it -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> YOU say "hosts=bad" (yet they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch about using admin privelege (first) to UPDATE them vs. threats online:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You admit using admin priv yourself & how else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows?
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
Since you're MENIAL ASS limited in skills self doesn't code (& didn't even KNOW that) & CLUE/FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best there is) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security toolsl... apk
If God is outside of time then him knowing everything would no more contradict free will than me knowing what someone choose to do in the past does. Just knowing the result of a choice doesn't mean the choice was never made.
That said free will doesn't exist, so it's a pointless argument.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Guy also wrote a wonderful book for observational astronomers called "Turn Left at Orion" He speaks well with lay people.
There's more to it than this.
Sure, and it's entirely possible that in a controlled situation quantum behavior could have observable effects at larger scales. The evidence would indicate that the brain is not the sort of controlled environment where this could be true.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Catholic theology has always been tolerant and accepting of science. ... The church, however, has persecuted scientists many times, and surpressed scientific inquiry.
That is a distinction without a difference. Theology is not independent of the church, particularly in a hierarchical organization like the catholic church. Some may wander into other forms of theology but that is a different issue. And no, they have demonstrably not always been tolerant of science. Even today the catholic church has an uneasy relationship with science despite their occasional claims to the contrary. Church doctrine routinely contradicts scientific evidence and interferes with scientific inquiry, particularly when it comes to reproductive science and genetics in recent years.
When? I don't ever see where the Catholic Church contradicts science. The Catholic Church, unlike Protestant denominations, has always held that there is an objective truth and that true science reveals God to us.
I see that the Church has contradicted science in terms of ethics, e.g., fetal stem cell research. That only makes sense if you want to prevent the fetus from being a commodity. The scientific community has failed to condemn Planned Parenthood for the sale of fetal tissue. There's your ethic to live by. Kill someone to benefit from their organs. I don't know that I would take advantage of a cure if I needed to use the tissue of an aborted fetus.
The Church has never been fearful of the Truth.
Georges Lemaitre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre) explored the expansion solution of Einsteins General Relativity Field Equation which Einstein initially resisted. Georges called it the "cosmic egg" (until detractor Fred Hoyle named it after British slang for ejaculation). Note both Guy and Georges studied at MIT.
Who held the candle between the Greeks and the Renaissance.
He also wrote 'Turn Left At Orion', one of the best introductory books for amateur astronomers.
Why do these sufferers from extreme delusions garner so much press? This is just going to encourage copycats to form similar cults.
Which church is "the Church"? Catholics that follow the pope? Catholics that don't. Lutherans? Methodists? Moromons? Presbyterians? Greek Orthodox? Russion Orthodox? Baptists? Unitarians? Which of the Muslims sects?
There are things that no one can explain. Science doesn't have all the answers.
The link you give points to an advert for one of the many collections of miracle anecdotes that evangelical Christians like to read (and the Muslims, Jews, etc have their own versions, of course). The problem with such stories, nice as they are, is that they are not consistently reproducible. Every attempt at reproducing them fails - so, science has to conclude that the reasoning behind the story was wrong. There's no shame in that - scientists are proven wrong all the time, and usually don't mind too much. That is the thing about science and the scientific method: it can't prove that something is absolutely true, but it can definitely prove that something is false with absolute certainty. If your predictions based on your hypothesis fail, then your hypothesis is wrong in the absolute sense.
And of course there are lots of things nobody can ever explain - why did a lightning follow one rather than another of many equally possible paths? Science doesn't know, and nobody thinks they have all the answers - except the religious. It isn't desperately important for us to have absolute certainty about anything, except perhaps the scientific method; and even that one we only accept because there is no alternative. Scientists are doubters through and through, who positively revel in asking probing questions.
This very closely aligns with what I was taught about an omniscient God and agency (pretty much the same concept as free will but it carries the connotation that your choices do have consequences). Basically, as an omniscient being operating on a higher plane, God knows us and how will will react and respond, so he knows the choices we will make. However, we operate on a lower plane and don't all that until after we have been in situations and see for ourselves (and prove to ourselves) how we react and respond. It is very similar to how parents who pay attention to their children can generally predict quite well what a kid will do in a certain situation and will let the kid make the choices and learn.
The church which remains in orthodoxy.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Silly nonsense. You need not embrace the supernatural to accept libertarian free will nor does such a thing require something "not measurable by scientific inquiry". Further, rejecting the supernatural does not force you to either embrace compatibilism or reject free will entirely.
Basically, everything you wrote is absurd.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Planned Parenthood has not sold fetal tissue. They donate it. There are costs involved with the donation, and I would presume that those costs are grounds for negotiation. It's illegal for them to make a profit, and I don't think they do. Therefore, they're probably losing money with the donations, and they aren't benefiting from the transaction.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're not going to get anywhere. See, you actually believe that an awful lot of science has been done on the various topics you hint at. In reality, very little has been done. Certainly not enough to draw any sort of conclusion or even form a reasonable position.
Let's start here:
Every attempt at reproducing them fails - so, science has to conclude that the reasoning behind the story was wrong.
What I'd like you to do is try to find an example or two written up in a proper peer-reviewed journal. You'll find it incredibly difficult.
You'll find a lot of modern "scientific" beliefs have absolutely no actual science behind them.
It isn't desperately important for us to have absolute certainty about anything, except perhaps the scientific method; and even that one we only accept because there is no alternative.
Science, as it happens, is not the end of epistemology. Neither is it some static and unchanging thing necessarily beyond question. It also has its share of well-established issues; it's not perfect. (Note: I'm talking about science as a method of inquiry here, not sciences as a body of knowledge. ) These are not controversial statements among those with a formal background in science. It's simply reality.
I'm concerned that you've elevated science the same way a religious zealot would elevate some sacred texts. (This is not uncommon among the lay science fans.) When you treat science like a religion, you tend to ascribe to science things which you believe for reasons unrelated to science and make bold pronouncements like the ones you've made here. When someone checks up on those and finds out that there is no science behind those scientific claims, what will they conclude? How will that color their impression of science and scientists? You may end up doing far more harm than good.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Religion, Science and politics work together in mysterious ways. They form a three body system that forces us to evolve at the right pace. Religion is like a proton, It changes very slowly. Science is the neutron it changes too fast. Politics is like an electron, you can never tell where they truly are. Together they magically make our species evolve at the right pace.
> There is a view called apostrophism that says that it's means it is.
The anapostrophists believe that "it's" means "it has."
Well, you could ridicule me or provide a contrary argument. One of these paths supports your point. The other does not. Perhaps the issue is you do not understand libertarian free will? What differentiates your understanding from compatabilist or just randomness? Basically, all you have done is use words like "silly" and "absurd." kind of makes you look like a troll.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
It's not worth the effort. I've been down this road before. (You're parroting silly nonsense, not your own insites, after all. This is nothing new.) You're not going to catch-up after a few forum posts, and I'm certainly not patient enough today to even try. In this case, ridicule is simpler. Take it for what it is: a hint that you probably need to learn a bit more about the subject before repeating what you read in the comment's section of some kid's blog.
What you're really saying, to anyone who's actually familiar with the subject, is something on the order of "I can think of nothing else, so this must be true". It's not terribly convincing, or terribly interesting. Why you thought this was profound enough to post I'll leave for you to puzzle out.
What differentiates your understanding from compatabilist or just randomness?
If I had to guess, I'd go with an actual education. (Damn, that's egotistical! Even I cringed.) Anyhow, let me take a guess as to where "you" might have gone wrong. I'm going to assume "your" reasoning is identical to every other layperson parroting this same nonsense. Typically, people get confused when they ask the question "how is free will possible?" They spend a lot of time looking for a strict causal chain that can lead ultimately to a free decision, and discover (to their shock and amazement) that a deterministic account of free will isn't possible and reject free will on that basis. Essentially, begging the question. Let's put that a bit more suscinctly: They reject free will on the basis that a plausible deterministic account for it cannot be given! You really couldn't offer a less convincing argument than that. It's silly, yet you see it in blog comments all the time. Is "your" reasoning any different? I suspect it isn't.
As for the supernatural bit, that's a mystery. It's certainly not a necessary assumption, or even a plausible one. Changing the nature of the agent makes absolutely no difference. Ask yourself, "what is the essential difference between your supernatural agent and your meat robot agent?" Why do you allow free will for one and not for the other? (Note that you haven't considered this before now.) See how silly, it seems? What applies to one ought to apply to the other. It's completly pointless. Why bring that in to the discussion at all? It makes absolutely no sense. Now, I have seen this ridiculous nonsense appear along side silliness like the faulty reasoning above on forums and blog comments. Given how ridiculous it is, I can only guess you got it from some source like that and just didn't think about it before repeating it.
As I said before, I can only assume that you're reasoning is no more complicated than "I can think of nothing else, so this must be true". Which, again, isn't terribly convincing. It is incredibly silly, however, as you say it with such conviction, despite the obvious lack of thought. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt I am. The inexplicable supernatual bit is pretty damning.
Well, you could ridicule me or provide a contrary argument.
Sadly, lacking free will, I had no choice in the matter. Ridicule it must be. I suppose if I had free will I could offer something contrary, but there isn't really anything to argue about here. You haven't offered anything substative. I think "I" at least made that clear.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Firstly, congratulations on your condescension.
Secondly, how is your appeal to mystery different from my appeal to supernatural? I just put words to what you dance around. How is it different from a system that is subject to investigation? Well, since you appeal to mystery, why can't I?
Never the less, you haven't actually said anything again. You seem more interested in saying why you can't say anything than in demonstrating your point. "You wouldn't understand " is the cry of all emo kids.
poor misunderstood slashdotter. It is far easier to attack a person then to address their point. See I can do condescension too!
By the way, I don't suggest you have no free will. On the contrary, I hold you morally responsible for your atrocious post.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Secondly, how is your appeal to mystery different from my appeal to supernatural?
I've made no such appeal. All I've done is explain, briefly, why your post was silly nonsense. You're trying to make some inference to my personal views, which I have not offered as they're not relevant to why your post was ridiculous.
you haven't actually said anything again.
You mean my personal viewpoint? Again, it's not relevant. Your post was nothing more than silly nonsense, my personal beliefs don't alter that fact in any way. What I have said, is why the absurdities that you parroted without thinking are so silly.
It is far easier to attack a person then to address their point.
I believe I did address your "points". Though, as I pointed out, you didn't actually offer anything substantive. You made no argument, just a few unsubstantiated and inexplicable assertions. As such, I could only infer your reasoning as to one. As to the other, I did what I could to help you understand why one of your stranger points was total nonsense.
Now, I did ask you to consider some questions. Perhaps if you tried to answer them here, you'll better be able to understand why unsubstantiated assertions are so completely ridiculous. Give it a go. I won't blame if you don't bother posting the results after writing them out. I'd feel pretty silly if I tried to defend such a ridiculous position.
Required reading for internet skeptics
You're not going to get anywhere.
I knew already when I replied, that I wouldn't be able to convince you - but I think even a futile discussion can have a wider impact. If your well-meaning, but false ideas are not countered, some might think you have a point, which you don't.
What I'd like you to do is try to find an example or two written up in a proper peer-reviewed journal. You'll find it incredibly difficult.
Nope - it doesn't work like that. If you want you hypotheses to be taken serious, you work out the logic, design experiments, predict the outcome etc. No religious thinker has, as far as I know, ever done that and got a reliable result. Don't expect scientists to go and do your work for you; we have our own projects - that we are getting paid for doing.
Science, as it happens, is not the end of epistemology. Neither is it some static and unchanging thing necessarily beyond question.
Well, that is rather the point of science, isn't it? Scientific method is a tool by which we can improve our knowledge, false as it inevitably is, by cipping away the falsehoods and hopefully getting closer to some form of truth, that can actually be relied upon independently of whether any given individual actually believes in it or not. It is search for reality, if you will - as real as a brickwall.
I'm concerned that you've elevated science the same way a religious zealot would elevate some sacred texts.
I don't think you sincerely feel any concern about that, if I'm honest. You just trying to see if you can find a crack in my conviction, that you can pry open. But why don't you propose a better way of testing a hypothesis than the process known as the scientific method? Scientists are practical people - the Method is a tool, and we would all welcome one that is better.
They reject free will on the basis that a plausible deterministic account for it cannot be given!
This is known as compatiblism. I.e. free will and determinism can be compatible. I am sure your education as taught you this? And the tension in this view?
Is "your" reasoning any different?
My reasoning is free will is either compatible with determinism or it isn't. Choose from column A or B.
"what is the essential difference between your supernatural agent and your meat robot agent?" (Note that you haven't considered this before now.)
Different rules may apply in a different system that may not be comprehensible to us. Seems reasonable to me. Yeah, it is a bit of an appeal to mystery, and this is one possible solution(not necessarily the solution). I have considered this before, possibly even more than you.
Why do you allow free will for one and not for the other?
I don't necessarily, but I do assert that if free will is libertarian, a robot is unlikely to have it.
Why bring that in to the discussion at all?
It provides a mechanism by which free will can exist. In a libertarian sense.
Your other questions boil down to "Isn't this silly?" I can find no others in your previous post. Admittedly I did stop looking.
Your assumptions that those who disagree with you are uneducated, or don't understand anything are, to be blunt a little stupid. Your arrogance is astounding. Rather than engage in debate, you immediately default to ridicule. I don't doubt your education, but I do doubt your reasoning capability. Sure you may be jaded by the large masses of armchair philosophers who have never considered these footnotes or thought about sentience or any of these other concepts, but don't be an asshole about it. At very least, refer people to a good textbook on the concepts, so you don't have to explain yourself. If you are that lazy, it will make you look a bit better.
Are these insights new or unique to me? No. never claimed they were. Never claimed to have solved all mysteries and reasoned every path, but that does not mean I have not read widely, or that I have not been educated in some of these things.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
I knew already when I replied, that I wouldn't be able to convince you
I'm not the guy to which you replied. This may explain why your reply seems so confused.
Nope - it doesn't work like that.
My point was that many of the "scientific" claims you were making were not backed by any actual science. You believe that some research had been done which had not been done. That's why I suggested you go looking for it. What do you call someone who tries to attribute scientific credibility to a claim not backed by actual science? Do you want to fall within that camp?
But why don't you propose a better way of testing a hypothesis than the process known as the scientific method? Scientists are practical people
First, there isn't some monolithic thing called "the scientific method", rigid and unchangeable. It, along with our understanding of science, changes over time and with the area of inquiry. This is an important point, often missed by laypersons without a formal background in science. (It seems to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of science on your part.) There is an awful lot of misinformation about the nature of science, it's scope, and it's accomplishments spread by misguided science fans. That does surprising amount of harm to the public understanding of science. Far more harm, I suspect, than the nastiest creationist could ever hope to accomplish.
As for something better, I'll remind you that science is not the end of epistemology. I'll add to that the simple fact that the scope of scientific inquiry is bounded. This has been understood for centuries. To deny this is to deny science. What purpose could that serve? So that more lay people can "believe" in some odd parody of science? What good will that do?
Bringing back an earlier objection: To credit to science things which are not science is the hallmark of pseudoscience. Be it scientific claims not backed by actual science or to expand the scope of science beyond its reach. I would assume that you'd rather not align yourself with pseudoscience. If that is the case, please, make sure that you're not spreading it in your quest to defend science. It is, presumably, counter to your goals.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Well, the Abrahamic God (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is a hands-off kind of God, giving the human race free will and all that. So, we're free to hate even though He discourages it.
How about The Flood, to take an obvious example? That seems pretty hands-on to me, wiping out all of humanity except for Noah and his family.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
No, it doesn't. If there is actually free will, the future is literally indeterminate. Then there is no "the future", that would be merely a linguistic construct.
"Omniscient" would mean knowing all actual things. Possible things are not things, and an "omniscient" entity need not know them to be "omniscient".
So all the Revelations stuff can be ignored as it hasn't happened yet and is therefore nothing to do with God?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This is known as compatiblism.
Nope. Not even close. Go do a tiny bit of reading. You'll quickly discover that compatibilism is not what you think it is! You'd think you'd have looked something up after I ridiculed your post, so as not to look so damn foolish.
It provides a mechanism by which free will can exist. In a libertarian sense.
No, it does not, as I (briefly) explained to you already. But I'll play. Go ahead, let's hear your explanation. How is it that some supernatural thing can have free will? Why does that justification not apply to some natural thing?
Your assumptions that those who disagree with you are uneducated
No, no. This has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement. This is all based on what you've written. The compatibilist bit above makes it pretty clear you don't know much about the subject. It's broad and complicated, so it's not an indictment of your ability, just that it's not as simple as you seem to think it is.
Your arrogance is astounding. Rather than engage in debate, you immediately default to ridicule.
Sometimes, but not always. In your case, you didn't offer anything to deconstruct, just a lot of ridiculous assertions. Like I mentioned earlier, I've see this before, and it's not really worth the effort as most people either don't care or have the necessary background to dig in to the subject. It's not exactly an easy topic for a layperson tackle. Where the hell do you start? Is it even possible with a few quick exchanges? It's simpler just to point in a direction and say, 'look over there' or pose a question that makes them consider their position more fully. With any luck, they'll figure it out on their own.
I posed a question above. Please, give it a go.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Nope. Not even close. Go do a tiny bit of reading. You'll quickly discover that compatibilism is not what you think it is! You'd think you'd have looked something up after I ridiculed your post, so as not to look so damn foolish.
Nope, looks right to me. Yes, it is more complicated, and there are variations, but I would argue that that falls under compatabilism. You have brought up both determinism and free will, and supposed that your reasoning from determinism supports free will. Unless I misunderstand you? Most of the books I have read on the subject seem to agree that this is a view that determinism and free will are compatible.
No, it does not, as I (briefly) explained to you already. But I'll play. Go ahead, let's hear your explanation. How is it that some supernatural thing can have free will? Why does that justification not apply to some natural thing?
A would natural thing is subject to some extent to determinism - if even on a statistical level. I am going to use "non-natural" rather than supernatural, as the second term is a bit loaded. Suppose, however that an "non-natural" thing does not inhabit the same rules or even perhaps logic as the natural thing. The reason to bring up the non-natural is that it can perhaps have some independence from it's circumstance(natural or unnatural). If we are to suppose that only the natural exists, then we could extrapolate that all that occurs is a result of what came before. In other words, the will is not "free" to do other than what it must by either statistical probability or perhaps linear causation. The entire reason to suppose the non-natural is to provide a mechanism by which some independence of choice can exist. If it were contained within the natural, this could not be so.
The assumption is, that the natural and non-natural are not alike, otherwise we may as well, as you argue, just use "natural". The other assumption is, of course, that there can be no independence from circumstance in the natural (without being random). That seems a reasonable assumption based on observation, but it still is one.
No, no. This has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement. This is all based on what you've written. The compatibilist bit above makes it pretty clear you don't know much about the subject. It's broad and complicated, so it's not an indictment of your ability, just that it's not as simple as you seem to think it is.
As I see it, there are two broad categories, and, yes you can be an incompatibilist and reject or accept free will. I don't see the deficiency in my understanding here. Yes, this is a generalization, and yes, I am well aware that there are sub-categories here, but I have never read of any further categories? Do you have a reference I could look at?
Sometimes, but not always. In your case, you didn't offer anything to deconstruct, just a lot of ridiculous assertions. Like I mentioned earlier, I've see this before, and it's not really worth the effort as most people either don't care or have the necessary background to dig in to the subject. It's not exactly an easy topic for a layperson tackle. Where the hell do you start? Is it even possible with a few quick exchanges? It's simpler just to point in a direction and say, 'look over there' or pose a question that makes them consider their position more fully. With any luck, they'll figure it out on their own.
It is possible to be polite about these things, yes, this is slashdot, and I must be new around here. It is also possible to actually do some pointing. I don't claim to be infallible here either, but while you say you have nothing to address with my "ridiculous" assertions, calling them "ridiculous" does not give me anything to address either.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Just because you CAN discover that, or just because some external entity could theoretically press pause for long enough to calculate ahead of time, doesn't take YOUR free will away.
I disagree. If you CAN discover that without changing it then it most certainly does take your free will away. Without something like quantum uncertainty, the ability to observe a thing locks it down for all future eternity.
Chaotic systems are deterministic but not predictable. That seems like a more plausible description of a human being than some clockwork automaton.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
That said free will doesn't exist, so it's a pointless argument.
If there really is no such thing as free will, then everything's pointless and you might as well kill yourself to avoid the inevitable pain of existence. It is only the knowledge that we can do something to affect what happens to us that makes it worth bothering at all.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
No, the basis of "nature", quantum behavior, is non-deterministic.
But that still doesn't get you free will: just because you don't know the outcome of a coin flip, it doesn't mean that the coin has free will.
Human beings have consciousness. Coins do not.
You can argue that consciousness doesn't exist, of course. You can also argue that the whole physical world doesn't exist outside of your mind, or that we're living in some computer generated world. Neither are plausible, even if they are unproveable.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Chaotic systems are deterministic but not predictable. That seems like a more plausible description of a human being than some clockwork automaton.
It doesn't matter how predictable you are, if you're hard-core deterministic, then you're just a fancy clockwork automaton. You can still take solace from your lack of predictability... if fate permits it.
Obviously I prefer to believe in free will, even if I can't come up with a good way for it to make sense. It's still comforting.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm not the guy to which you replied. This may explain why your reply seems so confused.
Whatever - the same observation holds. After comparing this reply to your previous one, I can see that you are simply repeating the same statis arguments combined with the same attempts at spinning mine as ill-conceived. In short, you argue like a Jehovah's Witness and it seems disingenious. I'm willing to discuss subjects in both science and religion, but a discussion is not what we are having, and there is no point in continuing.
I thought the first rule of Troll Club was not to make it quite so fucking obvious that you're a Troll?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
science tells you how the world works. religion tells you how to live in the world
If religion was happy to limit itself to being a branch of ethics, which in itself is a branch of philosophy, then we could all have nice academic discussions if we were philosophy students and let everyone else get on with our lives.
Unfortunately, religion is a lot more tangled up in the real world and politics than that.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Parent's, especially mothers, have an innate ability to love their offspring. This has *nothing* to do with evolution although you can keep trying to pretend it does.
I'd have thought it was pretty obvious that parents who love their offspring and therefore don't neglect them give their kids a better chance of reaching maturity, having children of their own, and passing on their genes.
This doesn't minimise the depth of love involved.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Unless I misunderstand you?
Undoubtedly.
Most of the books I have read on the subject seem to agree that this is a view that determinism and free will are compatible.
Compatibilist's views of 'free will' aren't what we're "discussing". Go spend a few minutes reading -- you'll figure it out. They're about as far from the topic at hand as you can get. Here's a hint: To your post, and everything that followed, compatibilist views are indistinguishable from hard determinism.
The entire reason to suppose the non-natural is to provide a mechanism by which some independence of choice can exist. If it were contained within the natural, this could not be so.
So you don't have a justification for asserting the supernatural is necessary for free will. I'm not surprised. What is this mysterious mechanism? If you could posit such a thing, then you'd need to reject its possibility in the natural on grounds other than hard determinism as, with this mechanism established, you could reject hard determinism on that basis. To suggest such a mechanism is to undermine your own assumption. It simply doesn't make any sense to bring in the supernatural -- let alone insist that it's necessary.
while you say you have nothing to address with my "ridiculous" assertions, calling them "ridiculous" does not give me anything to address either.
You could address the deficiency in your understanding?
. I don't see the deficiency in my understanding here.
Damn. Well, I gave it a go.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I was simply pointing out that there are things which science has so far been unable to explain. The specific examples were likely bad as most were hearsay, but here is a pretty good one that has been examined by science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You can try to attribute that I am somehow blinded by religion, but I can only say that I personally don't believe in miracles, though I am Catholic.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
So, if you think he is so wrong, why don't you point to the scholarly articles disputing such miracles as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you are right, it should be a simple thing to find the published scientific article that explains how the woman regained her hearing, and how the statue produced tears; which was incidentally filmed happening. It should be rather easy to do.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Can you explain this mysterious spin? I've done two things. I've pointed out that you're attributing to science finding that have no science behind them. I've also explained why this is bad.
I can't stop you from engaging in pseudoscience, but I can at least point it out.
Required reading for internet skeptics
YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE them vs. threats online:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You admit you use admin priv
&
How else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does too -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS MORE DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me too - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides? I write 'em (good ones) that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that're endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
You did all that? No & that's a small part of what I could put out.
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" as far as security
...apk
YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE them vs. threats online:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You admit you use admin priv
&
How else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does too -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS MORE DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me too - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides? I write 'em (good ones) that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that're endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
You did all that? No & that's a small part of what I could put out.
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" as far as security
...apk
Maybe you're right, but it's irrelevant since I don't have a say in the matter.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I have run out of time for this. You may consider this a victory as you will, but I do not agree that you have any clue what you are talking about. You are just a bit too smug to be genuine, so I will say well trolled. I am out of town, so by the time this thread is locked, I might see your reply. Do what you will with your last word.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
I am not confused, and I suspect given multiple historical theology degrees gracing my walls, I likely have a greater understanding of the context than you, I could of course be wrong, but the statistical likelihood approaches 0.
Nice. There's hope then you're one of the pots that will be thrown to the ground and tread upon. What is it you say? That you thought you were one of the glorified ones? My, oh, my, isn't that rich? Having the broken pots believe themselves the ones that'll get into the glory is precisely where all the fun is!
Oh? What? You think that's unfair? Here's some mind rape. Now, now, don't be like that. You're now convinced you deserve eternal torture, don't you? Yes, nod, exactly like that, yes. Good boy! I'll leave now. Please keep screaming as high as you can, okay? The sound is quite pleasant, and we wouldn't want me non-pleased, right? Good, good! That's how I like it!
Now, to fix those saved over there. They seem to be getting some horrified expressions in their faces. Breaking their minds so that they feel joy in watching my Hell and sing non-stop praising my torture of their former loved ones is a full time job. Sigh. Oh, well, no infinite sadistic megalomania is complete without a chorus of non-stop screams and hosannas from billions of voices at full lungs, and some god has to make things work around here...
Bitter much? I see a diatribe coming from your keyboard, but nothing refuting any of the points made.
I was simply pointing out that there are things which science has so far been unable to explain.
- and you were implying that this somehow has a bearing on the veracity of your faith. That's OK with me - each individual has the responsibility for their own conscience and therefore the freedom to choose their own reasons. To me, the fact that science doesn't know everything is comforting - the joy of science lies in the discovery, not in the knowing.
I have studied the article about 'Our Lady of Akita'; but again, it does not offer anything for a scientist to work on. There is no coherent, logical hypothesis that leads to predictions which can be tested. Why would God or any other supernatural entity choose to make a statue produce tears? Why would he choose to cure one person om disease and not somebody else? It is not difficult to think of many, natural explanations - the church or monastry that own a weeping statue can make loads of money from the increased number of visitors, for example, and it is not difficult to make a statuse produce 'tears' by fitting thin tubes in the right place, and as the many revelations about child sex abuse by Catholic priests all over the world show, the Catholic church is not above such things.
You can try to attribute that I am somehow blinded by religion,...
Not necessarily - mabye you see something that I can't. But if you start to talk about science to a scientist, then you will be met with the arguments of a scientist.
Scientists aren't the ones to investigate weeping statues, they are too honest and unfamiliar with flim-flam.
Someone like James Randi, well-versed in techniques of deception, is the best choice.
With your mouth full as you "eat your words":
"it patently clear no-one else agrees with your position" - by dave420 (699308) on Friday September 25, 2015 @04:44AM (#50595241)
Here's some that are QUITE contrary to yours from /. users + experts in the field:
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
&
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
---
* Let's see - a TOP antimalware company hosts AND RECOMMENDS my ware, & real users here like it - you're outnumbered, outthought, & OUTSMARTED, easily as usual, by "yours truly"...
APK
P.S.=> To top all THAT off? Better people that a "ne'er-do-well" MORON troll who's never accomplished a thing of good note in computing in yourself AGREE with me hosts are good security:
Quote of Aryeh Goretsky of NOD32/ESET doing so in fact -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
You UTTER blowhard do nothing "ne'er-do-well" troll... "eat your words" & tell us:
HOW DID THEY TASTE?
Flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" since your mouth wrote checks your dimwit brain can't cash? Rammed down YOUR THROAT since you stuck your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH too?? LMAO...
... apk
"it patently clear no-one else agrees with your position" - by dave420 (699308) on Friday September 25, 2015 @04:44AM (#50595241)
Here's some that are QUITE contrary to yours from /. users + experts in the field:
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
&
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
---
* Let's see - a TOP antimalware company hosts AND RECOMMENDS my ware, & real users here like it - you're outnumbered, outthought, & OUTSMARTED, easily as usual, by "yours truly"...
APK
P.S.=> To top all THAT off? Better people that a "ne'er-do-well" MORON troll who's never accomplished a thing of good note in computing in yourself AGREE with me hosts are good security:
Quote of Aryeh Goretsky of NOD32/ESET doing so in fact -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
You UTTER blowhard do nothing "ne'er-do-well" troll... "eat your words" & tell us:
HOW DID THEY TASTE?
Flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" since your mouth wrote checks your dimwit brain can't cash? Rammed down YOUR THROAT since you stuck your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH too?? LMAO...
... apk
> Where in the Old Testament does it say that God is omniscient regarding future human actions?
If he doesn't know what he's getting into, I'd argue that he has no business creating worlds!
Bitter much? I see a diatribe coming from your keyboard, but nothing refuting any of the points made.
There's nothing to be refuted proper. This is all based on speculation, in turn based on these and those metaphysical assumptions, in turn based on what certain religious seers said they perceived. It can be right, it can be wrong, it can be neither.
The situation is strictly similar to that famous episode regarding Galileo in which someone, after looking through his telescope and seeing mountains in the Moon, and noticing it went against his belief that the planets were perfect spheres -- a belief sustained upon the best, most well argued for ideas from the best Philosophers of the previous 2000 years and upon the same religious seers --, argued that all the valleys were filled by a perfectly transparent substance that guaranteed the Moon remained a perfect sphere. Galileo quipped that yes, this invisible substance was certainly there, except it was all accumulated on top of the lunar mountains, making them even taller than they seem to be, and therefore the Moon even less spherical than the other guy thought.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Economics is very amenable to scientific inquiry. Don't know where you got the idea that it isn't. Economics is studied using the scientific method very effectively. It is a difficult field of study because of its complexity but that is no different from any number of other scientific fields such as meteorology, ecology, geology and others.
No, it's really not. Microeconomics can be studied in a more-or-less scientific way. As for macroeconomics, the day that economists start making meaningful and accurate predictions is when I'll start taking them seriously. I'm far from alone in this.
Science frequently informs and underpins laws and morals. It also can study their effects.
We don't run experiments to determine whether homicide is good. Courtrooms are not scientific trials. The "test of truth" for morality is not something decided on the basis of repeated observation. Empiricism is not a one-size-fits-all tool.
Mathematics is really a language used by scientists to describe the world. It describes the world around us with uncanny precision. It's not a science but virtually every scientific inquiry utilizes math.
You're really failing at the core concept here. Mathematics is a formal system, probably best described by rationalism. Mathematical truth is the product of logic, not observation. The real world can frequently be modeled with mathematics, and with the right chosen axioms so can many other fictional worlds.
Religion is by definition NOT rational. It is faith in an unfalsifiable concept. What rationality it does have is largely argued from false or unprovable premises. Furthermore religions do not restrict themselves to purely logical conclusions from their premises. They frequently cherry pick arguments to support whatever view they wish to hold at the time. No, I disagree that religion is a form of rationalism.
I did not say religion was a form of rationalism. However, having absurd or unprovable axioms does not mean logic can no longer be applied. But when your system of logic is not based on "objective" observation, petitio principii is hard to avoid. Wait, are we talking about religion or economics here?
Where religion makes statements about the observable world, it can and often does conflict with empirical truth. Sometimes these things are called miracles.
Those of us who are not beholden to religions call them fictional stories or sometimes unexplained phenomena instead of miracles.
And those of us who are from Alpha Centauri call them "kkrgch'n". I'm pretty sure that, assuming you understood it, you agree with the point I was making there. I guess sometimes you're just so argumentative, even a semantic argument will do.
You need a Philosophy of Science 101 course. Religion, mathematics, and empiricism are all ways to determine truth, and empiricism (practiced as science) is not without its flaws. Namely, you can only verify what you can observe repeatedly, there is no absolute truth, and given that all observations have an error factor, all observations and theories are at least a tiny bit wrong. This is why science deals with levels of certainty, not proven facts.
Proof is the realm of mathematics. Not being dependent on this reality gives it the ability to express universally true statements. It can be used to model the world very accurately, but per Gödel it can either be complete or consistent but not both. And again, with any non-empirical system you cannot be sure that your truth applies