Breaking news; the tea party is retarded

Yeah, I changed my notion of what agnostic means during the course of the thread. I used to think that it designated someone who was really an atheist, so the term "agnostic theist" didn't make much sense. I now realise that "agnostic" is actually only useful for describing a flavour of theism, and is redundant when applied to atheism. So the statement "I am an agnostic" just prompts the question "An agnostic what?"

 

Silly Smuel, you can't change your opinion because of a discussion in a thread, that's not how the Internet works. The only way to redeem yourself now is to groundlessly insult somebody.

 

ag·nos·tic
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

 

This has got to be the falsest of false syllogisms that I have ever encountered. Quite impressive considering the forum. You, sir, deserve a cookie.

 

Agnostic says what?

 

"syllogism 1.Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises..." Which premise was which that you would call the whole thing a syllogism? I don't follow.


The faith that I speak of is the faith that creates miracles. I have trust in God to perform according to His Word that says He loves us so that when I have a genuine need of a miracle, it comes to past. First comes that blindness in that you don't see how you can possibly escape a situation. Second comes the trust (faith) in God that he will provide an escape, a miracle or what have you. Third comes the event that reveals the Providence of God. After witnessing the Providence of God once, Faith is no longer blind, but is still required because God requires that we grow in the manner that children grow -- doing that which teaches us while also trusting in him to provide. Because we never know when God will require that we use our own strength to escape so that we learn life's lessons, we can't require miraculous interventions for every fix that we get ourselves into; yet, with faith, we can still encounter the miraculous.

After the first event that proves your faith to yourself, Faith cannot be blind because it has been proven. Yet, such does not become something other than faith because the repeat-ability of the event is not dependent on the laws of the universe, but upon the willing of a person (namely God) to perform the act.

-----

"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." 1 Corinthians 1:21

Never mind the initial question. Why try to understand my "foolishness" with logic and reason when you cannot know God via the wisdom of the world?

 

After you cleared it up the first time, I already understood what you meant, and simply hadn't called your position ridiculous yet. You said the same thing in two different ways when I already knew what you were saying, and it appears you were trying to lead me to a self-designated conclusion of your position through our current conversation.
It was an awkward statement to begin with because it made no sense, the fact that you made it more awkward is why I said you were floundering. However, that might easily be amended because you got me to call it ridiculous anyway.

 

You have yet to convince me that you get what my point is.

 

First: It is a false syllogism. Second: You are blind from faith granted sight. Therefore: I cannot prove to you that Africa exists.

 

That it's possible to explain something scientifically regardless of available observers. I attempted to show you how ridiculous that was by the examples I gave, but also considering I meant something other than the basic "there can't be a scientific explanation for everything" (considering I'm pretty sure scientific explanation requires scientists), I'm biased. I agree that scientific explanation of everything is theoretically possible, but practically impossible given the requirements inherent to a scientific explanation.

Even what I originally said and to which you responded with a clip of The Big Lebowski, was adherent to "science as practiced by scientists can't answer every question in the universe because there were not always scientists."
Match that up with

I think you may not have understood my point and instead formed an opinion based on your own misinterpretation.

 

Imprecise answer, zero points.

I think you may have not understood your herpetologist friend's point.

Question: Why does the Earth orbit around the Sun?
Scientific explanation: Because gravity.
Question: Would the Earth still orbit around the Sun and would the provided scientific explanation behind it still be valid if there were no scientists to actually give it?

Spoiler

Yes.

 

...What, did I need to answer in the form of a question?

I do. His point at the time of that rather humorous conversation was an eventual scientific understanding of everything. My point is there's a limit to what our science can gather given the lack of scientists for however long it took sentient life to evolve somewhere in the universe. I already agree with you that it's technically possible to scientifically explain the actions within the universe, but it isn't going to happen at some point in the future because we can't interact with the past. You didn't understand my point and assumed to know the mind of my friend (while simultaneously taking "his" stance, which is yours), whom you've never met and only have an impression of from me.

Again, not my point. I already agreed with you on the issue, Muro.

This is what you're doing;

"Scientists not required to explain a known aspect of physics as pertaining to the known situation."

Apparently equal to -

"Scientists not required to explain an unknown aspect of physics as pertaining to an unknown situation."

The explanations come from points of reference, which we don't have. Sure, there is an explanation. I agreed on that. But we don't know what it is and we never will, which is my point and the basis of my statement which you quoted out of context to suit your purposes.

 

Nope, my point has nothing to do with scientists.

I rather doubt that by "scientific understanding of everything" your friend meant, to cite your examples, all possible ways to brew beer or every single detail about ancient Greece. Judging from the context you provided, I guessed he meant more universal things like the knowledge and understanding of all laws of physics, their relations with each other, and such = rules in the game known as the universe proving that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Am I wrong?

I find it difficult to believe that after all the emphasis I've put, you still think I argue whether or not things are going to happen.

I don't recall arguing whether or not we ever will.

 

Which is why I said "scientists not required." You referenced a known aspect of the universe (knowledge gained by scientific experimentation) and compared it to something nobody has ever seen before, given we only definitively know about this universe and within the past 100 years. If we knew about others, there's no guarantee of identical laws of physics within them.
I agree that there's most definitely a plausible scientific explanation for events in the universe, but everything we know is due to active study - my initial point remains the same, but I do agree with yours.

Yes, you're wrong about my friend. He was referring to everything within the universe (questions of evolution over time, human history, manufacturing methods), as was I when I started, not simply every thing regarding physics within the universe. I gave the examples of "not knowing everything" in reference to my initial point, as well as the paradox of further knowledge revealing further questions. Your initial challenge was even worded in direct opposition to what my initial point was (which I defended, upon which you gave me the straw man argument), and it ended up changing over time to something more related to what you thought I said as opposed to what I actually said.

Unfortunately, you can't disprove something that's not quantifiable in any sense other than raw faith, and even if I have no proof of it (because it's a matter of faith), I admit I don't know how everything happened, because given my ideas of everything, I know I'm perpetually unable to disprove a concept as lofty as a creator. You are saying you would be able to disprove such a thing if the physics were understood (as would everybody relevant to the situation), which they're not. I agree that you could logically disprove such a thing given relevant knowledge. We do not live in a universe with that knowledge, so despite the possibility, it is just as much a part of our universe as the idea of God. I'm relying on given evidence, and as far as I can tell I've come to a logical conclusion.

I don't. I agreed with your point referencing the presence of a scientific explanation due to constant physics regardless of scientists, and it was my mistake to use a comma to separate my initial thought from a secondary clause related to what I think about future scientists being unable to answer questions about the past, given knowledge regarding the early universe is lost to time forever.

I said that, which is what I thought you were arguing against when you started voicing your opinion. Despite that, admitting the lack of knowledge is something you're arguing against?
"I don't know *blank*, because nobody else knows either. The possibility of someone going back in time to learn is rather improbable as well."
"BUT THERE'S AN EXPLANATION FOR *BLANK* REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE KNOWS!"

I consistently referred to perfect knowledge until you reworded your point. Then I referred to the possibility of scientific explanation regardless of observers, but said we can't learn that stuff at this point so we don't/will not have an explanation.

I've been agreeing with you for a while, Muro.

 

I might have given your friend too much credit, then.

It's rather imprecise to say humanity haven't had any idea what the hell is going on prior 1912.

And science has no problem with that.

I do not agree. Does "the universe came out of nowhere/has always been there" explanation have less sense than "the universe was created by a theoretical X; the theoretical X came out of nowhere/has always been there"? No, au contraire in fact. Therefore, introducing X is quite pointless.

I don't see what's wrong with an opinion like that, other than the tendentious caps used to write it down, of course.

 

After we'd been arguing for a while, you claimed you agreed with me too. You might want to think about improving your "I'm agreeing with you" writing style.

 

I have never in my life observed or experienced anything that I would describe as supernatural. No one has ever been able to show it to me, in any way. In fact, I'm growing less sure by the day what it is people mean by supernatural. Is it something that isn't part of the laws of physics, but still functions within our universe? If so, can't it be that it actually does obey the laws of physics, only that we with our limited knowledge of them haven't been able to understand that yet, therefore rendering them just as physical as everything else?

Personally, I think the entire idea of supernatural beings are ridiculous. They belong to another mindset in another period of time, where fairytales were still considered to be partly true. Is there a creator? Maybe. Who can say?. But if there is, that maker is probably as much a part of this universe as we are.

 

No, I believe that Africa exists; however, atheists don't believe that God exists; therefore they are the ones that are blinded from faith granted sight -- faith in man's wisdom, faith in logic and faith in reason (sometimes it is called faith in science).

If you still think I am blind, What am I blind to? (except sarcasm, that is not a product of my faith, that is product of something else.)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1yOckwMm_k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQsvmuFW ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ