On behalf of Orpheus

I guess I didn't really understand your point, but I'm still not sure we are talking about the same thing. to me, "knowing without knowlage" as you put it, is the essence of religion, and belongs in no other aspect of life. I am a scientist, both by profession and by inclination of thought. there is very little in the everyday world that cannot be explained by physics (the most basic science) which maybe is why your examples don't seem to get through to me. When I say precieve the unknown, I'm refering to identification of holes in current knowlage; areas for further thought and study, not faith in what I do not know for certain.

wow.....i musta pissed at least one of you folks off with this thread....the ass dropped out of my rating by a ton.... touchy f**kers...

and please...not religion too....***reaches for aspirin.. :heee:

Doc Brass... :dodgy:

Tracer Bullet said:
I guess I didn't really understand your point, but I'm still not sure we are talking about the same thing. to me, "knowing without knowlage" as you put it, is the essence of religion, and belongs in no other aspect of life. I am a scientist, both by profession and by inclination of thought. there is very little in the everyday world that cannot be explained by physics (the most basic science) which maybe is why your examples don't seem to get through to me. When I say precieve the unknown, I'm refering to identification of holes in current knowlage; areas for further thought and study, not faith in what I do not know for certain.

So be it. I went through the same stage a few years ago. Trying to force a religious belief down someone's throat is useless wether it fails or succeeds, so I'll leave you to find what it was I was talking about.

Reading the first page felt like attending a wake... I didn't read the other pages yet (who am I kidding? I'm too lazy for that) but has anyone made the obligatory "His post count record will stand" comment yet?

Inductive methods - the prediction of future events from past regularities - form the basis of almost all our knowledge. We often prefer to glorify deductive methods, but if a deduction contradicts a belief held from long experience, we will view the deduction with suspicion.

That the sun should rise every day is not a matter of faith; rather, it is a matter of rational belief.

That God exists is generally held to be a matter of faith, although some theologians try (vainly, I think) to construe deductive demonstrations in favour of theism. For a non-religious example of faith, consider faith in oneself or in other people.

Proof of something replaces the need of faith in it.

Therefore, proof of God would make (religous) faith pointless, but that is the one thing that many religions say is needed (Especially Christianity). I don't think it is possible to prove God with Facts.

And if you think about it, very little can actually be proven anyway, I mean, take Tectonics, the result of something isn't proof of how it happened, we have a theory of how it happened but until technology allows us to investigate further, it remains a theory. Many Facts are facts until a better one comes along, which in essence, makes them theorys NOT facts.

Indeed - nothing interesting can ever be strictly proven, since a proof is no more than a formal deduction within the rules of a (meaningless) system. In other words, proofs are just symbol games.

That is not to say that deductive proofs are totally useless. To be useful, they must have as "outside input" some information about the world, together with background theories, from which it may be possible to use the formal machinery to deduce real consequences. But only, of course, if you accept the truth-preserving nature of the formal machinery!

i don't understand... what happened to orpheus?

Read the first post in this topic to find out. Or you can read my summary instead:

He hated all the arguments on this site, so he left.

Good luck, Orph. :smile:

DocRock said:
Good luck, Orph. :smile:

Thats the spirit.

Cassius said:

Tracer Bullet said:
I guess I didn't really understand your point, but I'm still not sure we are talking about the same thing. to me, "knowing without knowlage" as you put it, is the essence of religion, and belongs in no other aspect of life. I am a scientist, both by profession and by inclination of thought. there is very little in the everyday world that cannot be explained by physics (the most basic science) which maybe is why your examples don't seem to get through to me. When I say precieve the unknown, I'm refering to identification of holes in current knowlage; areas for further thought and study, not faith in what I do not know for certain.

So be it. I went through the same stage a few years ago. Trying to force a religious belief down someone's throat is useless wether it fails or succeeds, so I'll leave you to find what it was I was talking about.

I don't think you understand what I am trying to say either. I guess we cannot carry on this discussion, at least in text, since I'm not sure either of us is comunicating what he intends.

Snarkpit just wont be the same without Orph.. we will miss you!

I find Jon to be a great man who would help anyone. It's sad to see him leaving.

For some reason I think almost everybody here would agree.

diablo said:
Snarkpit just wont be the same without Orph.. we will miss you!

I find Jon to be a great man who would help anyone. It's sad to see him leaving.

snif ! you're right