Aratta-Kingdom Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 The scientific method is derived from logic. Self awareness is not really a scientific issue. A logical proof is a logical proof. Period. 1. define logic 2. define self awareness 3 define scientific issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 (edited) 1. define logic 2. define self awareness 3 define scientific issue Great another one... Define "1. define logic" Define "2. define self awareness" Define "3. define scientific issue" Give me a break. Edited April 11, 2008 by Arvestaked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 (edited) Wow I see we are making a nice soup of topics in this one thread! Ashot, as far as your question, as I and Arvestaked have said MANY times already, YOU have the burden of proof. If you put forth a concept like "God", you have to bring evidence of why you think that concept is valid. So far, you have only said something along the lines of "The Universe exist so it must be created by God." This is something that does NOT follow from logic. You cannot just come up with some theory or concept and say hey, eveyone else, prove me wrong or else I am right ... that's not a good way to create "knowledge" ... trust me .. people have fallen in this very same trap ever since they figured out how to think and imagine crap. One example was the famous Witch trials ... unless you could prove you were not a witch, people would burn you. It didn't matter to them that there wasn't really any evidence that you were a witch to begin with It other words, just because we can't prove something doesn't exist, it does NOT mean that it has to exist. Edited April 11, 2008 by Sip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Read The Blind Watchmaker. There is some nice talk on cosmic probability. In essence, it depends on how you look at it but that either way it wouldn't matter and cannot be used to infer the existence of a god. He goes into it a bit in The God Delusion as well. I'm not that interested in the subject. I happened to catch something on Discovery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aratta-Kingdom Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 Great another one... Define "1. define logic" Define "2. define self awareness" Define "3. define scientific issue" Give me a break. why would I? you are the one speaking of logic, self awarness, scientific issue. anyone with your knowledge would have kill all the arguments in no time. instead of getting upset, just help us understand what's behind your obsession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 (edited) The scientific method is derived from logic. Self awareness is not really a scientific issue. A logical proof is a logical proof. Period. That's actually not true. You can not prove logically the existance of self awarness. At least not in the sense that you prove some mathematical equality. Self-awarness is something personal not exterior to the system which is doing the proving. I think therefor I am, or I know I exist, are all logical observations of yourself. The entity of self awarness to be proved should be taken out from the system which is doing the proving. This means that your proof should work to prove any self-awarness, including those of others. Can you prove that I am self aware? You can't! You can make logical statments such as the fact that you are aware, and that you are human, I am human and that all humans one or another have similar neuronal process and that it is logical to think that I am too self aware. But logical does not actually mean that you have proved that I am self aware. Only in mathematic can you provide real proof. Socrates was a rationalist philosopher who was using logic, this does not mean his philosophy was a proven thing. What I am saying is that one of the few certainties you can have is that you are self aware, being aware of your own existance, yet you can never provide any adequate prove of it. Edited April 12, 2008 by DominO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 (edited) for the ordinary people to be able to define energy withing themselves, they have created an image or a belief of an image [within themselves] whom they call God...or a Creator. without fluctuation and variation from 0 you can creat nothing...and without energy, you will never have fluctuation and variation. no matter how you look at it, the same energy, the same moving source that exists in the universe, also exists withing the humans. once again, it makes no difference how the ordinary people would want to define that energy, the point here is, ...there is an energy in the universe which shapes and resahpes everying in the universe. simply speaking, nothing happens without a reason, -there is no reason without movement, and there is no movement without energy. The probability to have fluctuations is like infinit to one. Edited April 12, 2008 by DominO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 That's actually not true. You can not prove logically the existance of self awarness. At least not in the sense that you prove some mathematical equality. Self-awarness is something personal not exterior to the system which is doing the proving. I think therefor I am, or I know I exist, are all logical observations of yourself. The entity of self awarness to be proved should be taken out from the system which is doing the proving. This means that your proof should work to prove any self-awarness, including those of others. Can you prove that I am self aware? You can't! You can make logical statments such as the fact that you are aware, and that you are human, I am human and that all humans one or another have similar neuronal process and that it is logical to think that I am too self aware. But logical does not actually mean that you have proved that I am self aware. Only in mathematic can you provide real proof. Socrates was a rationalist philosopher who was using logic, this does not mean his philosophy was a proven thing. What I am saying is that one of the few certainties you can have is that you are self aware, being aware of your own existance, yet you can never provide any adequate prove of it. This is why I said it wasn't a scientific issue. All logical proofs ultimately belong to an individual. Everything else is just a stimulus that can influence one's conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 (edited) Look at Sip talking about my theories while he believes in Science!!! Science is nothing but theories!!! Edited April 12, 2008 by Ashot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 why would I? you are the one speaking of logic, self awarness, scientific issue. anyone with your knowledge would have kill all the arguments in no time. instead of getting upset, just help us understand what's behind your obsession. You may not realize this but you're responding to a comment I made to something that is tangential and was initiated by someone other than you and you're reacting as though I were arguing with you about god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 (edited) Look at Sip talking about my theories while he believes in Science!!! Science is nothing but theories!!! Did I ever say otherwise? However, there is a HUGE difference between scientific theories and your God theory Ashot jan. As I and Arvestaket have said many many times, those who come up with scientific theories have the burden of proof. No one comes up with a scientific theory out of the blue and say hey everyone else, prove me wrong. That's just NOT how science works. Ashot, why is this simple concept so complicated for you? Edited April 12, 2008 by Sip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 Look at Sip talking about my theories while he believes in Science!!! Science is nothing but theories!!! Er? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 Look at Sip talking about my theories while he believes in Science!!! Science is nothing but theories!!! This is typical of someone who does not understand what a scientific theory is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aratta-Kingdom Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 You may not realize this but you're responding to a comment I made to something that is tangential and was initiated by someone other than you and you're reacting as though I were arguing with you about god. so you did run out of arguments, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aratta-Kingdom Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 This is typical of someone who does not understand what a scientific theory is. define scientific theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 As far as I am concerned none of you, nor myself can prove anything in this topic or anything that has been discussed, therefore, this whole thing pointless!!! Unless any of you can prove something it is pointless to continue... Even sip, you telling me that science is logic, that is funny, no logic is when you see something on the floor and instead of stumbling over it you bypass it, not walk right on it thinking you might pass or you might fall... my friend logic can be used even in churches, beliefs and faith!!! therefore you can't come in here tell me that I don't use logic therefore my beliefs are wrong. To be honest with you your arguments are booming weaker and weaker, please man, I know you much noble than this... I know you are better at Xorovats so stop working and come down to LA for the Xorovats, now that's beyond your beliefs and mine all together!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 Scientific Theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 (edited) Ashot, if with my computer I simulate a universe which contain entities which are self aware..., am I a God? Edited April 12, 2008 by DominO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Em Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 Does anyone here know the definition of insanity? Just in case... it is repeating the same actions whilst expecting different results. Like a mouse going round and round in the wheel...chasing itself. No point in continuing this convo any further. MAybe you guys should get together and direct all this energy and "intelligence" toward a more worthwhile cause. Just my two cents... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 "scientific theories must be falsifiable" In short this mean that you must for exemple predict something (particularly in physic) which if it does not happen, you falsified the theory. It is synonimous to not making blunt statment which there is no way to ''prove'' wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 Dom jan if they learn science then they won't even accept you at all!!! If they believe a higher being created them then you will be called a GOD!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 As far as I am concerned none of you, nor myself can prove anything in this topic or anything that has been discussed, therefore, this whole thing pointless!!! The whole point was for you to finally admit you can't prove God exists. So your "belief" in God MUST be on faith alone. Now that we have established this, maybe we can go on. I have said since my first post here that I can NOT prove God exists and I can not prove God does not exist. Glad you finally agree with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 Dom jan if they learn science then they won't even accept you at all!!! If they believe a higher being created them then you will be called a GOD!!! They will call me god, but my question was, will I be a god? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 for them you will be a god!!! Creator of their universe and all!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 Just in case... it is repeating the same actions whilst expecting different results. Like a mouse going round and round in the wheel...chasing itself. That maybe one way to look at it but my view is that sometimes it just takes a lot of repetition (in different forms) to clarify a point. If you have ever tried being a teacher, I think you might agree with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.