The Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything

Like I said, actual truth is not subjective.

 

Let's gang up on him and ask him lots and lots of questions.... and lure him back here!

 

So, you're just trolling.

Now that you're outed, maybe you'll go away.

 

This is a good post, that i missed earlier. I agree, that laziness has become the rule in 'science!' Instead of the unsatisfying process of uncertain discovery, people are led to believe that 'science!' can be a dogmatic declaration.. an unevidenced assertion, with the comforting label of 'science!' to give it credibility. But they do a disservice to Real Science, which is an unbiased observer for most of life's mysteries:

Origins
Meaning
Morality
Destiny

..still no answer from science on these things. they remain religious or philosophical opinions, nothing more.

And, why should we expect 'science' to answer such things? That is beyond its pay scale. Science can only address the physical universe, & has no answers for these philosophical or religious beliefs.

 

I think the Snowflake Effect can also be blamed when our lives are changed or thwarted by the actions or inaction of those somewhere behind the scenes when we are hoping for some promotion we believe and/or have worked to achieve. We tend to blame or look for answers from a higher power.

This opinion does not mean I am or am not atheist. It's just an observation.

I think we are all mistaken at times and maybe more often than not. 42

 

Science addresses the how, not the why.

You have a long history of trouble with that. You really should do some work toward knowing what science is bsfore you start criticizing - especially when your criticism is empty ad hom.

As for "destiny", maybe you need to define what you mean. Science has a reasonably sound understanding of the destiny of earth, for example.

As for morality, there is a lot of study in that field. What is it you feel so free to berate?

As for origins, science has events of the last 13,800,000,000 years blocked out - going back to the beginning of our universe.

Might I suggest that it's rather brazen to fire off insults of laziness when you haven't even bothered to address your woefully lacking understanding of what science even is?

 

I'd be up for a philosophical discussion, or even a debate. But i have no desire to deal with fallacies of ad hominem.

 

If true, you would not use that approach.

 

Ok. I'll parse your reply to me.. but i have no desire to engage in a tu quoque 'debate' with you. So you can go back to insults, & i'll go back to ignoring you.

Was that not my point?

Seriously? You accuse me of ad hom, when i made NO 'criticism' of anyone, in that post. I was not addressing you, or anyone, personally. Your reply, otoh, is ONLY ad hom, needling me, personally, & not any points made.

All explained in the OP.

Who was i berating? WHERE was any berating? I addressed morality in the OP.. this post was not specifically addressing that.

..so you believe & assert. How did 'science!' block this out? You seem to attribute human motivations to a method of discovery.

This is why i replied as i did. i replied to another poster, about the decline of scientific understanding, methodology, & 'laziness' in modern inquiry. The evidence for that is there, illustrated in any discussion of 'science' in the public discourse. That you turn that observation into a personal attack on me, personally, is why i will be avoiding any discussions with you & others who merely heckle, insult, & disrupt any discussion i attempt.

This is a philosophical thread, with a philosophical topic. I have not gotten into 'science!' much, only to point out the obvious, that it cannot deal with many of the abstract concepts that we humans wrestle with. The matters i listed in the OP are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, methodology, & observation. Your reply was a reminder for me, of the bigotry & irrational bias of many of the posters here, & how distasteful it is for me to deal with the constant barrage of ad hominem, rather than any points of reason or arguments that have been made.

I really, might as well give up. Any attempt i make at reasoned debate seems to always degenerate into religious shouting matches, with hecklers & disrupters muddying the waters, making any rational discussion impossible. It is the nature of the forums, which i have seen become increasingly militant & disruptive over the years. These are very much ANTIFA-like tactics, where any alternate view or opinion is attacked & denigrated, to further their own narrative, & to censor any alternative. It is NOT 'open debate', but propaganda from an echo chamber, where only the 'preferred' opinions are allowed.

 

Well said!! However I would say there are areas in "science" that does have answers using "philosophical or religious beliefs". Most of the scientific community present "discoveries" in a way as to push people away from God. When in fact they know of God's existence. What kind of hell-fire will they receive?

One such area is the "heliocentric" model of the universe. Which is utterly and stupendously ridiculous. And the entire world is about to see why!

 

you stated scientists are lazy and are consistently deprecatory without justification.

i agre there is a problem in public discourse, but attributing that to science has not even been discussed as far as I can tell.

As I pointed out, science is critical to any study of origins. Suggesting science can not address that topic makes no sense.

And, morality is also investigated thriugh science. Suggesting there is no morality outside of religion is an illogical and extremist view.

That leaves only "destiny" and "meaning". I have never objected to the religious versions of these topics when they aren't constructed to suggest that observation, evidence through observation is irrelevant.

Poor you.

But, again, you call for open debate, bring up your strong depricatory views of science and those who are investigating origins and morality and then demand that nobody should respond?

Then, you accuse responders of using unacceptable "tactics"?

Also, please note that I have not been depricatory of your religious views.

 

Once again, you want to disparage science as a way of making some point.

Saying stuff like "it's only a THEORY", etc. as a way of discounting scientific findings only goes to demonstrating that you don't know science.

You need to move to a different, more honest approach.

Youd should just say "For this thread, ignore everything science has EVER discovered, regardless of how obvious it might seem, as I want to consider false the root assumption that the universe is meaningfully observable."

 

This is a classic "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

The whole argument is based on the notion that if science doesn't have a provable explanation, a rock solid definition or even repeatable process, then "god did it" is an equally logical assunption.

In fact, it seems your whole thread suffers this problem. It amounts to deprecating our human ability to observe the universe as a method of augmenting some abstract religious view - thus avoiding the need for any evidence.

Interestingly, there is no need to promote your idea by using this technique.

It would be perfectly consistent to say god kicked it all off by putting in place the fundamental requirements for a "big bang" that would, after a few billion years, cause this thread yo appear.

Why is that not sufficient?

What more fo you need in order not to have to postulate that we have no power of observation?

Why do you need to have a fight against our ability to gather meaningful evidence?

 

I already replied to your posts...

I'm sick & tired of the insulting ad hominem laced replies, & i refuse to dignify them with a response. If you want to 'debate' with me, a more civil approach will be needed, without distortions & false accusations. I doubt if you care, & neither do i.

 

Really old thread.

Diodorus Siculus in 30 BC had already figured all this out and written it down.

If you can get an out-of-print copy of his multivolume history, it is in the first book and the first chapter.

 

Bump bump bump !!!

You keep bumping your own cr ap.

Funny !!!

 

this I just gotta hear. Please enlighten us all at your earliest convenience.

 

I can't help but think that jrr777's comments are a joke.

...I'm an optimist.

 

Hey! I only pointed out that you used lazy as a descriptor of science, and were generally deprecatory of science.

I would be more than happy to discuss religion and philosophy if it were not pitched as a battle between (lazy) science and religion.

As the last couple popes pointed out, science and religion are different realms, not to be seen as in conflict where only one is right.

And, science states that the supernatural is not addressable by science.

You don't have to fear attack.

 

You'll believe anything, even though the truth is right in front of your face.

Hollywood effects you moron's.

Don't want to watch it all....go to 1:32 mark.

 

Keep thinking.

 

when do you start?

 

Let me guess, you didn't watch the videos?

 

I see a bright future in rocket surgery for you.

 

I'm sure you see a lot of things, including a ball earth.