RE: Christians shouldn't mince words with Science.
The old testament have both warnings and examples. It's mostly about how the Jews kept screwing up again and again even thou they had direct contact and knowledge of God. Also, when it comes to "genocide", I had my issues with it too but Genesis 6 gives a glimpse of the why. Those people, in the narrative, were not human or real descendant of Adam and Eve, they were corruptions "who had constant evil in their heart". The Israelite in Numbers describe them like this: "Compared to them we felt like grasshoppers." That's a head scratcher right there. So maybe it wasn't such a bad idea to get rid of flesh eating giants after all.
For more indepth understanding of this, look into the book of Jasher or Enoch. It's quite interesting to have a glimpse of what the "pre-flood" world was like and their remnants. It's strangely mirror some greek mythology. (genetic tempering, giants, flood, etc.) I always marvel at the similitude of ancient history has told by chineses, greeks , indians and the ancient hebrews. If it's all fairy tale, why are they so similar?
Great points!
I've also wondered the same thing with, say, Jesus' parable of the Wheat and Tares. The tares (weeds) were said to have been planted by Sower's enemy. He want's to raise a crop of wheat and His enemy mixed in some weeds.
So, I can understand the weeds complaining about being cut down and burned, but I'm not sure that implies any immorality on the part of the Sower. :o)
Here's the referenced Bible passage, for the record:
So now we know why bad things happen. There are weeds among us. Most of the time God let's them grow, but sometimes he has to use a little Roundup.
It's called "weedocide" not "genocide" when it happens.
I can't reply to your comment underneath, so I will reply here.
It is likely that it is a mixture of point 1 & 3. Some super-old and superdimensional alien race created our reality/Universe. The main phase of this creation was a big bang. Considering how technologically advanced and powerful they are, they can be seen as of creators of Universe ( I don't like to use the word "gods"). There is nothing supernatural about them though. All their activity is based on laws governing their Universe.
Also this cycle of creation of different Universes can go into infinity. Super-race creates new Universe, then in this new Universe at some point another super-race creates different Universe (or maybe it is the same race creating itself and it all goes in loop) and then in this Universe another super-race do the same thing etc
All the Universes/Reality may be, in the end, super simulations.
As humanity, we have not enough data yet to confirm that, but considering what science already knows about artificial intelligence and virtual reality, this hypothesis is quite probable. Homo Sapiens is still in very primitive stage of technological development. Also, socially we are not intelligent species yet. Not really "civilized" yet.
About my opinion about aliens mentioned by Bettie?
Hmm I know one thing. Many so called debunkers/skeptics of this phenomenon tend to have little knowledge about the subject. Their replies tend to be typical of someone who doesn't know anything relevant about this phenomenon and who has not made an effort to explore the subject properly. They do not follow simple principle “Be skeptical, but when you get the proof, accept the proof”.
Denying something based on flimsy, invalid critique is not skepticism at all. It is contrarianism or denial.
Many debunkers (pseudo-sceptics) of this phenomenon make at least one of these mistakes:
Also, I would be grateful if you upvoted my post, like I upvoted yours, although I may have disagreed with few aspects, I found it interesting.
I spent 10 hours writing my post. It was originally intended to be a response to Gavvet, but then you added your response too, so I decided to respond to both of you. You are the only one who has replied so far.
Good detailed answer.
I'd be interested in your thoughts about why you find the super-race theory more palatable than the supernatural theory.
@stan Well I guess that explains why so many right wingers are against the legalization of weed then :D
But libertarians from both the left and right want fewer such rules.
Something interesting. You may have watched it already.
I'm a rocket scientist.
I believe in God.
Boy, am I messed up!
Fortunately Sir Francis Bacon (founder of the Scientific method) and Sir Isaac Newton (um, famous for a few somethings) were Christians, so I don't feel too bad.
Newton spent more years studying the Bible than he did inventing Calculus, discovering gravity, and deriving the laws of physics combined.
You draw a false division between science and religion.
The shism lies along another orthogonal axis.
I don't disagree with this video at all.
Now substitute our two positions and replay the video. :)
Here is my full response post to your post above and to gavvet's post:
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@logic/universe-as-simulation-virtual-reality-created-by-super-dimensional-super-cybernated-semi-organic-race-direct-response-to-stan
So... i read it. Does this mean you are offering this theory as something serious to be considered?
If so, we now have three competing theories:
Each of these is a perfectly valid sci-fi concept. Now what causes us to take one more seriously that the other?
Given that, your answer to me in the other thread needs a final punchline, IMHO...
Thanks for upvote :-)
Why? It's simple. Because supernatural means something which is not based in evidence and science. Supernatural means something which does not fit with laws of nature. Something which appers beyond laws of nature. Scientific research and scientific theories are based upon laws of nature.
Here's the problem: You insist that I can only know things via science. I love science. It's made my life immeasurably better.
I have no objection to it!
But, you insist that the ONLY way to know something is via science. That's the part that's not true.
I know lots of things without applying science.
Even 99.9% of the things I know derived from science, I didn't actually use science to know.
I listened to someone I consider credible and decided to believe her. Possibly because she applied the scientific method and had a decent peer review but more probably because of her reputation as a credible eyewitness and how other people I respect (with better knowledge of the subject than me) reacted to her claims.
Admit it. You didn't really use the scientific method to know 99% of what you know. Your mother told you.
:P
As you said:
Perfect. So, the rest of reality is outside the reach of science. Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it means that it is beyond the reach of science.
So if a space alien shows up using technology that human science has never encountered and we only get a one time look at its affects before the alien flys away, science will find itself in the exact same place it is with the Bible: lots of credible observations from eyewitnesses but nothing it can test and repeat.
Poor helpless scientists. They have to throw the evidence away because they can't make more of it.
Other less crippled people might say - hey, there's a hint of something new here! Perhaps a variation of quantum entanglement or time dilation or gravitational lensing! - Lets do some thought experiments!
Maybe in time, one of them will devise a rigorous, repeatable experiment because of those thought experiments.
But the pure "scientists" won't. They've already labeled the accounts as "supernatural" and moved on.
That's an arbitrary distinction.
How does science know what is "natural"?
By your definition WiFi is supernatural in 1776.
Just because science cannot explain something yet, it does not mean that it may not have a chance to be explained in the future.
Anyway, your question is a bit nonsensical. Natural is what fits with current scientific theories regarding laws of nature. Making supernatural claims means believing in things which have no basis in what science has discovered about laws of nature. There is a big difference about being futurist and believer of supernatural. Futurism is about creating ideas and hypothesis about future, which are based on conclusions arriving from scientific understandings regarding the reality. Supernatural is about creating ideas about reality which have no support in scientific understandigns and do not fit to scientific theories. Science deals with probablilities and evidence. Concept of god does not fit with any scientific theory and believers of god are incapable of satisfying burden of proof. Concept/belief of god is as as valid and probable as concept/belief of pink, flying unicorn eating unborn babies during Equinox. Just, becasue some concept is generated in someone's head, does not mean that it must have reflection in natural world.
Please watch the video about open-mindedness.
And check up these if you can. They aren't very long:
"Scientific Method Made Easy"
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhb0ej_the-scientific-method-made-easy_tech
"Scientific Literacy"
"Can We Trust Scientists"
"Why Don't Scientists Fear Hell?"
"Here's the problem: You insist that I can only know things via science. I love science. It's made my life immeasurably better.
I have no objection to it!
But, you insist that the ONLY way to know something is via science. That's the part that's not true.
I know lots of things without applying science.
Even 99.9% of the things I know derived from science, I didn't actually use science to know.
I listened to someone I consider credible and decided to believe her. Possibly because she applied the scientific method and had a decent peer review but more probably because of her reputation as a credible eyewitness and how other people I respect (with better knowledge of the subject than me) reacted to her claims.
Admit it. You didn't really use the scientific method to know 99% of what you know. Your mother told you.
:P"
My response is. Everything you know is an experience coming from mixture of random or deterministic events, like these things which what your mother told you. Also, just becasue your mother told you something does nto mean it is factual. To verify if what your mother told you is factual, you need some method of coherent verification, some point of reference. Such point of reference is scientific method. IT its currently the most valid method of verification, which humanity has created so far.
Ayway, regarding illusion of free will, intuition and knowledge, please watch this presentation by neuroscientist Sam Harris.
Unfortunately Harris is a moron who doesn't understand pretty much anything outside of his narrow field of expertise, and Free Will is a philosophical, not a scientific concept. Added together, what we get from Harris is a Dunning-Kruger bordering on Creutzfeldt-Jakob.
Even worse, he interprets Libet and Haynes to disprove free will when neither does, and that in a most unsophisticated "scientistist" sense of the term.
Free will does not exist. It is man made concept, which shows nothing else but arrogance of human kind to think that they are inseparable of environmental influence. Everything in Universe, including thought is directly influenced and shaped by environment and cannot exist out of this influence.
Same as concept of consciousness and awareness is nothing more but very complex, advanced cognitive function in the brain. If your brain gets badly damaged, you can lose this ability.
Also Harris, in this video did not say that free will is a scientific concept. He actually defends and proves that it is not, and proves that it is nothing more but illusion. Nothing more but false philosophical concept.
"nothing more but very complex, advanced cognitive function in the brain"
Which does not make consciousness any less real. What else would you expect, an imp sitting in the cortex?
That free will is a man made concept (which concept is not man made?) doesn't mean that it does not represent a definable and possibly existing thing (not necessarily material: a process or a function is also a "thing"). Harris' problem is different here: he is philosophically so inept that he's not even able to pose a serious question about free will, yet he thinks that he's demolished the entire notion.
As I said, a Dunning-Kruger bordering on Creutzfeldt-Jakob.
(can't reply in place because of depth, replying here)
"Perfect. So, the rest of reality is outside the reach of science... ...Doesn't mean tThey've already labeled the accounts as "supernatural" and moved on."
Logically fallacious argument. Typical for persistent supporter of creationism.
If scientists encounter an alien life form and technology, they have direct evidence which they can measure.
Fantastical (paranomral) stories in Bible are not supported by laws of nature.
Story of Jesus has little credibility - dozens of popular historians who lived around that time did not record existence of such person, while only few claimed his existence (his apostles).
"Historical and operational science"
Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_and_operational_science
"Historical science" vs. "experimental science"
https://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/historical-science-vs-experimental-science
“Observational” vs. “historical” science? Pure bunk!
http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/02/26/observational-vs-historical-bunk/
I finish this debate now.
There is no point in having conversation and trying to explain how science works and how evidence works to someone who values his personal believes more than science and evidence.~
Good luck.
I agree. It's like talking to a brick wall.
You keep coming back to defending science which I have never criticized.
My only point has been that there are other ways of knowing things.
Most of everything we know individually is based on our faith in the source of that information. Almost no one uses science, although many use faith in scientists, or faith in articles about publications by scientists funded by governments with a secular agenda...
Take the "science" of global warming for instance. There is a nice consensus among those who have been able to get government funding. Whole political parties place their faith in that. :o)