|
I just got baptized - Yea! |
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Arthur Kalliokoski said: There's not a lot of room to show the advancement of knowledge for something that was just discovered. So what was discovered? That the universe had age? That it had size? -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
It was discovered that the universe was incredibly huge (solar system), then this kept getting pushed further and further back to the size of the Milky Way Galaxy, then other galaxies etc. What equivalent is there in the Bible (errata published by God)? They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
23yrold3yrold said: So what was discovered? That the universe had age? That it had size? Well before the 20th century it was believed to be no bigger than half the solar system, the earth at the center, and everything else spinning around it. Of course there are several variations on that theme. And before that it was just earth, and "stuff" above. -- |
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Arthur Kalliokoski said: It was discovered that the universe was incredibly huge (solar system), then this kept getting pushed further and further back to the size of the Milky Way Galaxy, then other galaxies etc. What equivalent is there in the Bible (errata published by God)? Equivalent to what, specifically? My alarm clock instructions have no information on the size of the Universe either; that makes it no less valid. I don't think you've really understood anything I've said up to this point; I was originally talking to JL. Thomas Fjellstrom said: Well before the 20th century it was believed to be no bigger than half the solar system, the earth at the center, and everything else spinning around it. Of course there are several variations on that theme. And before that it was just earth, and "stuff" above. I'm glad our understanding is increasing; I don't see what that has to do with our universe increasing. Aside from a metaphorical interpretation. -- |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
23yrold3yrold said: I'm glad our understanding is increasing; I don't see what that has to do with our universe increasing I don't think I said the universe was actually getting bigger (although it is). -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
23yrold3yrold said: I don't think you've really understood anything I've said up to this point; I was originally talking to JL.
Thomas Fjellstrom said: Which happens all the time! Tis what science is all about. Noun * S: (n) metaphor (a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity) Science isn't metaphorical, it's hard evidence or it's not science. And my link referred to the known size of the universe, not the cosmological expansion. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Arthur Kalliokoski said: Science isn't metaphorical, it's hard evidence or it's not science. You'll notice I wasn't referring to science specifically. Obviously science isn't metaphorical. Want to jump into anyone else's conversations? Thomas Fjellstrom said: I don't think I said the universe was actually getting bigger (although it is). Which is why I said the comment was metaphorical. I said it, and you said "Which happens all the time!" Why are we still talking about it again? I knew I shouldn't have posted in this one. >_< -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
23yrold3yrold said: You'll notice I wasn't referring to science specifically. What were you referring to, specifically? It looked to me like you were implying science is merely an "opinion". They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
23yrold3yrold said: Which is why I said the comment was metaphorical. I said it, and you said "Which happens all the time!" Why are we still talking about it again? I dunno. It sounded like you misunderstood. append: If you recall I said this: Thomas Fjellstrom said: Just our idea of the universe has expanded. I did not say the universe expanded. I said our idea of it has expanded. The idea. Not the universe. -- |
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Thomas Fjellstrom said: If you recall I said this: And if you'll recall, that's not what I responded to with "metaphorically, sure." now is it? -- |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
23yrold3yrold said: And if you'll recall, that's not what I responded to with "metaphorically, sure." now is it? Its about the only thing I can think of that I said that could possibly have been misconstrued as saying the universe was expanding. -- |
Neil Black
Member #7,867
October 2006
|
I took his "metaphorically" comment to mean that scientific advancement caused human knowledge about the universe to expand (a metaphorical expansion of the universe), but the actual physical universe was not expanded by our increased understanding of it. If my interpretation is wrong, please correct me.
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Maybe I'm stupid, but that doesn't seem like a metaphor to me. Saying your knowledge of something has expanded is not any kind of metaphor for the thing itself expanding. But then I never did learns mah english propers like (though I did have a rather high reading comprehension level back in the day, though I have to really concentrate to see it these days, or I misread ) -- |
Neil Black
Member #7,867
October 2006
|
I don't know, I don't think it's technically a metaphor, but I can understand how someone would use the word metaphor to mean that. EDIT: Also, I could be reading it entirely wrong.
|
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
I think your use of the word "idea" is what's confusing me. The universe has a definition. If something exists outside of observable reality, or in some supernatural way, the definition of the universe will not suddenly encompass it. The things that are normally designated as "supernatural" by various religions, theologies, philosophies, etc. are generally such a paradigm shift that they would forever be thought of as separate even if they were ever proven in a natural, scientific fashion. They would not just suddenly become "normal". Does that make more sense? -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
We can barely detect neutrinos, and certainly can't see them, yet we don't consider them anything other than normal. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Arthur Kalliokoski said: We can barely detect neutrinos, and certainly can't see them, yet we don't consider them anything other than normal. Keep backing me up Arthur, keep backing me up ... -- |
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
23yrold3yrold said: The universe has a definition. If something exists outside of observable reality, or in some supernatural way, the definition of the universe will not suddenly encompass it.
That's arguing semantics, which is not very helpful. EDIT: Quote: The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists which is certainly the definition I would have given. By that definition, it encompasses any existing dieties. |
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Evert said: That's arguing semantics, which is not very helpful. It was basically semantics to begin with, I suppose. No one has really said anything I didn't already know, so clearly I'm being misunderstood. Main point was that you'll never find natural proof for something generally deemed supernatural, by definition. -- |
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
23yrold3yrold said: Main point was that you'll never find natural proof for something generally deemed supernatural, by definition.
Two comments about that. Second point. Were I to look for proof of, say, the existence of a god, I don't care whether that proof is considered "natural" or not. All I care about is the proof, not the form it takes. Scientifically speaking though, I'm not interested in that particular question: the burden of proof is not on me to show that God does not exist (which is impossible to do anyway; at most you can say that you found no evidence to the conterary), rather the burden of proof is on those who make the hypothesis that God does exist: to show that it's more than a convenient way to explain away anything we (or they) do not (yet?) understand. So, long story short, I don't buy the "you can't reason about supernatural things because they're supernatural" argument. |
blargmob
Member #8,356
February 2007
|
{"name":"602388","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/1\/61b399bfdc8bf5c12c86574de83e8ec6.png","w":1920,"h":1080,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/1\/61b399bfdc8bf5c12c86574de83e8ec6"} --- |
Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
|
23yrold3yrold said: you'll never find natural proof for something generally deemed supernatural It would be my conclusion then, that anything supernatural has no relevance to reality (as it does not affect it). Either that or the supernatural conveniently skirts producing evidence that is provable. -- |
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Evert said: So, long story short, I don't buy the "you can't reason about supernatural things because they're supernatural" argument. I'm glad to hear that, because I didn't say you couldn't reason about them. We do that all the time on this forum alone, clearly. Quote: does the supernatural conveniently skirt producing evidence that is provable? I don't get the "skirting". Do you feel as though anything particularly supernatural has an obligation to drop by and set up a Wikipedia page? Jesse Lenney: You base your beliefs around things you find poetic? I'm not following. Mark Oates said: It would be my conclusion then, that anything supernatural has no relevance to reality. Something that can't be proven via scientific means has no relevance to reality, gotcha. -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
Quote: does the supernatural conveniently skirt producing evidence that is provable? He explicitly states that, though not so harshly. I'll spend my time with stuff that might possibly be proven (and much more interesting besides) such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact Very interesting if you put a bit of thought into it. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
|
|
|