Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Question for theists

Page 4 of 4 [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 May 2009, 6:48 am

scorpileo wrote:
Well you're right but that is because humanity did't realy look until then.

Please note: when I speak of humanity I speack of it in genral not individuals.


When did we look for what?



scorpileo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 764
Location: cornwall uk

14 May 2009, 6:51 am

well... into things as in they were told X things were true but few people looked into it deeper.

I am sorry for poor wording.


_________________
existence is your only oblitgation
Quietly fighting for the greater good.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 May 2009, 7:06 am

scorpileo wrote:
well... into things as in they were told X things were true but few people looked into it deeper.

I am sorry for poor wording.


The Romans had a deep regard for Greek learning, however they didn't copy the style of seeking out new knowledge like the Greeks, but just taught what was already said. The Romans, who were pivotal in the history of the world, had other things on their minds... mainly living out their lives for most of them, but as a nation they were more concerned with the military, conquering and securing what they had gained.

As for the Greeks which they taught from though, seeking new knowledge was a major item, but unfortunately ideas propagated based more on a person's fame and ability to speak then on their truth or falsity. A practice which is still seen today though, more or less.



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

14 May 2009, 7:10 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
scorpileo wrote:
well... into things as in they were told X things were true but few people looked into it deeper.

I am sorry for poor wording.


The Romans had a deep regard for Greek learning, however they didn't copy the style of seeking out new knowledge like the Greeks, but just taught what was already said. The Romans, who were pivotal in the history of the world, had other things on their minds... mainly living out their lives for most of them, but as a nation they were more concerned with the military, conquering and securing what they had gained.

As for the Greeks which they taught from though, seeking new knowledge was a major item, but unfortunately ideas propagated based more on a person's fame and ability to speak then on their truth or falsity. A practice which is still seen today though, more or less.

The Medieval era, on the other hand, was a golden era of knowledge and scientific inquiry.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

14 May 2009, 7:18 am

ouinon wrote:
Sand wrote:
Of course, the real problem is when people said "God did it" nobody found anything out about the universe.

:lol: Yeah, right! :lol: :roll: ... like we only started finding anything out about it in the 1700's, or later. Like theists/believers, monks, and other members of religious organisations, etc, weren't making huge discoveries about the universe before then!

.


Although Aristotle and Ptolemy worked out a geocentric system and provided some capability as to planetary movements it was not until Copernicus and Galileo that things started to clear up and the church fought these discoveries even up to recent times when they grumpily admitted Galileo might have had a few points. Religion had nothing whatsoever to offer as to what the stars and the planets were nor even the faintest comprehension as to the size of the universe. They were adept at dreaming up nonsensical fairy tales but nothing that could be validated by precise observation.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

14 May 2009, 7:21 am

Sand wrote:
Although Aristotle and Ptolemy worked out a geocentric system and provided some capability as to planetary movements it was not until Copernicus and Galileo that things started to clear up and the church fought these discoveries even up to recent times when they grumpily admitted Galileo might have had a few points.

I didn't realise that by "universe" you meant just the off world one/space. I thought you meant universe as in everything.

.



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

14 May 2009, 7:29 am

ouinon wrote:
Sand wrote:
Although Aristotle and Ptolemy worked out a geocentric system and provided some capability as to planetary movements it was not until Copernicus and Galileo that things started to clear up and the church fought these discoveries even up to recent times when they grumpily admitted Galileo might have had a few points.

I didn't realise that by "universe" you meant just the off world one/space. I thought you meant universe as in everything.

.

Hmm, when I think of everything I tend to fuzzily think of the 'multiverse'. :wink:


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

14 May 2009, 7:31 am

ouinon wrote:
Sand wrote:
Although Aristotle and Ptolemy worked out a geocentric system and provided some capability as to planetary movements it was not until Copernicus and Galileo that things started to clear up and the church fought these discoveries even up to recent times when they grumpily admitted Galileo might have had a few points.

I didn't realise that by "universe" you meant just the off world one/space. I thought you meant universe as in everything.

.


I have no idea about what parts of the universe you refer to that are unobservable. The universe we know and can observe is not only "off world" but on world as well since it has not been determined that the Earth is outside the universe. Whatever else there is such as the 11 dimensional multiverse is theoretically possible but has not been confirmed. Religious concepts such as heaven and hell do not fit into modern astronomy.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 May 2009, 7:32 am

Henriksson wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
scorpileo wrote:
well... into things as in they were told X things were true but few people looked into it deeper.

I am sorry for poor wording.


The Romans had a deep regard for Greek learning, however they didn't copy the style of seeking out new knowledge like the Greeks, but just taught what was already said. The Romans, who were pivotal in the history of the world, had other things on their minds... mainly living out their lives for most of them, but as a nation they were more concerned with the military, conquering and securing what they had gained.

As for the Greeks which they taught from though, seeking new knowledge was a major item, but unfortunately ideas propagated based more on a person's fame and ability to speak then on their truth or falsity. A practice which is still seen today though, more or less.

The Medieval era, on the other hand, was a golden era of knowledge and scientific inquiry.


Weapons and defense technology steadily increased alright, and the monks preserved the knowledge and history of the past in their copyings.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

14 May 2009, 7:42 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
scorpileo wrote:
well... into things as in they were told X things were true but few people looked into it deeper.

I am sorry for poor wording.


The Romans had a deep regard for Greek learning, however they didn't copy the style of seeking out new knowledge like the Greeks, but just taught what was already said. The Romans, who were pivotal in the history of the world, had other things on their minds... mainly living out their lives for most of them, but as a nation they were more concerned with the military, conquering and securing what they had gained.

As for the Greeks which they taught from though, seeking new knowledge was a major item, but unfortunately ideas propagated based more on a person's fame and ability to speak then on their truth or falsity. A practice which is still seen today though, more or less.

The Medieval era, on the other hand, was a golden era of knowledge and scientific inquiry.


Weapons and defense technology steadily increased alright, and the monks preserved the knowledge and history of the past in their copyings.


Although Christian monks preserved a body of ancient theory a very large percent returned to general knowledge from Muslim scholarship which preserved much that would have been destroyed by Christianity. See http://www.answering-christianity.com/a ... source.htm



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

14 May 2009, 7:44 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
scorpileo wrote:
well... into things as in they were told X things were true but few people looked into it deeper.

I am sorry for poor wording.


The Romans had a deep regard for Greek learning, however they didn't copy the style of seeking out new knowledge like the Greeks, but just taught what was already said. The Romans, who were pivotal in the history of the world, had other things on their minds... mainly living out their lives for most of them, but as a nation they were more concerned with the military, conquering and securing what they had gained.

As for the Greeks which they taught from though, seeking new knowledge was a major item, but unfortunately ideas propagated based more on a person's fame and ability to speak then on their truth or falsity. A practice which is still seen today though, more or less.

The Medieval era, on the other hand, was a golden era of knowledge and scientific inquiry.


Weapons and defense technology steadily increased alright, and the monks preserved the knowledge and history of the past in their copyings.

Weapons and defense technology? You mean because people were living in a very unstable state and had to adapt or die? The Romans had the technology of concrete just to mention one thing, and there was a building in Rome which people for a long time couldn't understand how it was built.

I'd live in Ancient times rather than Medieval times if I had to choose.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 May 2009, 10:26 am

twoshots wrote:
Let me see if I have this right, based on the usual language of modal logic (using L for necessity, M for possibility):
1. Def: Ax<=>[something]
2. Def: Bx<=>LAx
3. Premise: M(∃x:Bx) {<=>M(∃x:LAx)}
4. Theorem: ML∃x:Ax
5. Theorem: L∃x:Ax
I'm not too clear on modal logic with quantification, but I'm going to assume that theorem 4 is valid (seems reasonable enough). But this illustrates the problem here: A is entirely arbitrary, I could stick "is a mugato" in there without affecting the argument; premise 3 is therefore not at all trivial, although possible existence is certainly a weaker proposition than necessary existence.

Yeah, I can understand that argument against it. After all, one could just change one of the traits of our maximally excellent being and prove that being as well.



just_ben
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 399
Location: That would be an ecumenical matter!

14 May 2009, 3:26 pm

Aww, I thought I finally did a good post in this forum, but oh well.
Also, I'm on techstep's side. I like how he's put the difference between atheism and agnosticism, as well as my (personal opinionated) criticism of it. Damn you people and your eloquence!


_________________
I stand alone on the cliffs of the world.


Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

14 May 2009, 4:17 pm

Many of us are somewhat athy, but Henriksson and Sand are the atheist.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.