pears

Great game WWLR. I expect I'll waste hours on it

Thank you. I don't know really what logic and reason I applied to arrive at it. The two things just seem obviously different to me. If you think they are the same then that is your opinion and that's fine. It's my opinion that one is more coherent than the other. I don't know let's see, one is completely arbitrary, one seems less so. I think a person could arrive at one by philosophical pondering that I have already given reasons for (I have a sense of morality through my conscience, perhaps it points to an objective morality, the universe is coherent and logical perhaps there is a logical mind behind it) Now whether you agree with those arguments or not, to me they give a sense of coherence to the one idea over the other. One has coherence, one appears to be intentionally absurd. I don't know what else to say about it. I think the ideas are different. It's perfectly true that "lots of people believe X" => "X is true" is a completely invalid argument. However I would hazard that its certainly possible that "lots of people believe X" could be evidence that X is at least a coherent idea. Not X is true because large numbers of people believe X but large numbers of people believe X because X has some coherence.

I think philosophy is often more about questions than answers, and trying to understand what questions to ask and how to ask them in a useful way by understanding the terms and definitions involved. Sometimes once a question is understood well enough it could then become a question that science might be able to investigate, for example philosophy might pose a particular question in the area of consciousness which science could go on to investigate. Philosophy does generally tends to be more open and science more definite. That's my understanding of it anyway. Edit to add: both science and philosophy are about trying to understand the nature of reality. Science can help give quite concrete answers by experimentation etc but is limited in its domain. Philosophy basically tries to understand reality with the use of reasoning alone, so it can cover a domain that is out of reach of science, but it is less able to give concrete answers. They are different disciplines but they can complement each other. Science might come up with a an answer that sheds new light on philosophical ideas and prompt a change of thinking in an area. They can feed into each other somewhat I think.

Haha, thank you. I will

What kind of vested interest? And why do you ask?

I don't see how my personal views are relevant to this discussion.

I didn't mention the bible. And whose morals? My morals? Or are you talking generally? My assertion that '"objective morality exists and has its source in God" is a valid belief for a scientist to hold' was made without the context of any particular religion or religious text. My religion? I haven't disclosed my private beliefs. No. No it's not proof. Personally I find the idea of a God as a moral mind that exists behind the present known reality, to be more coherent than a corn-dog pooping dragon. But hey, that's just me. Occam's razor rules out God? You mean it is a decisive proof against the existence of God? I didn't know Occam's razor wielded such power. But why not go the whole hog and rule out objective reality as well and say we're all just minds, or maybe we're all just *your* mind? Morality is about self-interest? That's not morality as I understand it. What animals display morality? Why does that rule out morality as an objective phenomenon? Emotions are biological. That emotions are associated with love does not rule out love existing as an objective phenomenon. Well this is a perfectly valid opinion, but it is not an argument from science, more an attack on specific religious ideas (which I didn't put in my list) Did I state that belief in God was scientific? Or that my statements were scientific? I thought I was claiming the opposite. I was arguing that a scientist could hold beliefs on matters outside of the domain of science so I'm not sure what point you are making really. No evidence in your opinion. A person (scientist or otherwise) might say that the existence of a coherent objective reality is evidence of God, to them at least. But scientific research is not going to answer that question is it? How could it? The scientific arguments you give here are really no more than a statement of your own opinion. You're basically giving a philosophical view of scientific data, reductionism, or materialism perhaps? I see no reason why a scientist cannot hold the beliefs I stated and still be a scientist. Then I'm confused by your creation/evolution statements. I assumed that you meant scientific understanding of evolution contradicted literal interpretations of creation myths found in some religions. If not this, then what did you mean? Has science demonstrated that there is no author or mind behind observed reality such that it would be inappropriate for a scientist to hold such a belief? I agree that having a vested interest in the results of one's research should raise eyebrows. But results should speak for themselves should they not? Otherwise there is something wrong with the scientific method/peer review system.

Holding the view that subjective experience might be valid evidence on which to base personal beliefs makes people think that? Wow! Meh. People can view me as they will. It's their concern not mine. But one more thing on this, wonderful though your image of an invisible corn-dog pooping dragon is, I wouldn't really place it in the same category as a deity. I mean, it's a bit arbitrary isn't it? Regardless of whether a deity is real or not, in fact lets just suppose it's not real, it's just an imaginary idea, the same as your dragon, are the two ideas really categorically equivalent? The deity idea, perhaps as a potential explanation as to why things exist at all, or as a potential source of objective morality has a bit more coherence than your dragon doesn't it, even if it's completely false? Because you asked me why I posted this viewpoint on a science forum, as though such views were not permitted here, or by "science". Well it's very magnanimous of you to allow it Why should this bother you? I mean this is just your opinion right? Is it important? Unless it affects their work as a scientist and their claims about the physical world I don't see the issue. Is believing that some things are beyond the scope of science really the same as full-blown NOMA? I mean you could have an intersection, and still have some areas where there is no overlap. In fact this is what NOMA critic Francis Collins suggests. He's a christian and a scientist. (Imagine that!!) "The religious view." You mean that single homogeneous religious viewpoint on creation that all religious people hold regardless of their religion? I think what you mean is that some religious people hold a religious view that doesn't tally with science with regards to evolution etc. There are plenty of religious folk who accept a purely naturalistic evolution while maintaining that God is author of the natural world. Personally I agree, a scientist ought to respect scientific understanding. But I also think anyone should be free to hold any opinion they like (regardless of how unorthodox it is scientifically, as long as they don't call that opinion 'science') regardless of their profession. IMO it's a mistake for the religion to disregard science, but you cannot control people's opinions even if you disagree with them. People are allowed to be wrong sometimes! Even scientists. Again there is not a single viewpoint within religion on this, in fact I personally know a same-sex married couple and they're religious. As for your scientific response, I suppose a religious person might respond that humans are not *mere* animals and observed behaviour in the animal kingdom is thus not necessarily relevant. One observes many different kinds of behaviour in the animal kingdom from monogamy to cannibalism. That God exists. That objective morality exists and has its source in God. That love has objective reality and has its source in God. That God is the reason the universe exists. I agree, though I would word it slightly differently: scientists ought not to claim as fact to know that anything exists without evidence of existence, testable evidence. What do you mean by proclaims? Do you mean that someone working in a lab somewhere conducting scientific experiments and furthering scientific understanding, in a purely scientific context, but who also has a faith and, for example, preaches it in church on a Sunday, is somehow not a scientist?

As an aside, as far as big infinities and small infinities go, we say some groups of numbers are countably infinite (natural numbers 1,2,3... onwards) and some are uncountably infinite (the real numbers between 1 and 2 for example, because between any two numbers in that group, there will be infinitely many between them). As far as picturing the universe goes, I try not to any more, because it gives me a headache. I just try and accept it. Some things are simply beyond human intuition (at least beyond mine anyway)

Scientists presumably, if they were conducting a scientific investigation into the existence of God would request scientific evidence. But people formulating personal beleifs on matters they believe to be outside of the realm of science would not necessarily demand scientific evidence. The point is there are different types of evidence and different types of requirements. What does it matter that I post this viewpoint in a science forum? Are scientists not allowed to hold religious views? Are scientists not allowed to beleive that some things do not belong to the domain of science?

when one requests empirical evidence. It depends who is making the request for evidence and what type of evidence they are willing to accept. Ah yes - theistic scientists... it's about time they got a mention

There is a difference between expressing an opinion and relating a subjective experience.

Everything is moving away from everything else.

Yes perfectly. One is a commonly reported subjective experience, the other far less so. I am not arguing about the *content* of such evidence, but the *form*. That personal testimony constitutes evidence. You make a good point and I like your reasoning, it helps me to understand your position. I'm not going to say I share your view but I can see more clearly where your philosophy differs from mine. It's always good to gain understanding about alternate points of view.

Then we probably have to agree to disagree on our differing views of the tree.

I'm not trying to be intentionally obtuse. If someone goes to the doctors complaining of a pain, the doctor does not insist on a brain scan to see if they are indeed having that subjective experience. But it is taken as a piece of evidence that something is wrong with the patient. The doctor may or may not go on to carry out further tests. Sometimes a diagnosis is made purely on the basis of dialogue with the patient. I am not saying testimony of personal experiences is conclusive proof. I am not even saying that such evidence has to be believed. That is a judgement call. The doctor could accuse the patient of imagining things, or exaggerating. (Perhaps they are a known hypochondriac). All I am simply saying that empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence. I don't think it's that controversial. You cannot. You have to take my word for it on trust. It's not empirical evidence. But the patient is not expected to provide a brain scan to prove they are experiencing pain. Their word is good enough in this context.

I'm not saying there are no difficult or problematic passages in a collection of texts such as the bible, but to point to a narrative that contains a morally questionable act and imply that the text condones it, or for example to insist that the bible says unicorns are real, because it uses the a word that could be translated unicorn in some rather figurative passages is twisting things somewhat. Why the need for such straw man argumentation if one's position is so strong? Moontanman I respect your opinion but I don't agree with it. Discarding the whole plant is not the only valid response to finding thorns on a cherry tree. One could choose to ignore the thorns. One could sit and eat the cherries and ponder the thorns with concern. One could refuse to see the thorns as thorns and interpret them as cherries, and insist everyone interprets them that way. Likewise one could refuse to see the cherries as cherries and interpret them as thorns and insist everyone interprets them that way. You say it's not possible to cherry pick. Well I could say it's equally not possible to thorn pick. You could throw difficult passages at me, passages that appear to say bad things. I could respond with passages that appear to say good things. Someone might look at a religion and focus on the difficulties in its texts, and the ugly stains in its history and see a bogeyman. Someone else might look at the beauty in the texts, and the triumphs in its history and see the opposite. Not everybody sees things in black and white. Some people see shades of grey.

Hmm - ok thanks. It will perhaps become clearer to me once I've done a bit more background reading.

OK this is probably a really stupid question, but since things can only be at rest from a particular reference point, (inertial frame?) how does rest mass fit in with relativity of motion? Is rest mass absolute or relative? I assume it's relative because I assume rest is relative and mass is absolute?

OK fair enough. I'll have my pen and paper at the ready.

That's fine. I wasn't arguing about any other passages than the one I commented on.

How rude! I made a perfectly valid comment on a point you made which you have called nit-picking to avoid addressing it. Don't worry I shall leave you in peace now and you can get back to making your invalid points!

Your response to this was not to answer it, but to insist I address another of your points.

I'm glad about this. I never really grasped the reasoning behind the twins paradox except that it is something to do with the system being assymmetric in some way because of acceleration, and only really ever found conflicting information when reading up about it online. Looking forward to seeing the solution.

If my life is a game being played by someone for entertainment purposes, I'd suggest they demand their money back.