ImageImageImageImageImage

O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::.

Moderators: moocow007, magnumt, FrontOfficeEye, GONYK, NoLayupRule, Deeeez Knicks, Thugger HBC, Capn'O, K-DOT, j4remi, Thorn, Jeff Van Gully, King of Canada, mrpoetryNmotion, mpharris36

User avatar
UcanUwill
RealGM
Posts: 11,734
And1: 5,586
Joined: Aug 07, 2011

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1901 » by UcanUwill » Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:52 pm

HarthorneWingo wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:
HarthorneWingo wrote:Did somebody say "God"?

What's "God"?

What it boils down to is no matter how one theorizes how all things came into existence, you will eventually face there having to be an immaterial, eternal, "First Cause".

If not, you face the the circular "who created the one who created?" paradox. Either that or the "everything came from nothing" paradigm.


With each year, each decade, science explains more and more. You still can't get to how people today view "God" from something you can't yet explain.


I dont think human science will ever explain origins of existence. Its probably something beyond our comprehension. The answer could be right here in front of us, but we just dont comprehend it. Humans are creatures, animals, and every animal has its mind perception limitations. Like hamster will never comprehend math or other human concepts, humans will never comprehend some other things. At least we smart enough to realize that.

That is something that most religious people fail to realize. They want answers for everything, and take the easiest ones. Just because human science doesn't have answers, it doesn't mean scientific answers do not exist. I am atheist, because I think god explanation is just so obviously man made concept, it just fits human mind to a tea, it is obviously born in a human thought. I really think that true origins of existence are far complex than - of god did it. Thats just my opinion, I dont think people who believe in concept of god are stupid, but I do think believing in a pop religion is stupid.
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
Knicks Forum Grandpa's Law
Posts: 45,768
And1: 16,403
Joined: May 16, 2005
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1902 » by HarthorneWingo » Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:55 pm

UcanUwill wrote:
HarthorneWingo wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:What it boils down to is no matter how one theorizes how all things came into existence, you will eventually face there having to be an immaterial, eternal, "First Cause".

If not, you face the the circular "who created the one who created?" paradox. Either that or the "everything came from nothing" paradigm.


With each year, each decade, science explains more and more. You still can't get to how people today view "God" from something you can't yet explain.


I dont think human science will ever explain origins of existence. Its probably something beyond our comprehension. The answer could be right here in front of us, but we just dont comprehend it. Humans are creatures, animals, and every animal has its mind perception limitations. Like hamster will never comprehend math or other human concepts, humans will never comprehend some other things. At least we smart enough to realize that.

That is something that most religious people fail to realize. They want answers for everything, and take the easiest ones. Just because human science doesn't have answers, it doesn't mean scientific answers do not exist. I am atheist, because I think god explanation is just so obviously man made concept, it just fits human mind to a tea, it is obviously born in a human thought. I really think that true origins of existence are far complex than - of god did it. Thats just my opinion, I dont think people who believe in concept of god are stupid, but I do think believing in a pop religion is stupid.


People are conditioned and guilted into believing in God, without question. It's blind faith. Others, like us, question life, its meaning, and its origin. Oh, and we believe in science. Who knows what discoveries we'll make in future decades.

Maybe life from another planet will explain it to us! :D
Image
Boss_
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 13,729
And1: 155
Joined: Sep 04, 2003
Contact:

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1903 » by Boss_ » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:18 pm

UcanUwill wrote:
I dont think human science will ever explain origins of existence. Its probably something beyond our comprehension. The answer could be right here in front of us, but we just dont comprehend it.

That is something that most religious people fail to realize. They want answers for everything, and take the easiest ones. Just because human science doesn't have answers, it doesn't mean scientific answers do not exist. I am atheist, because I think god explanation is just so obviously man made concept, it just fits human mind to a tea, it is obviously born in a human thought. I really think that true origins of existence are far complex than - of god did it. Thats just my opinion, I dont think people who believe in concept of god are stupid, but I do think believing in a pop religion is stupid.



I think eventually, science will explain origins of life creation, for here on earth.

They need to find life on other planets first. Even if its multicellular bacteria. Because a 1-celled organism becoming a 2 celled organism is considered by many to be part of the "great filter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter#The_Great_Filter

to the fermi paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

..im not an atheist, I believe that god created the universe, or universes now. I was an atheist for a few years as well. Although, I always wondered for the people who were atheists, do they believe more in the theory that we live in a computer simulated universe than god creating it? What theory to they believe in about the universe, and us not finding any evidence of life anywhere else other than earth? And how life began here on earth?

Is it more that life on earth was just a fluke, we are living on an ordinary planet, in an ordinary solar system, with an ordinary middle aged sun like star, in the habital zone, and life here isnt special...because odds are theres life on millions of planets? Do you believe life is not special or ordinary and that life here was just an accident?

Maybe you're right. Maybe we're the ants on the side of a major highway, completely oblivious as to what is beside our own little habitat ant colony, our brains may never be able to comprehend the structure next to us and our technology may never be able to see the big picture before humanity goes extinct, such as multiple parallel bubble universes.
Clyde_Style wrote:When the Knicks lose my colon goes spastic and I poop a stream of little basketballs.
User avatar
Are We Ther Yet
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,811
And1: 3,680
Joined: Nov 07, 2012
       

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1904 » by Are We Ther Yet » Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:12 pm

Clyde_Style wrote:
When the Knicks lose my colon goes spastic and I poop a stream of little basketballs

:lol: :lol: :lol: WTF?
GREAT SIG BOSS!!!
a knick fan forum. not a "argue ad nauseam about narratives and biases you hold like blood feuds that span decades" forum, you sentient buttplug. - Marty McFly :lol:
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,885
And1: 3,148
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1905 » by Iron Mantis » Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:31 pm

It appears people are conditioned into believing everything science says without questioning. From the youth on up through college the inculcation begins and continues.

From my experience, if one does not wholly swallow ALL science dogma & some borderline pseudo science, you're likely to incur intolerance and insults.

Scary stuff.
Boss_
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 13,729
And1: 155
Joined: Sep 04, 2003
Contact:

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1906 » by Boss_ » Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:51 pm

Iron Mantis wrote:It appears people are conditioned into believing everything science says without questioning.



The thing is, people are also conditioned into believing everything the bible says without questioning as well. In a religion which I shall not name, theyll kill you if you dont. Imo, everyone should have the freedom to come up with their own conclusion, and not have a knife at their neck
Clyde_Style wrote:When the Knicks lose my colon goes spastic and I poop a stream of little basketballs.
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,885
And1: 3,148
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1907 » by Iron Mantis » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:05 am

Boss_ wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:It appears people are conditioned into believing everything science says without questioning.



The thing is, people are also conditioned into believing everything the bible says without questioning as well. In a religion which I shall not name, theyll kill you if you dont. Imo, everyone should have the freedom to come up with their own conclusion, and not have a knife at their neck

That's rough. It sounds like the Inquisition. :-?
User avatar
robillionaire
Analyst
Posts: 3,330
And1: 2,643
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Location: Manhattan
       

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1908 » by robillionaire » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:09 am

the scientific method literally tells you to question it and challenges you to prove it wrong
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,885
And1: 3,148
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1909 » by Iron Mantis » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:14 am

robillionaire wrote:the scientific method literally tells you to question it and challenges you to prove it wrong

What is "it"?
User avatar
robillionaire
Analyst
Posts: 3,330
And1: 2,643
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Location: Manhattan
       

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1910 » by robillionaire » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:19 am

Iron Mantis wrote:
robillionaire wrote:the scientific method literally tells you to question it and challenges you to prove it wrong

What is "it"?


anything
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,885
And1: 3,148
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1911 » by Iron Mantis » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:27 am

robillionaire wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:
robillionaire wrote:the scientific method literally tells you to question it and challenges you to prove it wrong

What is "it"?


anything

Evolution, macro in particular, evades the rigors of the scientific method.

How can one possibly challenge it to prove it wrong?
User avatar
robillionaire
Analyst
Posts: 3,330
And1: 2,643
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Location: Manhattan
       

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1912 » by robillionaire » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:35 am

Iron Mantis wrote:
robillionaire wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:What is "it"?


anything

Evolution, macro in particular, evades the rigors of the scientific method.

How can one possibly challenge it to prove it wrong?


No, it doesn't. Evolution by means of natural selection is currently the best explanation that science has to explains the diversity of life on the planet that we observe. If you don't accept it you're more than welcome to present a better hypothesis, test it out, get it peer reviewed and then if it is shown to be more accurate explanation and replaces the theory of evolution, see if it continues to hold up to the endless challenges to it, like the theory of evolution has for centuries. Good luck.
User avatar
robillionaire
Analyst
Posts: 3,330
And1: 2,643
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Location: Manhattan
       

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1913 » by robillionaire » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:37 am

And I'll add to that that even if you did prove the theory of evolution wrong, it wouldn't necessarily be evidence that your alternative theory is correct, that too would need to be tested on its own merit. Which is why I can't understand why people hate it so much, as if it's the only thing standing in the way of their alternative explanation. It is not.
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,885
And1: 3,148
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1914 » by Iron Mantis » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:59 am

robillionaire wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:
robillionaire wrote:
anything

Evolution, macro in particular, evades the rigors of the scientific method.

How can one possibly challenge it to prove it wrong?


No, it doesn't. Evolution by means of natural selection is currently the best explanation that science has to explains the diversity of life on the planet that we observe. If you don't accept it you're more than welcome to present a better hypothesis, test it out, get it peer reviewed and then if it is shown to be more accurate explanation and replaces the theory of evolution, see if it continues to hold up to the endless challenges to it, like the theory of evolution has for centuries. Good luck.

Well there's no way one can actually test, re-create, or observe inert chemicals ending up as a bacteria, then eventually transforming into a creature or tree, and so on; so, it actually does evade the testing by way of experiments and actual observation.

I love science, but I'm not on a mission to jump on the scene and do battle with big brother's scientists. I'm just merely having a discussion on a basketball forum...nothing more.
User avatar
robillionaire
Analyst
Posts: 3,330
And1: 2,643
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Location: Manhattan
       

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1915 » by robillionaire » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:08 am

Iron Mantis wrote:
robillionaire wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:Evolution, macro in particular, evades the rigors of the scientific method.

How can one possibly challenge it to prove it wrong?


No, it doesn't. Evolution by means of natural selection is currently the best explanation that science has to explains the diversity of life on the planet that we observe. If you don't accept it you're more than welcome to present a better hypothesis, test it out, get it peer reviewed and then if it is shown to be more accurate explanation and replaces the theory of evolution, see if it continues to hold up to the endless challenges to it, like the theory of evolution has for centuries. Good luck.

Well there's no way one can actually test, re-create, or observe inert chemicals ending up as a bacteria, then eventually transforming into a creature or tree, and so on; so, it actually does evade the testing by way of experiments and actual observation.

I love science, but I'm not on a mission to jump on the scene and do battle with big brother's scientists. I'm just merely having a discussion on a basketball forum...nothing more.


You know, I'm not even going to get into the evolution debate, and I'm not going to insult you because you don't accept it. I simply disagree with your claim that science is something that you aren't allowed to question and should blindly believe when this is the exact opposite of how it works. As far as indoctrination goes, sitting in my church as a young child I was taught songs such as "I'm no kin to the monkey" and told never to question anything I was told or I would be subjected to torture before I knew what the theory of evolution even was or really anything else for that matter. When I discovered science I was happy to know I could question anything without fear. It was great. Have a good night

User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,885
And1: 3,148
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1916 » by Iron Mantis » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:16 am

robillionaire wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:
robillionaire wrote:
No, it doesn't. Evolution by means of natural selection is currently the best explanation that science has to explains the diversity of life on the planet that we observe. If you don't accept it you're more than welcome to present a better hypothesis, test it out, get it peer reviewed and then if it is shown to be more accurate explanation and replaces the theory of evolution, see if it continues to hold up to the endless challenges to it, like the theory of evolution has for centuries. Good luck.

Well there's no way one can actually test, re-create, or observe inert chemicals ending up as a bacteria, then eventually transforming into a creature or tree, and so on; so, it actually does evade the testing by way of experiments and actual observation.

I love science, but I'm not on a mission to jump on the scene and do battle with big brother's scientists. I'm just merely having a discussion on a basketball forum...nothing more.


You know, I'm not even going to get into the evolution debate, and I'm not going to insult you because you don't accept it. I simply disagree with your claim that science is something that you aren't allowed to question and should blindly believe when this is the exact opposite of how it works. As far as indoctrination goes, sitting in my church as a young child I was taught songs such as "I'm no kin to the monkey" and told never to question anything I was told or I would be subjected to torture before I knew what the theory of evolution even was or really anything else for that matter. When I discovered science I was happy to know I could question anything without fear. It was great. Have a good night


That's brutal. I am sorry you were subjected to that.

Definitely glad you found something better.

Thank you, and you have a good night as well.
User avatar
UcanUwill
RealGM
Posts: 11,734
And1: 5,586
Joined: Aug 07, 2011

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1917 » by UcanUwill » Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:56 am

Boss_ wrote:

I think eventually, science will explain origins of life creation, for here on earth.

They need to find life on other planets first. Even if its multicellular bacteria. Because a 1-celled organism becoming a 2 celled organism is considered by many to be part of the "great filter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter#The_Great_Filter

to the fermi paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

..im not an atheist, I believe that god created the universe, or universes now. I was an atheist for a few years as well. Although, I always wondered for the people who were atheists, do they believe more in the theory that we live in a computer simulated universe than god creating it? What theory to they believe in about the universe, and us not finding any evidence of life anywhere else other than earth? And how life began here on earth?

Is it more that life on earth was just a fluke, we are living on an ordinary planet, in an ordinary solar system, with an ordinary middle aged sun like star, in the habital zone, and life here isnt special...because odds are theres life on millions of planets? Do you believe life is not special or ordinary and that life here was just an accident?

Maybe you're right. Maybe we're the ants on the side of a major highway, completely oblivious as to what is beside our own little habitat ant colony, our brains may never be able to comprehend the structure next to us and our technology may never be able to see the big picture before humanity goes extinct, such as multiple parallel bubble universes.



Computer simulation is interesting theory, I never put much thought into it tho, I dont think we live a simulated world or that we are simulated. Even if we found undisputed evidence of how life began on Earth, I think it will be very underwhelming. I think its probably just a random chance, it was one in a billion, but it happened over millions of years. It could have happened in billion different ways, and this is where hardcore religious people I debated have a thinking error. I am not talking about religious like you, I am talking more about creationists and people like that. I often see them say - atheists are dumb, they believe everything PERFECTLY happened with no intent or plan, and everything appeared out of NOTHING for no reason. Makes perfect sense, sarcasm...
First of all, this is why that thinking is wrong. That we live in a perfect world, like it was planned. Its just not true, there were billions of possibilities of how our planet could have developed, it just look perfect from human point of view, who can't picture an alternative or thinks its planned creation. When you realize that we are just result of billions of possibilities, you realize its not perfectly happened, it just happened. Over billion of years in a billion planets, life will start and evolve.
Second flawed thinking, that everything started from nothing. It sounds that way on the surface when you talk about big bang theory, but on this point, I come back to my original post. People who say its stupid just assume that humans must comprehend everything. We humans have comprehension limit, we simply can't comprehend the origins of existence. It makes no sense how time, space and matter appeared out of nothing, but it could be perfectly logical answer to that. That might sound like a cop out, but I am not saying its a proof there is no god or smth, I am just saying that you have to think further our own perception.

Its very interesting thing to talk about. People often say, before big bang there was god who initiated it, or that there was nothing. Just one thing, before big bang, there was no time, so ''before'' couldn't exist. You can interpret in a different ways, but I think people always overlook this point.
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,885
And1: 3,148
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1918 » by Iron Mantis » Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:29 pm

UcanUwill wrote:
Boss_ wrote:

I think eventually, science will explain origins of life creation, for here on earth.

They need to find life on other planets first. Even if its multicellular bacteria. Because a 1-celled organism becoming a 2 celled organism is considered by many to be part of the "great filter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter#The_Great_Filter

to the fermi paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

..im not an atheist, I believe that god created the universe, or universes now. I was an atheist for a few years as well. Although, I always wondered for the people who were atheists, do they believe more in the theory that we live in a computer simulated universe than god creating it? What theory to they believe in about the universe, and us not finding any evidence of life anywhere else other than earth? And how life began here on earth?

Is it more that life on earth was just a fluke, we are living on an ordinary planet, in an ordinary solar system, with an ordinary middle aged sun like star, in the habital zone, and life here isnt special...because odds are theres life on millions of planets? Do you believe life is not special or ordinary and that life here was just an accident?

Maybe you're right. Maybe we're the ants on the side of a major highway, completely oblivious as to what is beside our own little habitat ant colony, our brains may never be able to comprehend the structure next to us and our technology may never be able to see the big picture before humanity goes extinct, such as multiple parallel bubble universes.



Computer simulation is interesting theory, I never put much thought into it tho, I dont think we live a simulated world or that we are simulated. Even if we found undisputed evidence of how life began on Earth, I think it will be very underwhelming. I think its probably just a random chance, it was one in a billion, but it happened over millions of years. It could have happened in billion different ways, and this is where hardcore religious people I debated have a thinking error. I am not talking about religious like you, I am talking more about creationists and people like that. I often see them say - atheists are dumb, they believe everything PERFECTLY happened with no intent or plan, and everything appeared out of NOTHING for no reason. Makes perfect sense, sarcasm...
First of all, this is why that thinking is wrong. That we live in a perfect world, like it was planned. Its just not true, there were billions of possibilities of how our planet could have developed, it just look perfect from human point of view, who can't picture an alternative or thinks its planned creation. When you realize that we are just result of billions of possibilities, you realize its not perfectly happened, it just happened. Over billion of years in a billion planets, life will start and evolve.
Second flawed thinking, that everything started from nothing. It sounds that way on the surface when you talk about big bang theory, but on this point, I come back to my original post. People who say its stupid just assume that humans must comprehend everything. We humans have comprehension limit, we simply can't comprehend the origins of existence. It makes no sense how time, space and matter appeared out of nothing, but it could be perfectly logical answer to that. That might sound like a cop out, but I am not saying its a proof there is no god or smth, I am just saying that you have to think further our own perception.

Its very interesting thing to talk about. People often say, before big bang there was god who initiated it, or that there was nothing. Just one thing, before big bang, there was no time, so ''before'' couldn't exist. You can interpret in a different ways, but I think people always overlook this point.

No matter how you slice it you're faced with a cause that, itself, has no beginning, unlimited energy, & transcends the material universe.

Avoiding that realization creates many circles & paradoxes.
KnickFan33
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,445
And1: 588
Joined: Nov 08, 2006

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1919 » by KnickFan33 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:14 pm

Anybody that argues people believe in science has a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. Believing in science isn't a thing.

Spoiler:
Understanding science... That's the thing.
User avatar
j4remi
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 32,754
And1: 9,498
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
         

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1920 » by j4remi » Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:01 pm





Fun with Time concepts and a chance to shout out my favorite bit of the Universe. The Pillars of Creation aren't presently there, they were destroyed thousands of years ago but because of the time it takes light to travel, we can still look at them.
BAF Knicks
PG - Ntilikina/Payton/Taylor
SG - L Williams/Z. Smith/Brown
SF - Evans/MKG/Kilpatrick
PF - Saric/Bertans/Lydon
C - Gobert/Mahinimi

A. Johnson

Ex A. Kaba, Monte Morris, Hartenstein

Finally a Recaps Stash:
https://medium.com/@j4remi

Return to New York Knicks