Art of CIP wrote:
...What happens if something exists outside the the realm of phenomena that is observable to humans?  Does this mean it does not exist?

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:
Yes

Art of CIP wrote:
Interesting.  One simple philosophical question, and you would rather completely conflict science and philosophy rather ponder a question that conflicts with your world view...

My answer was very scientific.

The irony in your question was quite funny.  How do you know something exists if it's outside the realm of what is observable to humans?  The only logical answer to that is to imagine something exists...exactly what religious folk do.

Art of CIP wrote:
You keep using church and catholic as if they are one in the same.  You do realize there is protestant religion as well right?  Once again, I am sorry your experience with religion was a poor one.

I explained how the jump occurred three posts before you posted this.

I didn't say I had a poor experience with religion. I said to my observation, nudity isn't easily accepted in churches. Look at the girding of Jesus on the cross as an example.

If you went to a church where nudity was no big deal, where there might be a picture in the parsonage of a naked girl in a field, praying, where people came to church in revealing clothes, great, if that's what worked for the congregation. You have places like this, but I don't think it's the norm of Christianity just yet.

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

Art of CIP wrote:
...What happens if something exists outside the the realm of phenomena that is observable to humans?  Does this mean it does not exist?

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:
Yes

My answer was very scientific.

The irony in your question was quite funny.  How do you know something exists if it's outside the realm of what is observable to humans?  The only logical answer to that is to imagine something exists...exactly what religious folk do.

Nothing scientific whatsoever about about your response.  You were posed a deep philosophical.question, rather than ponder that question that might conflict with your personal beliefs, you simply negated science and philosophy.  Your ego is clouding your logic here.

Justin wrote:

I explained how the jump occurred three posts before you posted this.

I didn't say I had a poor experience with religion. I said to my observation, nudity isn't easily accepted in churches. Look at the girding of Jesus on the cross as an example.

If you went to a church where nudity was no big deal, where there might be a picture in the parsonage of a naked girl in a field, praying, where people came to church in revealing clothes, great, if that's what worked for the congregation. You have places like this, but I don't think it's the norm of Christianity just yet.

Are you an atheist?

Art of CIP wrote:
Nothing scientific whatsoever about about your response.  You were posed a deep philosophical.question, rather than ponder that question that might conflict with your personal beliefs, you simply negated science and philosophy.  Your ego is clouding your logic here.

I have no idea what you just said.

What's wrong with the answer(s) I gave you.  Why not break them down logically and explain where I am wrong?

DHayes Photography wrote:

"Ex Nihilo" (out of nothing) was created by sculptor Frederick Hart and unveiled in 1982.  It is one of three friezes commissioned to decorate the west facade of the Washington National Cathedral.  The figures are a bit larger than life sized and anatomically correct.

That is amazing. Thx for posting.

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:
I have no idea what you just said.

What's wrong with the answer(s) I gave you.  Why not break them down logically and explain where I am wrong?

I know you don't.  You have already demonstrated that you do not understand science, philosophy, and the inherent link between the two.  So when posed with a philosophical question about science, you are in a state of confusion.

Art of CIP wrote:
Are you an atheist?

I'm a guy who's interested in both science and spirituality, probably because I was raised in both.

What in the wide world of sports does that have to do with churches' attitudes on nudity?

Art of CIP wrote:

I know you don't.  You have already demonstrated that you do not under science, philosophy, and the inherent link between the two.  So when posed with a philosophical question about science, you are in a state of confusion.

Justin wrote:

I'm a guy who's interested in both science and spirituality, probably because I was raised in both.

What in the wide world of sports does that have to do with churches' attitudes on nudity?

It has nothing to do with the church's attitudes on nudity, I was curious if you were an atheist.  My apologies if my question was too direct.

Art of CIP wrote:
It has nothing to do with the church's attitudes on nudity, I was curious if you were an atheist.  My apologies if my question was too direct.

No apologies needed. If I don't care to answer a question, I don't need to. It just seemed out of place, like someone asking me in the middle of an argument about religion how my wife feels about the model photography.... oh, wait. That's been done, too.

Art of CIP wrote:

I know you don't.  You have already demonstrated that you do not understand science, philosophy, and the inherent link between the two.  So when posed with a philosophical question about science, you are in a state of confusion.

What is the inherent link between science and philosophy? (I kind of slept through the latter in college - it was a night course).

In Balance Photography wrote:
What is the inherent link between science and philosophy? (I kind of slept through the latter in college - it was a night course).

Science is a good way to advance human understanding.

Philosophy is a good way to advance smart students who have no math or mechanical skills. (Art history and literature are others.)

Justin wrote:
Science is a good way to advance human understanding.

Philosophy is a good way to advance smart students who have no math or mechanical skills. (Art history and literature are others.)

I'm sensing there's sarcasm in there somewhere.

Art of CIP wrote:
I know you don't.  You have already demonstrated that you do not understand science, philosophy, and the inherent link between the two.  So when posed with a philosophical question about science, you are in a state of confusion.

In Balance Photography wrote:
What is the inherent link between science and philosophy? (I kind of slept through the latter in college - it was a night course).

Art of CIP doesn't actually answer questions...even when you answer his.

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

Art of CIP wrote:
I know you don't.  You have already demonstrated that you do not understand science, philosophy, and the inherent link between the two.  So when posed with a philosophical question about science, you are in a state of confusion.

Art of CIP doesn't actually answer questions...even when you answer his.

Really? I'm disappointed.

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

Art of CIP wrote:
I know you don't.  You have already demonstrated that you do not understand science, philosophy, and the inherent link between the two.  So when posed with a philosophical question about science, you are in a state of confusion.

Art of CIP doesn't actually answer questions...even when you answer his.

If you would like, I am open to presenting my position and yours in a pure deductive argument.  That way neither of our emotions are involved and it will be pure logic.  Are you familiar with deductive logic and reasoning?

Art of CIP wrote:
If you would like, I am open to presenting my position and yours in a pure deductive argument.  That way neither of our emotions are involved and it will be pure logic.  Are you familiar with deductive logic and reasoning?

Yes I am...let's begin.  You present your position and I'll present mine.  I haven't seen your logical skills thus far.

Why not start with the post at the top of this page?

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

Yes I am...let's begin.  You present your position and I'll present mine.  I haven't seen your logical skills thus far.

Why not start with the post at the top of this page?

Good, let's begin. 

This is appears to be where the logical disconnect happened:

Art of CIP wrote:
The first question was clearly and obviously rhetorical...

Science provides man with a framework to study and understand observable phenomena.  That is to say that it is a human realm of study and knowledge.  What happens if something exists outside the the realm of phenomena that is observable to humans?  Does this mean it does not exist?

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:
Yes

I believe your response to be based on nothing more than your emotions and that it has no scientific or logical basis - but to be sure, we will test the logic of it.


1st, let's take a look at what science is so you cannot accuse me of any tricks.

Science(from the Latin Scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowlwdge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe"[/b]

Here is the layman's version:

Science provides man with a framework to study and understand observable phenomena.  That is to say that it is a human realm of study and knowledge.

Do you agree with these definitions?

Art of CIP wrote:
Do you agree with these definitions?

Yes I agree* and my answer ("Yes") was consistent with those definitions.

*I don't get this "layman's" part though:

That is to say that it is a human realm of study and knowledge.

Sounds like conjecture. That is not a scientifically sound statement.

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

Art of CIP wrote:
Do you agree with these definitions?

Yes I agree* and my answer ("Yes") was consistent with those definitions.

*I don't get this "layman's" part though:
Sounds like conjecture.

All that means is the methodolgies used were developed by humans.

Art of CIP wrote:

All that means is the methodolgies used were developed by humans.

Let's stick with the scientific definitions.  Your layman's interpretation is not scientifically valid.

Justin wrote:
What the heck is the position that's being argued? The definition of science? Get a dictionary and move on. Seriously, I have no idea what the debate is about at this point.

Check the post at the top of this page.  He's asking if things don't exist that aren't scientifically observable.

I said "yes".  That seemed to blow his mind.

Justin wrote:
"Nothing unreal exists."

THat's pretty much my answer and he told me I was confused

In Balance Photography wrote:
I am still waiting for the link between science and philisophy.

I'm still waiting for the link between nudity and morality.

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

Let's stick with the scientific definitions.  Your layman's interpretation is not scientifically valid.

Actually, the layman's definition is quite valid because humans developed all of the scientific methodologies that humans use to observe and study all of creation. 

But now that we have agreed on the premise of what science is (which BTW - the formal definition can be found in Wikipedia - I quoted it verbatim), let's take another step and frame the premise with my question and your response.



What science is
Science(from the Latin Scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowlwdge in the form oftestable explanations and predictions about the universe"

Cip-  if something is not observable to humans, does that mean it does not exist?

That look= yes - it does not exist if it is unobservable to humans...

Is this an accurate portrayal of our discussion thus far?

In Balance Photography wrote:
I am still waiting for the link between science and philisophy.

The structure of science is logic...  That is to say that the findings of science must be able to stand up to logical scrutiny, and as we all know, logic is a branch of philosophy.  Simple stuff really.

Art of CIP wrote:
The structure of science is logic...  That is to say that the findings of science must be able to stand up to logical scrutiny, and as we all know, logic is a branch of philosophy.  Simple stuff really.

Mathematical logic...not layman's reasoning.

Art of CIP wrote:
Cip-  if something is not observable to humans, does that mean it does not exist?

That look= yes - it does not exist if it is unobservable to humans...

Is this an accurate portrayal of our discussion thus far?

Yep...

Monad Studios wrote:
I'm still waiting for the link between nudity and morality.

In a philosophical sense, it has some moral value.  Rather or not the moral value is positive or negative is objective.

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

Yep...

What scientific principle are you basing your opinion on?

Art of CIP wrote:
What scientific principle are you basing your opinion on?

If it is not repeatably detectable either by observation or mathematics or deduction, then it does not exist, unless we imagine it to exist.  Praise Jesus!

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:
If it is not repeatably detectable either by observation or mathematics or deduction, then it does not exist unless we imagine it to exist.  Praise Jesus!

I see you have changed your position.  None the less though, your position is suspect because science provides a methodological framework for humans to explain things in the natural universe that are unobservable to humans.

Art of CIP wrote:
I see you have changed your position.  None the less though, your position is suspect because science provides a methodological framework for humans explain things in the natural universe that are unobservable to humans.

I haven't changed a single thing.

Why don't you re-evaluate your definition of "observable"?  I hope you weren't just talking about eyesight.  That would be pretty short-sighted of you (pun intended).

Some ways things can be observed:
Direct = Fire
Mathematics = Black holes
Deduced = Dark matter

ThatLook Visual Media wrote:

I haven't changed a single thing.

Why don't you re-evaluate your definition of "observable".  I hope you weren't just talking about eyesight.  That would be pretty short-sighted of you (pun intended).

You have confused "unobservable" with "unexplainable".  You are so frightened that I am going to trick you into admitting that a framework does in fact exist for God that you are willing to completely throw science under the bus to avoid embarrassment.

But here's the kicker - science has a framework in place to explain things that are beyond human detection and observation within the natural universe.  Science does not deal with supernatural deities.  When discussing science and logic, science and logic work better emotions do...