|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: note: this discussion has turned for the better;read pgs/Where do the laws come from? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Iano writes: Empiricism has no solid grounds by defintion - there is nothing possible outside empiricism to verify that philosophy is true. Not so faith. Which faith, Iano?
Iano writes: You have no grounds to call NJ arrogant. Which faith? Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Your missing the point. You can have no grounds given empiricism, per definition, can have no grounds. Faith can, per definition, have grounds.
All it takes is for a) God to existb) God to communicate with man. It can have grounds and it can make the statements without being necessarily arrogant. You said it was arrogant which denied the possibility of grounds. One can say you are being arrogant - for you can have no grounds. But one cannot be so sure in the opposite direction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Iano writes: Your missing the point. You can have no grounds given empiricism, per definition, can have no grounds. Faith can, per definition, have grounds. All it takes is for a) God to existb) God to communicate with man. It can have grounds and it can make the statements without being necessarily arrogant. You said it was arrogant which denied the possibility of grounds. One can say you are being arrogant - for you can have no grounds. But one cannot be so sure in the opposite direction. Iano, it is you who has totally missed the point. I freely admit I have no "grounds" for any assumptions about the unknown. You, like NJ, on the other hand continue to stubbornly assert that your faith is "the answer" because you think it is "the answer". A classic circular argument. You could not have demonstrated my point in a more elegant way! You also dodged the question about which faith you were referring to. There are any number of ideas regarding those things which lie beyond our current understanding. So I'll ask again, which faith do you mean? Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
If there weren't any laws, we would have to invent some. Come to think of it, that's exactly what happened, as already mentioned by Nutcase in Message 2. We're speaking about physical laws, not human laws. How could we invent laws of physics? That would insinuate that we had some sort of control over nature. But maybe I'm not understanding your rationale. If no, would you clarify for me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The earth is 93,000,000 miles from the sun. There are 1609.344 meters per mile, and 1000 millimetres per meter (93000000/(1015)) * 1 609.344 * 1000 = 0.057 millimeters Are you saying that if the earth was one twentieth of a millimeter closer or further away from the sun, life would be impossible? Obviously not. I should have used a larger exponent. I guess 1 in 10 Mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Obviously not. I should have used a larger exponent. Maybe you should do some research instead of making up your own facts? Here's a basic sanity check you can do, for instance. The Earth's orbit around the Sun is elliptical, which means that the distance from the Earth to the Sun - which you said could not vary without making life impossible - changes throughout the year. Look up the total change between apogee and perigee. (Those may not be the right terms, actually.) That number represents a floor for your estimate of how much closer or farther away from the Sun the Earth would have to be to prevent the existence of life on Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
iano writes: Faith can, per definition, have grounds. All it takes is for a) God to existb) God to communicate with man. WRONG! It doesn't take that at all. All it takes is for 1. Tao to exist2. Human beings to have access to Tao. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Iano writes: Empiricism has no solid grounds by defintion - there is nothing possible outside empiricism to verify that philosophy is true. Not so faith. RickJB: Which faith, Iano? Mine, of course. See Message 67. Taoism thanks you, Iano. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Tao will do fine if tao can do the same thing as God. No illogic there.
Ta.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Look up the total change between apogee and perigee. (Those may not be the right terms, actually.)
Try "aphelion" and "perihelion". I don't quite agree with your reasoning. If the earth were to settle in a circular orbit at current aphelion, things might get a bit cold. Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
iano writes: Tao will do fine if tao can do the same thing as God. No illogic there. Of course it does. Your argument is that faith in God provides grounds for confidence in investigation. Faith in anything provides such grounds. Because all faiths provide them, one faith is as good as another by this criterion. How compelling do you find grounds arrived at by means of a faith you do not profess? _ Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
So what is your point?
This is not a valid answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
I thought I have articulated my inquiry quite clearly.
I will review what I have written.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
I admire your knowledge on the subject but I don't believe it is pertinent and I don't find error in my statement. Obviously weight and mass are two different measurements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I don't quite agree with your reasoning. If the earth were to settle in a circular orbit at current aphelion, things might get a bit cold. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for that. I was under the impression that tilt would play a bigger difference than distance within the range of our current orbit. Is there a signigicant difference between winters in the northern and southern hemisphere? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024