Science Really Does Point To God [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t60MBskbNuc] No Question About It.
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
What is the use of this?? Honestly, what is the point in proving that you are right, and moreover, what is the point in trying to change what makes others happy inside??
Why can't we accept each other with different beliefs??
I am not against progressive debating, but this useless discussion has been going on for centuries, and there is no point in it... or there is no use in the end result anyway??
If I am happy with my own whole Devine, why would anyone want to supposedly educate me, to take that happiness away from me...
Or for those scientists who have proven evolution, or not, to put their foot down just to take the happiness of those believers away from them...
Science's function is not to prove anything... science function is to bring facts to disprove the older theories...
Why can't we accept each other with different beliefs??
I am not against progressive debating, but this useless discussion has been going on for centuries, and there is no point in it... or there is no use in the end result anyway??
If I am happy with my own whole Devine, why would anyone want to supposedly educate me, to take that happiness away from me...
Or for those scientists who have proven evolution, or not, to put their foot down just to take the happiness of those believers away from them...
Science's function is not to prove anything... science function is to bring facts to disprove the older theories...
1-25 of 38
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Soossie My dear friend.
This debate is not really about religion.
Scientists, when doing Science never discriminates between the ones of them who have faith based believes and the ones that not.
They work together with no animosity and no prejudices.
There are, here and outside, a relative small group, strongly political biased ones, that use science related matters to give support to the ones in power that, besides attacking Science, also meaneace other counties.
This debate is not really about religion.
Scientists, when doing Science never discriminates between the ones of them who have faith based believes and the ones that not.
They work together with no animosity and no prejudices.
There are, here and outside, a relative small group, strongly political biased ones, that use science related matters to give support to the ones in power that, besides attacking Science, also meaneace other counties.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Soossie I'm sorry soos... but there is a point to this.
When a lot of people in a certain area have a deep believe in a certain religion... and people whoes living conditions deteriorate because of it. I think that's something that people should be able to talk about.
I actually would think that a woman living in Iran would have a better insight in that, then people like me that are living "largely" in a secular society.
Scientists don't put their foot down to destroy the happiness of others. They are trying to advance "humanity". And you can't "advance" if you keep having ideas that just don't stroke with reality. It's pretty important for all us as a species. But if you want? I can elaborate on this? And we can look at a religious periode in Europe called the dark ages. (and no, the dark ages weren't really that dark... but "progress" went on a way lower pitch then it's doing now)
Your last sentence is a paradox. If science isn't meant to prove annything, then it also doesnt disprove older theories.
But science is trying to discover what is objectively true, to prove that certain things are objectively true. And it doesnt really care about theories that don't hold truth. If they get run over, because we find new objective truths, then we are all better for that.
When a lot of people in a certain area have a deep believe in a certain religion... and people whoes living conditions deteriorate because of it. I think that's something that people should be able to talk about.
I actually would think that a woman living in Iran would have a better insight in that, then people like me that are living "largely" in a secular society.
Scientists don't put their foot down to destroy the happiness of others. They are trying to advance "humanity". And you can't "advance" if you keep having ideas that just don't stroke with reality. It's pretty important for all us as a species. But if you want? I can elaborate on this? And we can look at a religious periode in Europe called the dark ages. (and no, the dark ages weren't really that dark... but "progress" went on a way lower pitch then it's doing now)
Your last sentence is a paradox. If science isn't meant to prove annything, then it also doesnt disprove older theories.
But science is trying to discover what is objectively true, to prove that certain things are objectively true. And it doesnt really care about theories that don't hold truth. If they get run over, because we find new objective truths, then we are all better for that.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@CharlieZ [quote]Scientists, when doing Science never discriminates between the ones of them who have faith based believes and the ones that not.
They work together with no animosity and no prejudices.[/quote]
well that's the theory, but you seriously neglect the human component if you hold that vieuw to be true 😅 .That's why HippyJ keeps knocking on that nail, because people hold that vision to such a high standard. And it just doesn't hold up... because of "humans".
They work together with no animosity and no prejudices.[/quote]
well that's the theory, but you seriously neglect the human component if you hold that vieuw to be true 😅 .That's why HippyJ keeps knocking on that nail, because people hold that vision to such a high standard. And it just doesn't hold up... because of "humans".
@Soossie I think most people have issues with those that twist and use a belief to justify their own evils. Some people want control and power over others and will use not just religion but try to get their beliefs passed into law to suppress the rights of others. They want to take away the happiness of others.
I think your belief is more wholesome though. You seem like a very happy person and I like that. While I am happy to debate people it often turns into insulting back and forth. And that is def not a debate.
Usually when I debate all I'm really looking for is for the person to see from my point of view. Not change their belief. After all I can see from their point of view.
Also in modern times we have to worry about bots as well. Cause they are people whose job it is to get online and try to sow chaos and division for socio-political reasons.
I hope that explains my reasoning at least. And i hope it didn't come off as trying to fight because I def respect your belief. Yours seems more mystical and spiritual to me. At least from what I've seen. You don't really talk about it much. But I'd be happy to know more about it:3
I think your belief is more wholesome though. You seem like a very happy person and I like that. While I am happy to debate people it often turns into insulting back and forth. And that is def not a debate.
Usually when I debate all I'm really looking for is for the person to see from my point of view. Not change their belief. After all I can see from their point of view.
Also in modern times we have to worry about bots as well. Cause they are people whose job it is to get online and try to sow chaos and division for socio-political reasons.
I hope that explains my reasoning at least. And i hope it didn't come off as trying to fight because I def respect your belief. Yours seems more mystical and spiritual to me. At least from what I've seen. You don't really talk about it much. But I'd be happy to know more about it:3
[quote][/quote]@Kwek00
Thank you..
[quote]And you can't "advance" if you keep having ideas that just don't stroke with reality.[/quote]
Reality?? Has science proven what is real and what is not??
And
[quote]But if you want? I can elaborate on this? And we can look at a religious periode in Europe called the dark ages.[/quote]
I do not care about religion.. I, however, do care about education and improve of knowledge, or in a higher level wisdom..
Putting foot down and insisting in a bit of temporary information (which we can easily mistake with knowledge) does not educate, or improve anything... insisting on being right about what you consider reality, is against science...
Just saying..
Thank you..
[quote]And you can't "advance" if you keep having ideas that just don't stroke with reality.[/quote]
Reality?? Has science proven what is real and what is not??
And
[quote]But if you want? I can elaborate on this? And we can look at a religious periode in Europe called the dark ages.[/quote]
I do not care about religion.. I, however, do care about education and improve of knowledge, or in a higher level wisdom..
Putting foot down and insisting in a bit of temporary information (which we can easily mistake with knowledge) does not educate, or improve anything... insisting on being right about what you consider reality, is against science...
Just saying..
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Kwek00 Wrong, my friend.
Look what happens in everiday practice in the Scientific community.
They have, as all humans, failures, no doubt.
But that also shows that is posible and, in fact, happening that humans may do a bright collaborative work, of the kind Science is one example.
Look what happens in everiday practice in the Scientific community.
They have, as all humans, failures, no doubt.
But that also shows that is posible and, in fact, happening that humans may do a bright collaborative work, of the kind Science is one example.
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
@Kwek00 hold on there just one second. Societies can be free of religion and still be oppressive, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are great examples. Oppressive governments wouldn't sadly be free if they didn't have religion. Religion is the excuse, politics is about power.
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
@Kwek00 I'd like to as supplement link this from a well known skeptic and for that matter atheist https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4076
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Soossie
[quote]Reality?? Has science proven what is real and what is not?? [/quote]
Honestly? That's pretty much the goal scientific fields? To get an understanding of what is real and what is not real. This may be a dumb example, but I was recently watching "man of steel" which is a superman adaptation. In the story, the young Clark Kent (superman for the innitated) saves a schoolbus that has driven off the bridge into the river. Clark (in the story) is an alien that gets some super strength powers because of the sun in our planetary system. And he's trying to hide from the rest of the world, because his mom and dad that adopted him are afraid he'll be caught fo scientific experiences. Annyway, he saves the children and one of the children sees him using his powers.
In the follow up scene, the mother of the kid that has seen it all, is talking to Clarks' parents that adopted him. According to the mother it's a sign of "God". Because this is not "the norm" and these people are living in a verry religious neighbourhood, the mom links this directly to a "devine" thing. While the vieuwer knows that this is not the case. Now, what the vieuwer knows is of course also fiction. But the mom in the story, believes in God, and everything that falls out of the "norm" has the potential to be perceived as "devine" or "godly" because in these societies "God" solves the impossible.
This behavior can be spotted in a lot of religious circles. There are sightings of phenomena around the world that are said to be a sign of "God". Then science steps in, and starts looking at the phenomena closer. And they do research, and find a more objective reason why the phenomena is going on. Till this day people the believe in certain things: ghosts, leylines, wicka, magic, god, ... you name it, have the tendency to point to these believes when something out of the "norm" pops up. That's how cults start, and that's one of the things science can help us out with. Because these things can only be perceived as "supernatural" if people "pressupose" that these supernatural things are "real".
[quote]Putting foot down and insisting in a bit of temporary information (which we can easily mistake with knowledge) does not educate, or improve anything... insisting on being right about what you consider reality, is against science... [/quote]
It's not "insisisting" on being right. It's about being right. You can challenge anny scientist by doing research. That's also why I support HippyJs' example about Ms. Curry. She believes scientists in her community aren't openminded, and are having a tunnel vision. This is what absolutely needs to be avoided. Science has a human aspect, and it may never become dogmatic. But if a "huge group of people" "believe" a certain finding to be "right" and it doesn't allow other people to research it annymore. Then we have a problem, and a new "dogmatism" comes to the world.
This is a human thing to do. Look at the US and certain political conversations. The gun-debate, for instance. People wave with "the constitution" as if it's a "holy document". It becomes "dogmatic" for those that don't even want to have a discussion about guns. Which is weird for a person like me. Because the "founding fathers" are "liberals" (in the sense that most of them followed the englightenment). And the enlightenment values are heavily against dogma. The constitution isn't "set in stone", but those who feel their rights are infrightened upon just by talkng about it, elevate the consitutition to a "dogmatic" document that can't be changed (even tough it was changed before... like "slavery").
You should also watch out to not fall into the santa claus argument. Over here we say "santa" brings gifts to the children that were nice the entire year during christmas time. Children are tought to believe in santa, and it brings them a lot of joy and happiness. But after a while we need to teach our children that "santa" ain't real. Some of these children are really sad, because why would "parents" lie to them. They haven't figured out yet the joy that it gave at some point, and that they have to grow up. A 33 year old person that still believes in santa, can be a really problematic thing in society. Can you only imagine how this person would behave? Because "ideas" and "believes" do impact your personality and identity. So yes, "reality" intrudes in "happiness" at times. Just like fat people that consider themselves slim, or dictators that desperatly keep out all messages that don't stroke with how good everything is. "Reality" can be a really painfull thing, but not learning to coop with it is just as problematic.
[quote]Reality?? Has science proven what is real and what is not?? [/quote]
Honestly? That's pretty much the goal scientific fields? To get an understanding of what is real and what is not real. This may be a dumb example, but I was recently watching "man of steel" which is a superman adaptation. In the story, the young Clark Kent (superman for the innitated) saves a schoolbus that has driven off the bridge into the river. Clark (in the story) is an alien that gets some super strength powers because of the sun in our planetary system. And he's trying to hide from the rest of the world, because his mom and dad that adopted him are afraid he'll be caught fo scientific experiences. Annyway, he saves the children and one of the children sees him using his powers.
In the follow up scene, the mother of the kid that has seen it all, is talking to Clarks' parents that adopted him. According to the mother it's a sign of "God". Because this is not "the norm" and these people are living in a verry religious neighbourhood, the mom links this directly to a "devine" thing. While the vieuwer knows that this is not the case. Now, what the vieuwer knows is of course also fiction. But the mom in the story, believes in God, and everything that falls out of the "norm" has the potential to be perceived as "devine" or "godly" because in these societies "God" solves the impossible.
This behavior can be spotted in a lot of religious circles. There are sightings of phenomena around the world that are said to be a sign of "God". Then science steps in, and starts looking at the phenomena closer. And they do research, and find a more objective reason why the phenomena is going on. Till this day people the believe in certain things: ghosts, leylines, wicka, magic, god, ... you name it, have the tendency to point to these believes when something out of the "norm" pops up. That's how cults start, and that's one of the things science can help us out with. Because these things can only be perceived as "supernatural" if people "pressupose" that these supernatural things are "real".
[quote]Putting foot down and insisting in a bit of temporary information (which we can easily mistake with knowledge) does not educate, or improve anything... insisting on being right about what you consider reality, is against science... [/quote]
It's not "insisisting" on being right. It's about being right. You can challenge anny scientist by doing research. That's also why I support HippyJs' example about Ms. Curry. She believes scientists in her community aren't openminded, and are having a tunnel vision. This is what absolutely needs to be avoided. Science has a human aspect, and it may never become dogmatic. But if a "huge group of people" "believe" a certain finding to be "right" and it doesn't allow other people to research it annymore. Then we have a problem, and a new "dogmatism" comes to the world.
This is a human thing to do. Look at the US and certain political conversations. The gun-debate, for instance. People wave with "the constitution" as if it's a "holy document". It becomes "dogmatic" for those that don't even want to have a discussion about guns. Which is weird for a person like me. Because the "founding fathers" are "liberals" (in the sense that most of them followed the englightenment). And the enlightenment values are heavily against dogma. The constitution isn't "set in stone", but those who feel their rights are infrightened upon just by talkng about it, elevate the consitutition to a "dogmatic" document that can't be changed (even tough it was changed before... like "slavery").
You should also watch out to not fall into the santa claus argument. Over here we say "santa" brings gifts to the children that were nice the entire year during christmas time. Children are tought to believe in santa, and it brings them a lot of joy and happiness. But after a while we need to teach our children that "santa" ain't real. Some of these children are really sad, because why would "parents" lie to them. They haven't figured out yet the joy that it gave at some point, and that they have to grow up. A 33 year old person that still believes in santa, can be a really problematic thing in society. Can you only imagine how this person would behave? Because "ideas" and "believes" do impact your personality and identity. So yes, "reality" intrudes in "happiness" at times. Just like fat people that consider themselves slim, or dictators that desperatly keep out all messages that don't stroke with how good everything is. "Reality" can be a really painfull thing, but not learning to coop with it is just as problematic.
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
@Kwek00 which is grand, but science hasn't shown for sure there's no God or anything supernatural, just that's not been found to have evidence or is unfalsifiable. We don't have proof of extraterrestrial life, but that does not mean they don't exist on another galaxy.
@Kwek00
Lolol... yes, you are right... that was one bad example... I'm sorry... but you are doing it again... you are trying to change me... or educate me??
Let me ask you a question...
What will you (human) do with the knowledge that you believe science proves to be real??
Lolol... yes, you are right... that was one bad example... I'm sorry... but you are doing it again... you are trying to change me... or educate me??
Let me ask you a question...
What will you (human) do with the knowledge that you believe science proves to be real??
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@CharlieZ [quote]They have, as all humans, failures, no doubt.[/quote]
Thanks for agreeing with me.
I'm saying that if you elovate the scientific method to a utopian vision, that you open yourself up for counter attacks. Do you want to read HippieJs attacks on this point in particulair together with me Charlie?
We can also go back into the history of science, and look at all the people that either falsified or actively tried to get other scientists work destroyed because it wouldn't agree with theirs. Humans have problems, they come up at times. By being unnuanced and selling the utopian vision to people, they will have a nice opening to attack you on this.
At the moment you have a lot of work... You are going to explain to me what is "real science", "how believes don't influence reality" and if you want we can add this one on our list. I'm open for it? If you lived closer by, you could come over, we'll have a drink, and then we start with it. And I could be seriously wrong here, but I've yet to be given a good reason why.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
I'm saying that if you elovate the scientific method to a utopian vision, that you open yourself up for counter attacks. Do you want to read HippieJs attacks on this point in particulair together with me Charlie?
We can also go back into the history of science, and look at all the people that either falsified or actively tried to get other scientists work destroyed because it wouldn't agree with theirs. Humans have problems, they come up at times. By being unnuanced and selling the utopian vision to people, they will have a nice opening to attack you on this.
At the moment you have a lot of work... You are going to explain to me what is "real science", "how believes don't influence reality" and if you want we can add this one on our list. I'm open for it? If you lived closer by, you could come over, we'll have a drink, and then we start with it. And I could be seriously wrong here, but I've yet to be given a good reason why.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Soossie
I'm trying to interact with you by conversation. That means that I'm giving you data, and you give me data. We both absorb data, and look which parts we consider "valid" and which parts we consider "invalid". If you say something really "valid" and I never looked at it that way, then I will think about this, and this will probably "change me". That's what information does, it changes people. That's why I think it's better to have information that is objectively true instead of a fantasy. But if you are afraid to be changed, then I think you can only do that by living in a unhabbited area, without an internect connection, and without books or information from others. Because change is a permanent part of life. Herakleitos said: "you can never go into the same river twice".
What I would do with it really depends what I'm doing with my life. If I was engineer, and science found out how microwaves work... maybe I would make a microwave oven? Or when science proves that silicium has the potential to create energy if light shines on it, maybe I would create solarpowercells? I don't know, it really depends on my background and my inspiration. Something that fascinates me for instance, is that people have the tendencies to hold believes of groups that they don't identify with (psychology). And sociologists often do measurements in the groups where a number of people hold those believes and in the groups they consider to be "criminal" or "terrorists". And then we get a more "nuanced" vieuw. And when in my surroundings someone argues that all muslims are terrorists, then I can take out my books (and I do have a lot of books) and cite scholar articles of people that actually measured these things. And point out their fallacies. Because they fixated themselves on the examples they deem "bad" to paint the entire poppulation as being "awfull". And that is a "human" thing to do, but something we need to be aware of. Science doesnt support that thinking at all, we have objective measurements that seriously go against the "believe". If you want to know what this believe system does, if we let it run it's course without having objective ideas that go against it? Do I need to tell you what problems it might cause?
I'm trying to interact with you by conversation. That means that I'm giving you data, and you give me data. We both absorb data, and look which parts we consider "valid" and which parts we consider "invalid". If you say something really "valid" and I never looked at it that way, then I will think about this, and this will probably "change me". That's what information does, it changes people. That's why I think it's better to have information that is objectively true instead of a fantasy. But if you are afraid to be changed, then I think you can only do that by living in a unhabbited area, without an internect connection, and without books or information from others. Because change is a permanent part of life. Herakleitos said: "you can never go into the same river twice".
What I would do with it really depends what I'm doing with my life. If I was engineer, and science found out how microwaves work... maybe I would make a microwave oven? Or when science proves that silicium has the potential to create energy if light shines on it, maybe I would create solarpowercells? I don't know, it really depends on my background and my inspiration. Something that fascinates me for instance, is that people have the tendencies to hold believes of groups that they don't identify with (psychology). And sociologists often do measurements in the groups where a number of people hold those believes and in the groups they consider to be "criminal" or "terrorists". And then we get a more "nuanced" vieuw. And when in my surroundings someone argues that all muslims are terrorists, then I can take out my books (and I do have a lot of books) and cite scholar articles of people that actually measured these things. And point out their fallacies. Because they fixated themselves on the examples they deem "bad" to paint the entire poppulation as being "awfull". And that is a "human" thing to do, but something we need to be aware of. Science doesnt support that thinking at all, we have objective measurements that seriously go against the "believe". If you want to know what this believe system does, if we let it run it's course without having objective ideas that go against it? Do I need to tell you what problems it might cause?
@Kwek00
[quote]That's what information does, it changes people.[/quote]
No, it does not... information on its own does not change anything... however, when it is processed to knowledge, then it might...
You keep saying onjectively true... exactly, truths is objective. I have mine, and you have yours... what can say which truth is closer to reality is science... where science, according to its nature, keeps bringing new and more advanced information...
[quote]But if you are afraid to be changed, then I think you can only do that by living in a unhabbited area, without an internect connection, and without books or information from others. Because change is a permanent part of life. Herakleitos said: "you can never go into the same river twice". [/quote]
Where did you get that?? Who said I was afraid of change?? I always believed that change is a blessing... please think about what I say, and do not process it in your mind wrongly... I have read enough books and please do not tell me where I should live or not...
[quote]If I was engineer, and science found out how microwaves work... maybe I would make a microwave oven? Or when science proves that silicium has the potential to create energy if light shines on it, maybe I would create solarpowercells? I don't know, it really depends on my background and my inspiration[/quote]
Interesting.... exactly what I thought you'd do with that knowledge...
Is this the ultimate use of knowledge??
[quote]That's what information does, it changes people.[/quote]
No, it does not... information on its own does not change anything... however, when it is processed to knowledge, then it might...
You keep saying onjectively true... exactly, truths is objective. I have mine, and you have yours... what can say which truth is closer to reality is science... where science, according to its nature, keeps bringing new and more advanced information...
[quote]But if you are afraid to be changed, then I think you can only do that by living in a unhabbited area, without an internect connection, and without books or information from others. Because change is a permanent part of life. Herakleitos said: "you can never go into the same river twice". [/quote]
Where did you get that?? Who said I was afraid of change?? I always believed that change is a blessing... please think about what I say, and do not process it in your mind wrongly... I have read enough books and please do not tell me where I should live or not...
[quote]If I was engineer, and science found out how microwaves work... maybe I would make a microwave oven? Or when science proves that silicium has the potential to create energy if light shines on it, maybe I would create solarpowercells? I don't know, it really depends on my background and my inspiration[/quote]
Interesting.... exactly what I thought you'd do with that knowledge...
Is this the ultimate use of knowledge??
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Soossie What is your defenition of knowledge? So that we are on the same page when I respond to that one. I want to make sure that I'm not talking next to your point.
I'm not sure about the "truth" remark. But I think I agree with you, if what you are saying is that "truth" needs to agree with "objective truths" (or what coorelates with reality). We can both hold truths, that have no foundation in reality. Look at certain conversations in this thread, all actors have a "truth", but only a few of them are rooted in objective reality. However (and this important) we are all susceptible (including myself, for those the believe that I'm a source of objective truths, lol, think again!) of having a truth that is not rooted in objective reality. We can also not hold two truths that oppose eachother, at least one of them have to be wrong.
No one said you were afraid of change. But I find it strange that a person in a conversation brings this remark up? Why would you bring it up?
"the ulitmate use of knowledge", I'll leave that to philosophers.
For me knowledge is the building block for thoughts. I rather have my building blocks to have substance and are considered to be correct. Else you might end up creating another fantasy. I can take you around the world if you want? We can look at poppulations (or segments of poppulations) that incorporated ideas that are not "objectively" true, and build entire systems on those ideas. They are pretty hard to maintain tough, they need to keep "reality" (what is objectively true) out of the poppulation at all times. It's quite oppressive in most examples.
I'm not sure about the "truth" remark. But I think I agree with you, if what you are saying is that "truth" needs to agree with "objective truths" (or what coorelates with reality). We can both hold truths, that have no foundation in reality. Look at certain conversations in this thread, all actors have a "truth", but only a few of them are rooted in objective reality. However (and this important) we are all susceptible (including myself, for those the believe that I'm a source of objective truths, lol, think again!) of having a truth that is not rooted in objective reality. We can also not hold two truths that oppose eachother, at least one of them have to be wrong.
No one said you were afraid of change. But I find it strange that a person in a conversation brings this remark up? Why would you bring it up?
"the ulitmate use of knowledge", I'll leave that to philosophers.
For me knowledge is the building block for thoughts. I rather have my building blocks to have substance and are considered to be correct. Else you might end up creating another fantasy. I can take you around the world if you want? We can look at poppulations (or segments of poppulations) that incorporated ideas that are not "objectively" true, and build entire systems on those ideas. They are pretty hard to maintain tough, they need to keep "reality" (what is objectively true) out of the poppulation at all times. It's quite oppressive in most examples.
@Kwek00
[quote]What is your defenition of knowledge[/quote]
Thank you... information is a refined form of data .. it helps to understand the meaning of something....
Knowledge, is awareness and understanding of an information in a form of experience... which can lead us towards conclusions..
[quote]We can also not hold two truths that oppose eachother, at least one of them have to be wrong. [/quote]
Don't we stand in two different spots in universe with different coordinate points?? Who says we can't have two different truths, opposing each other?? None of those truths can be denied...
[quote]the ulitmate use of knowledge", I'll leave that to philosophers.[/quote]
Lol.. did you know that philosophy and logic stand above mathematic?? And are more advanced??
This is now one step above knowledge, which is wisdom...
Now, we come to another difference in here which is between knowledge and wisdom..
Knowledge is about facts and ideas that we acquire through studies, experience, research, and observation (a processed information), where wisdom is the ability to discern, and judge the aspects of knowledge, and deciding which ones are true, or longer lasting and most importantly, applicable to life...
The vision of science is wisdom...
Amen!!
[quote]What is your defenition of knowledge[/quote]
Thank you... information is a refined form of data .. it helps to understand the meaning of something....
Knowledge, is awareness and understanding of an information in a form of experience... which can lead us towards conclusions..
[quote]We can also not hold two truths that oppose eachother, at least one of them have to be wrong. [/quote]
Don't we stand in two different spots in universe with different coordinate points?? Who says we can't have two different truths, opposing each other?? None of those truths can be denied...
[quote]the ulitmate use of knowledge", I'll leave that to philosophers.[/quote]
Lol.. did you know that philosophy and logic stand above mathematic?? And are more advanced??
This is now one step above knowledge, which is wisdom...
Now, we come to another difference in here which is between knowledge and wisdom..
Knowledge is about facts and ideas that we acquire through studies, experience, research, and observation (a processed information), where wisdom is the ability to discern, and judge the aspects of knowledge, and deciding which ones are true, or longer lasting and most importantly, applicable to life...
The vision of science is wisdom...
Amen!!
1-25 of 38