Cognitive_Shift said:

  i can't get around your double negatives.  What exactly are you asking in understandable word choice?

---

DieCommie said:

iThink said:

Cognitive_Shift said:

iThink said:

No, i was using it as an example of the fact that you can't disprove anything.

---

Disprove the acceleration of gravity on earth at sea level is 9.80 meters per second per second...

---

Sorry, you can't disprove anything exists.

---

As I said earlier, you cannot prove anything exists either.  Proof is not possible with empirical science, its only possible within an axiomatic system.

With empirical science you have evidence.  You can have strong or weak evidence for the existence of something or against the existence of something.  It is symmetrical in that regard.

---

iThink said:

First of all give me an example of something that exists that hasn't been proven scientifically.

Lastly, yes they are all interpretations, but here is why you can put more faith in scientific interpretations. The very fact that they allow us to sense things competently enough to survive, not to mention things like airplanes, space shuttles, medicine, and the internet which rely on this "interpretation" of reality.

---

random_wanderer said:

iThink said:

First of all give me an example of something that exists that hasn't been proven scientifically.

Lastly, yes they are all interpretations, but here is why you can put more faith in scientific interpretations. The very fact that they allow us to sense things competently enough to survive, not to mention things like airplanes, space shuttles, medicine, and the internet which rely on this "interpretation" of reality.

---

I would argue that scientific interpretation is relative to the context of which it applies.

In other words, if science can only prove things to exist, then its reasoning methods cannot possibly be applicable to things that are ruled by uncertainly principles such as whether life has meaning or not.  It is like trying to measure the number of waves in the ocean with a thermometer.

---

random_wanderer said:

iThink said:

First of all give me an example of something that exists that hasn't been proven scientifically.

Lastly, yes they are all interpretations, but here is why you can put more faith in scientific interpretations. The very fact that they allow us to sense things competently enough to survive, not to mention things like airplanes, space shuttles, medicine, and the internet which rely on this "interpretation" of reality.

---

I would argue that scientific interpretation is relative to the context of which it applies.

In other words, if science can only prove things to exist...

---

random_wanderer said:

How might you disprove the hypothesis that life has...[meaning using scientific methods?]

---

random_wanderer said:

[How might you disprove the hypothesis that life has]...no meaning using scientific methods?

---

iThink said:

random_wanderer said:

iThink said:

First of all give me an example of something that exists that hasn't been proven scientifically.

Lastly, yes they are all interpretations, but here is why you can put more faith in scientific interpretations. The very fact that they allow us to sense things competently enough to survive, not to mention things like airplanes, space shuttles, medicine, and the internet which rely on this "interpretation" of reality.

---

I would argue that scientific interpretation is relative to the context of which it applies.

In other words, if science can only prove things to exist, then its reasoning methods cannot possibly be applicable to things that are ruled by uncertainly principles such as whether life has meaning or not.  It is like trying to measure the number of waves in the ocean with a thermometer.

---

There is nothing more than the "context" science applies to. To assume there is is nothing more than a baseless assumption.

---

Have i, within this debate presented a claim that there is something more than the context science applies to, as fact?

iThink you are contradicting yourself again. 

You make a statement that cannot be proven as if it were fact, and then go on to state that assumptions with regard to the nature of reality are baseless. 

I would argue that it is an assumption to claim that "There is nothing more than the "context" science applies to".  How can you prove this?  You have already agreed that being unable to prove something does not mean that it does not exist.

I understand the practicality of what you are saying, this is the reason why i made my point about science being relative to the context it applies.  What i am saying there applies both to people using science to try to prove the unprovable as well as disprove the unprovable.  Within the context of reality and whether life has meaning, trying to prove them is no different from trying to disprove them.

edit: speeellling

Poid said:

random_wanderer said:

How might you disprove the hypothesis that life has...[meaning using scientific methods?]

---

One would have to discover all of life's qualities--if meaning is not found to be one of life's qualities, then that would mean that life has no meaning.

random_wanderer said:

[How might you disprove the hypothesis that life has]...no meaning using scientific methods?

---

One would have to discover all of life's qualities--if meaning is found to be one of life's qualities, then that would mean that life has meaning.

---

random_wanderer said:

iThink said:

random_wanderer said:

iThink said:

First of all give me an example of something that exists that hasn't been proven scientifically.

Lastly, yes they are all interpretations, but here is why you can put more faith in scientific interpretations. The very fact that they allow us to sense things competently enough to survive, not to mention things like airplanes, space shuttles, medicine, and the internet which rely on this "interpretation" of reality.

---

I would argue that scientific interpretation is relative to the context of which it applies.

In other words, if science can only prove things to exist, then its reasoning methods cannot possibly be applicable to things that are ruled by uncertainly principles such as whether life has meaning or not.  It is like trying to measure the number of waves in the ocean with a thermometer.

---

There is nothing more than the "context" science applies to. To assume there is is nothing more than a baseless assumption.

---

Have i, within this debate presented a claim that there is something more than the context science applies to, as fact?

iThink you are contradicting yourself again. 

You make a statement that cannot be proven as if it were fact, and then go on to state that assumptions with regard to the nature of reality are baseless. 

I would argue that it is an assumption to claim that "There is nothing more than the "context" science applies to".  How can you prove this?  You have already agreed that being unable to prove something does not mean that it does not exist.

I understand the practicality of what you are saying, this is the reason why i made my point about science being relative to the context it applies.  What i am saying there applies both to people using science to try to prove the unprovable as well as disprove the unprovable.  Within the context of reality and whether life has meaning, trying to prove them is no different from trying to disprove them.

edit: speeellling

---

random_wanderer said:

Poid said:

random_wanderer said:

How might you disprove the hypothesis that life has...[meaning using scientific methods?]

---

One would have to discover all of life's qualities--if meaning is not found to be one of life's qualities, then that would mean that life has no meaning.

random_wanderer said:

[How might you disprove the hypothesis that life has]...no meaning using scientific methods?

---

One would have to discover all of life's qualities--if meaning is found to be one of life's qualities, then that would mean that life has meaning.

---

Well i guess that is the challenge for people who want to prove to others whether life "has" or "has no" meaning, good luck to them!

---

iThink said:

random_wanderer said:

iThink said:

random_wanderer said:

I would argue that scientific interpretation is relative to the context of which it applies.

In other words, if science can only prove things to exist, then its reasoning methods cannot possibly be applicable to things that are ruled by uncertainly principles such as whether life has meaning or not.  It is like trying to measure the number of waves in the ocean with a thermometer.

---

There is nothing more than the "context" science applies to. To assume there is is nothing more than a baseless assumption.

---

Have i, within this debate presented a claim that there is something more than the context science applies to, as fact?

iThink you are contradicting yourself again. 

You make a statement that cannot be proven as if it were fact, and then go on to state that assumptions with regard to the nature of reality are baseless. 

I would argue that it is an assumption to claim that "There is nothing more than the "context" science applies to".  How can you prove this?  You have already agreed that being unable to prove something does not mean that it does not exist.

I understand the practicality of what you are saying, this is the reason why i made my point about science being relative to the context it applies.  What i am saying there applies both to people using science to try to prove the unprovable as well as disprove the unprovable.  Within the context of reality and whether life has meaning, trying to prove them is no different from trying to disprove them.

edit: speeellling

---

First of all yes, you did by saying science only applies to the "context" it applies to which implies there being more than one "context".

Secondly, how many times to I have to disprove this argument? Invoking inherent meaning is no different than invoking any sort of god/metaphysical concept for neither can be proven or disproved. Does this mean that it is dumb to be an atheist? No, because we flat out don't believe in these things just like we don't believe in the even more ridiculous statements like the "flying spaghetti monster.

On the other hand, if you are just bitching at me for claiming something is "certain" then stop. Everyone knows this, but we don't restructure the language to fit it.

I don't actually believe that I will "disprove" anything since it's impossible, the point of debating things like this is to show people that their beliefs are unfounded, never to "prove" something doesn't exist.

---

Re: First of all yes...
How does this imply such a thing?  I was speaking with reference and in reply to the contexts with which you had specified in the post before it...airplanes, space shuttles, medicine, the internet.

Re: Everyone knows this, but...
If everyone knows it then why not say it the way they mean it...as an Atheist who i imagine is very weary of anything remotely religious considering the extremism there is in the US, wouldnt you prefer...i cant prove God exists objectively but He is real for me and it doesnt matter to me what you believe as i would hope it doesnt matter to you what i believe...to the classic dogmatic belief pushing b/s that religious people speak all over your country?

Have you ever seen the film "inherit the wind"?  It is a classic! xxx

Brainstem said:

Do you think this is possible ?

---

That's what I'm asking you; IMO it's not possible, because if the whole of any given thing is meaningful, then that would mean that each of its parts must contribute to that meaning (or else the whole thing is not meaningful).


This is kind of like how any given part of a red ball is red.