eis

20 ms·

181.
by eis 4y ago
Just because you claim honest news as truth does not make it that.
182.
by eis 4y ago
Some people have blind faith in scientific claims. That's not science though and it does not invalidate science. A big principle of science is to do exactly the opposite and not blindly trust in something. Every system gets corrupted b
183.
by eis 4y ago
That was my point. Outside logic anything goes . It is pointless to argue about it.
184.
by eis 4y ago
Uhm what? You can believe something is true but it does not make it objectively true. Science is not believing in the sense of religion. Science is about curiousity and exploring ideas that one thinks might be true. The next step is to tr
185.
by eis 4y ago
One can argue though that dimensions themselves are a limit. Going around in a circle is infinite in 2D but limited in the third dimension. So one would ask what about the N+1th dimension? Are there infinite dimensions? Maybe infinity is in
186.
by eis 4y ago
> I'm not religious and I also don't accept the axioms that the Bible is the word of God, that anything God says is true, etc. We share the goal / ideal of a moral code that is based on simpler, tighter axioms and sou
187.
by eis 4y ago
> The Quran challenges anyone to bring something like it. The challenge is open. Seeminly easy right? It's gone unchallenged all these millenia. What's that supposed to prove? I know I cannot perform miracles. WTF?
188.
by eis 4y ago
Another video with wrong conclusions. It boils down to claiming "there is something written in the book which could not have been known at that time and place" which is just a claim with zero proof. We have no way of telling that.
189.
by eis 4y ago
> Look up the Islamic Isnad system. I did but I didn't see anything that convinced me. It really is hearsay. > Furthermore, if that's how you're going to view the world, then you can't accept any news a
190.
by eis 4y ago
Your second link validates my statement. You can absolutely trademark generic terms. There are limitations though. Try to create a smartphone or computer company called Apple and see what'll happen. You can't trademark the word Ap
191.
by eis 4y ago
IMHO it is equally hard to wrap our head around the concept of inifity (has always been there) versus there being a start or end to time and space. It's a bit weird because if we try to think about the end of space our brain immediatel
192.
by eis 4y ago
That is not true. Easiest example is Apple.
193.
by eis 4y ago
Possible name collision: "alpaca" is an animal: https://www.getalpaca.io/_next/static/media/logo.30fd61b8.pn... :)
194.
by eis 4y ago
> I'd like to clarify what I'm arguing here. I'm not arguing that only religion can provide a moral code. I am sorry if I misunderstoo your position or possibly mixed it up with what al_mandi said. He was the one w
195.
by eis 4y ago
> However, you play around with words the same question always remains what was before. > Where did this super dense black hole come from? What caused it to be? What was it before it was a black hole? These theories are just
196.
by eis 4y ago
Not quite. There is still the possibility that at some point in the future we will be able to figure it out unless it can be proven that it is impossible. The only observation is that currently we don't know. Could it be the spaghetti
197.
by eis 4y ago
> I don't quite see where you provided examples before this comment, sorry, could you repeat them? I looked through the thread and see you asserting we don't need religions anymore, but not where you give concrete worked e
198.
by eis 4y ago
> All I argue is that science doesn't give you one at all. But I have given you examples of arriving at moral rules through arguments that are not based on religious thought. > Proving this would take at least a whole
199.
by eis 4y ago
> That video was a good start, the fine tuning argument, the fact that something cannot come out of nothing, etc. No it was terrible. In another comment I explained why the fine tuning argument has been refuted because there are
200.
by eis 4y ago
> We apply logic where it applies, and we use other sources of evidence for where it doesn't apply If you leave the realm of logic then really anything can be claimed. I claim there is a pink machine outside our universe whi
201.
by eis 4y ago
> It does make sense. Those three sources of evidence can have some overlap. We cannot for example retest that an ancient battle took place even though we know it did. Not everything is testable over and over again. Same applies her
202.
by eis 4y ago
>> That any theory that cannot be proven should not be paid much attention to > So we continue to live our life as animals? What? How does yours follow from mine? I absolutely can't follow your way of thinking. Pleas
203.
by eis 4y ago
No you didn't. The specific thread here of the conversation is not about scientism anymore. But if you want to go back, the original discussion was about science vs religion and not scientism. Nobody in here claimed they adhere to blin
204.
by eis 4y ago
> It is, because you can verify the claims of a holy man if you go meditate in a cave for a couple of decades. This is the most ridicolous thing I've read in a decade on HN. Congrats I guess? You can readily go and verify a
205.
by eis 4y ago
There is no "western" science. It's just science and it works the same wherever you are. Same as there is no "western mathematics". Why are you and a few other people on the side of religion argueing so much against
206.
by eis 4y ago
> The “war” between religion and science as you are attempting to draw here, is in fact a fantasy, an illusion, the fruit of a tragic misunderstanding. The fact of the matter is that persecution of scientists based on religious
207.
by eis 4y ago
> Science is not a replacement for religion because science is not a moral code. It can tell you how something can be done, but not what is right or wrong to do. Attempts to develop such moral codes by reasoning from first principle
208.
by eis 4y ago
> Which is why you evaluate those claims and see what evidence they bring forth. We have a lot of proof and evidence in Islam. Some are listed on www.provingislam.com Please bring a single proof of god here in your own words. I h
209.
by eis 4y ago
Correct. We can't prove the existance and we can't disprove the existance. Either side would be wrong. Religion claims there is a god. Science says just we don't know. It is pointless to be on the side of religion because as
210.
by eis 4y ago
No, it's just complete bullshit. Zero reasoning, just wild claims. Your argument with me started out not that bad and I tried to use sound logic to see who might be right. But as the argument went on you drifted more into babble, left

More ›