it's also why philosophy is dying out, — Seagully

Because philosophy should push against the boundaries of scientific knowledge and most people are scientifically illiterate.

ou made the claim and I should back it up for you...How old are you? — NOS4A2

Do you want me to tell you how to wipe your arse too?
You show such a degree of ignorance. I am not going to waste my time on you.

For circular motion by the traveler, the two twins Do agree with one another. — Mike Fontenot

For the traveler traveling away or the observer staying behind there is no difference in their relative speed so they age at the same rate.

Tell us more about the parallels between Trump’s America and Nazi germany. — NOS4A2

Google it man..do your own homework.

Special relativity says that, for two perpetually-inertial observers (meaning that they have never accelerated, and never will accelerate), they EACH will conclude that the other is ageing more slowly. (I believe that all physicists believe that). — Mike Fontenot

Where do you get that from? You and I are 'perpetually-inertial observers' and do not age differently.

Like I said, a moral panic. Trump is their folk devil. It is with scary stories and promises of a coming terror that they justify their authoritarianism and megalomania. — NOS4A2

Seriously..how old are you man?

That's false, there's nothing scientific about it at all. If it were scientific you could show me the process. — Metaphysician Undercover

You know what an hypothesis is right? A theory for which process has not yet been demonstrated. If they could show you the process it would no longer be an hypothesis but a scientific fact.

I think you're confusing "scientific" with "scientism". — Metaphysician Undercover

No you are thinking of Scientology.

speak in terms of fields — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes empty fields. Zero-point field. You know what zero is right?

To say that life came from dead matter is not scientific at all, — Metaphysician Undercover

It is the scientific belief. Or are you familiar with another scientific hypothesis?

One school of thought is that he says that she is ageing more slowly than he is, on both the outbound leg and on the inbound leg, — Mike Fontenot

I don't know that much about physics but don't they both age at the same rate as they are traveling at the same relative speed? Were he however be traveling in a circle around her he would be aging slower than her.

Isn't an atomic clock that has returned from the space station absolutely behind in time?

Does the prospect of a unknown future refutation make the strongest argument weak — ZzzoneiroCosm

Without argumentation an argument can not be strong.

There are good arguments to say God must be benevolent — Devans99

What are these arguments?

But nobody sends anyone to hell in Buddhism, — Wayfarer

Buddhism believes you create your own hell.

Without our language, we are not separated from God. — Athena

Our language is what separates us from God.

The whole animal kingdom has knowing without words (set of rules for interpreting). — Athena

You know absolutely nothing about biology do you?
Not true. Animal vocalizations are meant to convey information. So in that respect it is a language of sorts. They are sound packages with meaning (words).
They would not have evolved vocal chords if they had no use for them.

[

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-george-monbiot-misinformation?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&fbclid=IwAR3DdI1mSbzqTDb5rQIEjj9_JugbF-s8OKXvZOEwLiMQAJbFqkxwXaB_zwI
Corporate Fascism.
"""Its purpose is to portray the interests of billionaires as the interests of the common people, to wage war against trade unions and beat down attempts to regulate business and tax the very rich. Now the people who helped run this machine are shaping the government."""

there's always the same amount of knowledge to learn — Seagully

The unknown is infinitely large, so our knowledge thereof is infinitely small.

[

a dogmatic approach to knowledge- and certainty-pronouncements? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Dogmatism should only be used in religion.

an argument to us that we cannot refute
— ZzzoneiroCosm

An argument need not be refuted (by us). An argument needs to be demonstrated.

Philosophy look into the distance from the pedestal of scientific knowledge.

What lays in front of us, in the "future", always? The unknown.
Life has a will to discover and explore. Curiosity, questioning.

Although this may end up bringing the question, "is this will the prime mover?" — Seagully

Yes, fear of the unknown has always been a prime mover.
(Self)consciousness created the fear of not knowing.

"What can be said can and should always be said more and more simply and clearly"
~Karl Popper — Pantagruel

So that even the dumb fuckers can understand it.

Every ocean is comprised of many droplets of water. — Seagully

You can't have a society without social animals.

It’s more like a limiting factor on a particular process. — Possibility

it might be limited but it works. Get it right, you live. Get it wrong you die. Simple. Evolution works like a dumb idiot. If he gets it right it is by pure chance.

Truth can not be opposed by truth

Knowledge (unverified) is belief.
Only empiricism can verify this belief.
Only once it is verified (empirically) to be 'true' we may consider it knowledge.
Knowledge is information.

Might that be culturally different from a male god, the only god, making a man of mud and the woman from his rib? — Athena

Might things have been different if we didn't have the God of Abraham religions and only a male voice until the present? — Athena

These are patriarchal concepts and totally false. Modern biology has already shown that men are made out of woman. Prior to sexual reproduction you had non-sexual reproduction. Life created life without sexual intervention. The male was created out of the non-sexual organism for the purposes of sexual reproduction.

↪ovdtogtI meant how does it know what result is desired before the process of trial and error begins? — Possibility

It doesn't. If you get it wrong you die. Only the ones that get it 'right' survive. Survival of the 'fittest'. Trial and error. Error, you dead.

Google:
Biological evolution can be considered as a form of trial and error. Random mutations and sexual genetic variations can be viewed as trials and poor reproductive fitness, or lack of improved fitness, as the error.

how does ‘natural selection’ know of this result? — Possibility

'It' stays 'fit' long enough to replicate.

I think Aristotle was referring to [homo]'philia'.
— ovdtogt

What justification do you have for saying that? — mcdoodle

These Greek philosophers were really into their young proteges. Literally :blush:

This has always struck me as an absurdum reductio argument for the impossibility of infinite past time. — Devans99

I totally agree with you. That is why I have stopped to try to figure out Eternity. That is a sure way to end up in an asylum for the mentally insane.

What do you think that ‘natural selection’ is? — Possibility

trial and error.

Evolution is the process of natural selection.

Yes with your Metaphysician' mind you must know far more than the brightest scientists working on that problem as we speak.
What is that 'nothing' then? Give us your hypothesis.

Life evolved out of chemical reactions. — Possibility

Yes through 'natural selection' which you described as a nemesis.

the fact that some people think that the universe went from no life to life simply indicates how little they know about the universe. — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't know we were discussing religion. I have no problem with that but you could have warned that your first principle is believing there is a living God creator
I was following the Scientific route. But I can do both.

I don't think anything ever comes from nothing. Isn't that a fundamental truth? — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you know anything about Quantum fluctuations in a vacuum? Google it.

Life didn't "come alive". That implies that there was a time when life was not alive, prior to coming alive, and that's contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover

No that implies there was once 'no life'. How do you go from 'no life' to life?

So the second absolute truth is that there cannot be only a single thing that exists in this reality now, there is at least a fundamental duality, there are at least two things that exist. — leo

For something to emerge from nothingness, it and it's exact opposite have to emerge simultaneously. This is the duality of things.

It refutes your claim that life evolved out of dead matter. — Metaphysician Undercover

How did life become 'alive' then?

Something can exist since all eternity, — god must be atheist

Whenever I start to imagine eternity I stop somewhere along the line.
I can't imagine eternity, so it does not exist.