Neo Agnosticism

[arunshanker]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

millions of ancestors in history may be RIGHT if they had claimed effects of supernatural powers.

"RIGHT" is in CAPs I am adding the "MAY" as well in CAPs that makes it better

 

[Nara]

....
I am actually a "on and off" type in this forum with flurry of intense activity for a short period of time
Time has come to switch off more so because not many seem to like the kind of posts I do.

Arun, don't go by the vocal objections to your posts, I am sure there are as many who like your posts. Feel free to come and go as you please, you will always have friends here, some who agree with your views, some not.

best wishes ...

 

[arunshanker]

Arun, don't go by the vocal objections to your posts, I am sure there are as many who like your posts. Feel free to come and go as you please, you will always have friends here, some who agree with your views, some not.

best wishes ...

Actually nobody vocally objected to my posts I just got the feeling not many like the style I adopt, I don't blame them

 

[C RAVI]

Actually nobody vocally objected to my posts I just got the feeling not many like the style I adopt, I don't blame them

Dear Mr.Arun,

AFA I am concerned, I didn't find anything wrong in your adopted style. I liked it. So fare in all the posts that's been exchanged here, I could find only the natural tone and cross questioning styles that persists in face to face arguments between the friends too.

The exchange of arguments bring out the best of the parties involved and that obviously leads to "Neeya-Naana", in most of the cases.

 

[kunjuppu]

Actually nobody vocally objected to my posts I just got the feeling not many like the style I adopt, I don't blame them

could be that your arguements were so convincing and water tight, that folks could not think of objections

 

[arunshanker]

could be that your arguements were so convincing and water tight, that folks could not think of objections

I am flattered!!! I bet it is not true

 

[suraju06]

Firstly I am not "harping" I am just posting what comes to my mind just as anybody
More importantly the thread is not about proof of the existence of God I have never asked for it If you read the first post on the thread- it is just views on Agnosticism
Could you elaborate on the "other holes" that scientific methods are themselves subject to
You have said "Dr Barani is repeatedly telling" Actually he is trying a one up instead of healthy discussion by attributing stong emotions of "hate" and speculating on the intellectual capacity of the poster. In fact he is also attributing what I have never said to me

About the other holes I give you here what has been posted in this thread earlier which speaks volumes for the holes."The waste bins of history are actually brimming with abundant discarded "facts" which turned out to be wrong or at least not exactly right. This leads to the school of thought that almost no fact is truly secure and permanent in cosmology." So you know this already.

Cheers.

 

[arunshanker]

About the other holes I give you here what has been posted in this thread earlier which speaks volumes for the holes."The waste bins of history are actually brimming with abundant discarded "facts" which turned out to be wrong or at least not exactly right. This leads to the school of thought that almost no fact is truly secure and permanent in cosmology." So you know this already.

Cheers.

That is unfair! you got that from my post!!

 

[suraju06]

Shri ArunShanker,

Since you posted in the other thread "God exists" also, I thought you might have tested the waters and then only started this thread. I find that you joined this forum much before me also. With my comparatively shorter association with this forum I would say that despite Shri Praveen having spelt out clearly that this forum is open to all and to all types of diverse views and opinions, there is a coordinated effort going on here to ensure that even under this General Discussions forum only those views which suit a set of extra-forum censors will be tolerated. So, I will suggest to you to choose between falling in line with the self-acclaimed super-moderators (a.k.a encraochers) or quitting this forum altogether.

I wonder if you will get any "friend" with broad outlook on the God question, from this forum now! May be you will have to trace out the Rishi who composed the naasadiya sookta

Dear Arun,

I was expecting this to come. You have expressed your views and those who have different views are arguing with you. Some times these arguments become heated exchanges and so far no one has told you any thing very mean. But beware of some self appointed sages here and their sage advice. It is their method to come pick up when you are in the thick of it and sympathise with you(telling you seriously in hushed voice that there is a conspiracy going against you) and then offer their sage advice in liberal doses which will include that q word 'quit'. They have a lot of grudges against the moderator, super moderator, extra forum censors etc., who are all purely the apparitions in their victimhood halucinations. I enjoyed the way you started this thread. The line of thinking exhibited in the first post was quite interesting. In later posts it somehow got derailed. You can still discuss agnosticism. Atheists think that it is a passing stage in their evolution. Theists think agnosticism is indecisive. They think they are people who prefer to wait for all the traffic in the road to cease so that they will cross it. Theists think they are not adequately daring to explore with other thought constructs different from what they are familiar with. You can leave all those red-herring arguments (another friend here would like to call them strawman arguments) behind and move ahead with your views as to why you think agnosticism is exciting. But beware of the sages here and their advice particularly the q word.

Cheers.

 

[suraju06]

That is unfair! you got that from my post!!

I believe cosmology employs scientific methods!!

 

[arunshanker]

I believe cosmology employs scientific methods!!

Of course I was just taking a "dig"

 

[arunshanker]

Dear Arun,

I was expecting this to come. You have expressed your views and those who have different views are arguing with you. Some times these arguments become heated exchanges and so far no one has told you any thing very mean. But beware of some self appointed sages here and their sage advice. It is their method to come pick up when you are in the thick of it and sympathise with you(telling you seriously in hushed voice that there is a conspiracy going against you) and then offer their sage advice in liberal doses which will include that q word 'quit'. They have a lot of grudges against the moderator, super moderator, extra forum censors etc., who are all purely the apparitions in their victimhood halucinations. I enjoyed the way you started this thread. The line of thinking exhibited in the first post was quite interesting. In later posts it somehow got derailed. You can still discuss agnosticism. Atheists think that it is a passing stage in their evolution. Theists think agnosticism is indecisive. They think they are people who prefer to wait for all the traffic in the road to cease so that they will cross it. Theists think they are not adequately daring to explore with other thought constructs different from what they are familiar with. You can leave all those red-herring arguments (another friend here would like to call them strawman arguments) behind and move ahead with your views as to why you think agnosticism is exciting. But beware of the sages here and their advice particularly the q word.

Cheers.

Thats OK

 

[suraju06]

Of course I was just taking a "dig"

I wanted to assure you that you were indeed "digging" well.

Cheers.

 

[arunshanker]

I wanted to assure you that you were indeed "digging" well.

Cheers.

Actually talking about the holes in scientific methods- The discarding of the facts were not entirely due to wrong methods but mostly due to the fact that observation instruments started to become more sophisticated

 

[arunshanker]

Again, you make my life very easy, my friend. Science doesn't always depend on "emphatic measurements and repeatable experiments". Try reading up on W and Z field particles. These were measured only ONCE, and that too they were "found" 1 in 100,000 of what they should be actually found, and two Scientists (Carlos Rubbia and Simon Von Der Meer) got Nobel Prizes in 1984 for them. Why didn't the Nobel committee demand the "repeatability" "emphatic measurement"? In essence, you accept a one time measurement claimed by someone with weakest possible evidence as Gospel Truth as long as the word Science was tossed in with that, whereas, you refuse to accept that millions of ancestors in history may be RIGHT if they had claimed effects of supernatural powers.

Any topic about agnoticism automatically involves proof or disproof of God. You started it, wanted to claim agnoticism is a better line to follow.

I read a about 5 -6 papers and I wrote a couple of emails to CERN and also the Nobel committee
Here is what I have gathered
"Wrong. Science depends on empirical and repeatable observations. In experimental sciences (like chemistry or physics), repeatable, repeated, measurements and experiments are central. In observational sciences (like ecology, geology, and astronomy), you can't always do experiments, but you can make multiple observations of different things by different techniques. Repeatability and predictability are the key components.

Try reading up on W and Z field particles. These were measured only ONCE,

Wrong. The neutral Z boson was initially observed at Gargamelle, then at both the UA1 and UA2 experiments, along with the charged W+ and W-.

and that too they were "found" 1 in 100,000 of what they should be actually found,

Wrong. The "1 in 100,000" is just the number of collision events which produced W's or Z's, as compared to all of the other kinds of interactions which can be produced.

two Scientists (Carlos Rubbia and Simon Von Der Meer) got Nobel Prizes in 1984 for them.

they received the Nobel because they were in charge of the discovery experiments. The massive weak vector bosons were an absolute solid prediction of the unified theory of electroweak interactions. If they had not been observed, it would have meant our basic understanding of particles was wrong.
A friend in SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and a couple of people in CERN have helped me get this info
Can you elaborate Dr. Barani

 

[ShivKC]

I read a about 5 -6 papers and I wrote a couple of emails to CERN and also the Nobel committee
Here is what I have gathered
"Wrong. Science depends on empirical and repeatable observations. In experimental sciences (like chemistry or physics), repeatable, repeated, measurements and experiments are central. In observational sciences (like ecology, geology, and astronomy), you can't always do experiments, but you can make multiple observations of different things by different techniques. Repeatability and predictability are the key components.

to prove god, i would go by the bench mark set by CERN, after all we are talking about god. but what surprises me is, the 2 set of rules (or may be 10 if we take all science divisions in to account) to define a proof.. proof is truth and it will have only one set of rules.

so, with all the confusions, let me know, what set of rules, we can have , so that we can work towards proving or disproving the existence of god.

btw, would be interested in taking a head on discussion with logics, to prove god? i asked this before, in another thread.

 

[arunshanker]

to define a proof.. proof is truth and it will have only one set of rules.

Proofs occur only in mathematics and logic, the concept of proof does not exist in science. Mathematics and logic are self-contained systems of propositions and arguments; however science is essentially empirical and is chiefly concerned with nature as it exists. The chief benchmark and standard of method of evaluation and assessment of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.

so, with all the confusions, let me know, what set of rules, we can have , so that we can work towards proving or disproving the existence of god.

I just dont know here but I have a feeling that taking the scientific approach to evidence God will not take us far

btw, would be interested in taking a head on discussion with logics, to prove god? i asked this before, in another thread.

Logic maybe

 

[ShivKC]

I read a about 5 -6 papers and I wrote a couple of emails to CERN and also the Nobel committee
Here is what I have gathered
"Wrong. Science depends on empirical and repeatable observations. In experimental sciences (like chemistry or physics), repeatable, repeated, measurements and experiments are central. i

Arun,lets try with this . tomorrow, a space craft lands in saturn looking out for humans living out there. one first day of landing they spotted a human being, but never to be found any time later. what would the claim of science be.. man spotted or not?

there was a good analogy, from the link which you gave sometimes before.

Pink elephant doesnt exists in this world.. a statement.but when once single Pink elephant is spotted, the whole of previous claim nullifies, though , it may be difficult to spot a pink elephant once again, or technically, its not necessary to.

once done, the premise automatically gets falsified, without asking for repetition.

 

[arunshanker]

what would the claim of science be.. man spotted or not?
.

I think science will ask for more times to be spotted otherwise it will just accept the man was spotted once - nothing on proof here just the evidence that man was spotted once
Yes that link on fallacies is an interesting one Fallacies