Science isn't what most people think it is. I actually found out that science really isn't about finding truth. I can't begin to explain in a summary of how this works but here is a video for you. This video is by the Youtuber TheMessiacManic, who is a theological non-cognitivist, igtheist, and philosopher who seems to put many things into light and has some really butt-whooping arguments against theism in general. He is also a break from the typical and successfully expands upon subjects that many skeptics/atheists don't target when combating theists. I highly suggest checking his videos out. :)

Tags: TheMessiacManic

Views: 350

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I watched this, it is really interesting and he makes some good points. 

"Theological noncognitivists claim that words are only useful for speaking or writing of what can be philosophically conceived, and that nothing can be conceived to label "God". They claim that word constructs such as "creator of the universe" do not refer to anything conceivable, and are thus meaningless."

Infinity isn't conceivable, but we have a word for it. 

"science really isn't about finding truth."  - I think that science is about moving our understanding closer and closer towards the truth. 


While I am not in disagreement with you, it can be argued that God is not a concept. Dan Dennett would say that the concept of god is a concept. Can't recall the exact time but the whole video is worth a look.

The square root of -1 also isn't conceivable, but (I'm told) modern electronics is based on it. 

Do any real subtractions exist, or is subtraction just a mathematical concept?

I can have 5 apples and take away 2 apples to leave 3. 

Negative numbers are slightly more abstract - the negativity is a matter of interpretation, and -3 of something doesn't exist.  But in the world of mathematical ideas they are perfectly functional. 

negative numbers are often analogized to debt.  If I owe you three apples but have none in my possession, then I basically have -3 apples, because I'd need to obtain four apples just to net one apple.

This is true, but it's still an analogy and an interpretation (that works). 

I would say the absence of something is the basis for its existence, and the absence of 3 things is the basis of their existence as well.

I think that's a good way of putting it. 

So, absence is a state of being? an ontological state?

If we're talking about the absence of X, then we mean an X-shaped hole.  I don't think that absence is a state of being, but an indication of a state of being. 

What is the difference between "I have 5 apples and take away 2 apples leaving 3 apples" and the forumula 5 (apples) added to -2 (apples) leaves 3 (apples)?


© 2015   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service