Simple question?

Quote: FrGamble

I guess you could say art, architecture, music, cooking, philosophy, is in many regards "making shit up".

Parts of philosophy, maybe.

As to the rest, which of those disciplines involves knowledge of things not derived from observation?

Quote: Nareed

Parts of philosophy, maybe.

As to the rest, which of those disciplines involves knowledge of things not derived from observation?

The main reason I'm a fantastic cook is because I add so much love to everything I create. And butter.

Quote: pew

The main reason I'm a fantastic cook is because I add so much love to everything I create.

You'll find intangibles make very little difference in the outcome. If you don't believe me, add indifference next time and compare the results.

Quote:

And butter.

That's a good philosophical topic: If you use butter instead of oil when making peanut butter, does that defeat the whole purpose of peanut butter? Or does modern usage render the original intent behind it moot?

Quote: Nareed

Parts of philosophy, maybe.

As to the rest, which of those disciplines involves knowledge of things not derived from observation?

They all have knowledge of things observed as their foundation and then they put these things together and create new things. It is amazing what happens when we take what we know about the physical world and apply our creativity and ingenuity to create something new, exciting, and helpful. This doesn't always work of course and in all these endeavors there is trial and error. If you haven't read Face's racing thread it is so worth a read.

Quote: FrGamble

They all have knowledge of things observed as their foundation and then they put these things together and create new things. It is amazing what happens when we take what we know about the physical world and apply our creativity and ingenuity to create something new, exciting, and helpful.

Yes, but a new dish, a new story, a new device, a new technology, and a new science, even, do not contain even a tiny iota of knowledge of things not derived from observation.

And I won't believe for a second you'll admit to the Bible being fiction.

Yes, as I've tried to say the art and ingenuity of creating things is based on knowledge gained from observation. However, you will never find a tape recorder in nature or by observing one. You have to use creativity and our higher functions to take all the many, many truths gained by observation to create something new.

Quote: FrGamble

Yes, as I've tried to say the art and ingenuity of creating things is based on knowledge gained from observation. However, you will never find a tape recorder in nature or by observing one.

These days you won't find a tape recorder looking anywhere. Maybe in a museum or an antiques shop...

Quote:

You have to use creativity and our higher functions to take all the many, many truths gained by observation to create something new.

So you're saying Jehovah was created by men? I know that, but I still don't think you're admitting that simple truth.

Quote: Nareed

So you're saying Jehovah was created by men? I know that, but I still don't think you're admitting that simple truth.

Men created god, put the god in charge of
everything, then forgot they were the ones
that created it. Now they scratch their heads
wondering what the non existent god they
created is up to. The foolishness of it makes
me want to laugh hysterically, but it's really
not funny at all.

Quote: Nareed

So you're saying Jehovah was created by men? I know that, but I still don't think you're admitting that simple truth.

Of course not. God is a truth arrived at not only by our reason and by looking at the observable reality we live in but in specifics is reached by revelation.

Quote: FrGamble

Of course not. God is a truth arrived at not only by our reason and by looking at the observable reality we live in but in specifics is reached by revelation.

What part of it does not mean "made up out of whole cloth"?

Come now, we cannot see any gods, nor is there any evidence remotely indicative of any gods. all you have is a baseless assumption which cannot even be tested.

See here, when Maxwell's equations were used to determine the speed of light, physicists all over the world did not pat each other in the back and decided they're work was done. Not at all. Instead they went on to try to prove the implications and the assumptions inherent in them. One was that the speed of light, quite naturally, depended on the speed of the object producing that light. We know what problem arose from that assumption.

On the other hand, Einstein did so good and so thorough a job with general relativity, that just about every prediction the theory makes, no matter how outrageous or undesirable, has been proven correct. Some predictions came from secondary work done by other physicists. Like black, holes, for example. Einstein was horrified by the very idea, and at heart was certain they couldn't exist. We now know they do.

The point is that when science comes up with something completely outrageous and seemingly impossible, we can find evidence for it in short order. And it call boils down to observations at the very core.

You're claiming religion points to a completely humdrum and unexceptional fact: creation requires a creator, but can find NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to support that claim.

The problem lies in the assumption that existence = creation.

And from that, the more you couldn't prove even that basic assumption, the more claims you've made and tried to impose on everyone. It's exactly like any other pseudoscience, such as astrology, but with much more deleterious effects.