Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Subjective Evidence of Gods
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 331 of 468 (631139)
08-30-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by RAZD
08-30-2011 3:38 PM


Re: Straggles still wrong, still misunderstanding and still misrepresenting
RAZ you can't test for the undetectable bogeyman in your bedroom but you know as well as I do that it is a human fiction.
You can't test for Last Thursdayism but you know as well as I do that the Earth is "old, very, very, old" Message 30 (and many places elsewhere).
So you are not even applying your own nonsensical demands for testing when drawing your own conclusions. Apart from anything else your stance is just hypocritical.
RAZD writes:
Can you test for supernatural essence in thunder and lightening to see if it is present or not?
I can test that static electricity accounts for thunder and lightning and on this basis confidently but tentatively reject the idea that some supernatural agency is involved. Exactly as you have rejected Last Thursdaysim in the face of evidence in favour of an old Earth despute being unable to explicitly test the truth or falseness of Last Thursdayism
Likewise we can test the human ability and proclivity to invent false positive agency (in the form of imaginary friends, conspiracy theories, demonstrably false gods and the teleological imbuement of natural phenomenon with human-like intelligence) and the circumstances in which such agency is typically invoked (when events are deemed significant and/or inexpicable or when rational modes of thought give way to more intuitive modes due to strong emotion or mental illness).
You may not like the evidence. But you can't just ignore it. Here is a short essay by one of the leading researchers in the field outlining the general approach.
Link
The findings emerging from this cognitive evolutionary approach challenge two central tenets of most established religions. First, the notion that their particular creed differs from all other (supposedly misguided) faiths; second, that it is only because of extraordinary events or the actual presence of supernatural agents that religious ideas have taken shape. On the contrary, we now know that all versions of religion are based on very similar tacit assumptions, and that all it takes to imagine supernatural agents are normal human minds processing information in the most natural way.
Knowing, even accepting these conclusions is unlikely to undermine religious commitment. Some form of religious thinking seems to be the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems. By contrast, disbelief is generally the result of deliberate, effortful work against our natural cognitive dispositions hardly the easiest ideology to propagate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2011 3:38 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by IamJoseph, posted 08-30-2011 5:07 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 349 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2011 9:18 PM Straggler has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 332 of 468 (631141)
08-30-2011 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Dr Adequate
08-30-2011 11:58 AM


Re: GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROOF?
Dr Adequate writes:
But if we're talking about the first cause, then you might as well chide Jbr for his unwarranted assumption that dolphin speech is the product of intelligence. Sure, dolphins are intelligent, but dolphins are not the first cause of the fact that dolphins talk.
Again, you should have pulled him up for suggesting that SETI would detect intelligence. Sure, it could detect intelligent aliens, but not an intelligent first cause.
I agree with all that but it still leaves your statement as being incorrect.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2011 11:58 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2011 5:05 PM GDR has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 333 of 468 (631142)
08-30-2011 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by bluescat48
08-30-2011 10:34 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Firstly, you have no evidence whatsoever of any position that does not supprt a universe maker for an existng universe. Such a position is not based on any scientific premise whatsoever and is less than fiction. This is the preamble.
Secondly, there is absolute evidence of a universe maker: no other possibility is open. It is not as though another source is provided or posited as a potential, which is incumbent and not an option to dismiss.
Thirdly, all of science's most respected figures agree with [1], declaring a complexity has to have a source and cannot subsist in its absence, al beit they call this an X factor. This inclines only with a universe maker.
Conclusion: 1 & 3 is vested in science and the sound premise. Its rejection rests on non-science and not a sound premise.
Objections without alternate sound premises is not a premise at all.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by bluescat48, posted 08-30-2011 10:34 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-30-2011 9:28 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 353 by bluescat48, posted 08-30-2011 9:58 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 334 of 468 (631144)
08-30-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by GDR
08-30-2011 4:52 PM


Re: GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROOF?
I agree with all that but it still leaves your statement as being incorrect.
No, it would have been incorrect if we were discussing the First Cause. Or the best way to make mango chutney, or the historical origins of the offside rule in association football, or the career prospects for a one-legged tapdancer. But we were not discussing any of those things, and I was right.
Scientists do in fact ascribe the DNA of living things to an unintelligent cause, and the communication of dolphins to an intelligent cause (i.e. dolphins) and in doing so they are not even contemplating the question of whether or not they have an intelligent First Cause, which is a different question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by GDR, posted 08-30-2011 4:52 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by GDR, posted 08-30-2011 8:03 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 335 of 468 (631145)
08-30-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Straggler
08-30-2011 4:41 PM


Re: Straggles still wrong, still misunderstanding and still misrepresenting
quote:
I can test that static electricity accounts for thunder and lightning and on this basis confidently but tentatively reject the idea that some supernatural agency is involved.
Your own position negates your conclusion. If thunder is the result of cause and effect, you cannot also say the universe is not so.
Thunder and lightning are obviously caused by laws which turn on the rain cycle, effecting weather patterns which humanity and all life has to cater to with management and stewardship; in turn such management abilities are also based on corresponding laws. Otherwise life would not exist and the universe would allow no form of elevation and management to humanity. Its like a situation of testing prowess by a school teacher to students training for the olympics: these are based on laws that test and elevate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2011 4:41 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2011 5:33 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 338 by fearandloathing, posted 08-30-2011 5:42 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 351 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-30-2011 9:37 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 336 of 468 (631147)
08-30-2011 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by IamJoseph
08-30-2011 5:07 PM


Re: Straggles still wrong, still misunderstanding and still misrepresenting
How do you know that cause and effect is not a particular property of our universe and thus not relevant to it's own existence?
I don't claim to know. Why do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by IamJoseph, posted 08-30-2011 5:07 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by IamJoseph, posted 08-30-2011 5:41 PM Straggler has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 337 of 468 (631149)
08-30-2011 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Straggler
08-30-2011 5:33 PM


Re: Straggles still wrong, still misunderstanding and still misrepresenting
quote:
How do you know that cause and effect is not a particular property of our universe and thus not relevant to it's own existence?
I don't say its not a property of the universe or that its not relevant. I do say such properties and its relevancy cannot occur of its self or by its self. I cite the analogy of a car and a car maker; what premise is its antithesis based on?
A scientific premise cannot be rejcted by an unscientific one. Cause & effect is scientific; effect without cause is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2011 5:33 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2011 5:55 PM IamJoseph has replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


(1)
Message 338 of 468 (631150)
08-30-2011 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by IamJoseph
08-30-2011 5:07 PM


Re: Straggles still wrong, still misunderstanding and still misrepresenting
Your own position negates your conclusion. If thunder is the result of cause and effect, you cannot also say the universe is not so.
Thunder and lightning are obviously caused by laws which turn on the rain cycle, effecting weather patterns which humanity and all life has to cater to with management and stewardship; in turn such management abilities are also based on corresponding laws. Otherwise life would not exist and the universe would allow no form of elevation and management to humanity. Its like a situation of testing prowess by a school teacher to students training for the olympics: these are based on laws that test and elevate.
The HAARP antenna that is operated by the flying spaghetti monster would represent a understanding that is only equaled by DARPA. Knowing this we can extrapolate the cause and effect ratio of the decay of funkentechnolegy.

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by IamJoseph, posted 08-30-2011 5:07 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 339 of 468 (631152)
08-30-2011 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by GDR
08-30-2011 1:40 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
GDR writes:
It's highly speculative, but if God's existence has more than one time dimension, (back, forward and maybe through), non-existence wouldn't have any meaning.
I have no idea what this even means.
GDR writes:
We are talking about god(s), (essentially a prime mover), existing or not existing.
But god(s) as prime over is just one of the potentially infinite possibilities. On what basis should we deem it any more or less likely than any of the conceivable alternatives? Or even the possibility of any inconceivable alternatives? And if it is one of an infinite array then just pure stats makes your particular claim unlikley to be true doesn't it?
GDR writes:
There are only two possible answers we are considering.
Untrue. The conceivable possibilities are vast.
You seem to be taking an approach to probability that says a roullette wheel will either hit black 15 or not. So it is just as likely to win on black 15 as any NOT black 15.
This is patently flawed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by GDR, posted 08-30-2011 1:40 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by GDR, posted 08-30-2011 8:21 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 340 of 468 (631153)
08-30-2011 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by IamJoseph
08-30-2011 5:41 PM


Prime Cause
I'll just quote cavediver:
cavey writes:
As I often repeat, the Big Bang is not "caused", it is simply one end of the Universe. Thinking that it requires a prior-cause is a category error. Cause and effect are simply a result of the casual structure of the space-time of which our Universe is made. To suggest that they should apply to the Universe as a whole (or indeed to the point of the Big Bang) is to ask at what latitude and longitude can we find the Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by IamJoseph, posted 08-30-2011 5:41 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by IamJoseph, posted 08-30-2011 6:02 PM Straggler has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 341 of 468 (631154)
08-30-2011 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Straggler
08-30-2011 5:55 PM


Re: Prime Cause
quote:
Thinking that it requires a prior-cause is a category error.
This is unscientfic and not substantiated. The plausibility factor aligns with the premise, a seen and manifest cause & effect is more likely with the beginning as with its transit later manifestations - than not so. If there is no causeless event seen anywhere in the universe - than this reasoning cannot apply elsewhere.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2011 5:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2011 6:06 PM IamJoseph has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 342 of 468 (631155)
08-30-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by IamJoseph
08-30-2011 6:02 PM


Re: Prime Cause
IAJ writes:
If there is no causeless event seen anywhere in the universe - than this reasoning cannot apply elsewhere.
Have you heard of infinite regression?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by IamJoseph, posted 08-30-2011 6:02 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by IamJoseph, posted 08-30-2011 6:58 PM Straggler has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 343 of 468 (631157)
08-30-2011 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Butterflytyrant
08-30-2011 3:27 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
The creation of the universe is the specific action I was discussing. Not existence. The creation of the universe. I have no desire to get into any existential debates about existence. There are unending debates already occuring regarding this issue. For example, if humans were not here, would the universe exist? Something like if a tree falls in the forest and noone was around, would it still make a sound. I find these philisophical discussions boring and ultimately pointless.
Hardly boring and certaily not pointless. the two possibility principle can only be applicable to existence itself. the universe is I believe a part of the existence, no?
The creation myth of the OT is one of many different creation myths. Thus it is not the only option with regards to supernatural creation theories. Natural causes can refer to any number of known and unknown theories. Thus it cannot really be used as a single option.
I could change the options to be thus -
1. The creation story as outlined in the Old Testement.
2. The creation story as discussed in Hindu mythology (Brahma, the Hindu God of creation).
This is another example of the false dichotomy fallacy as it gives only two options when others exist.
At any rate the Only two logical possibi;ity policy can and does apply to existence itself. there are no other alternative to explore
I will always applaud a Star Trek reference.
However, there is a third and forth option not considered by Kirk or Spock. The third option is : They are responding in a manner that we cannot understand or detect.
Sorry this wont work because it falls under the category of UNABLE, it does not matter the reason, the nature of existence wont allow another category
The forth option is that the subject of their communication is unaware of the original communication and is not aware it needs to respond to anything.
Sorry UNABLE and UNWILLING. If the enterprise is willing that they reply, the problem of non or miscommunication falls to the enterprise. the Un able and unwilling applies to both parties because it involes each
This is only a relatively recent discovery. Plants have been communicating with one another (even different species) all this time and we have not known about it.
Are you kidding I saw the Happening. M. Night Ramaladingdng
Lets say that we have been communicating with a plant and it has been responding by way of chemical communication in the air. We have not known of this method and we have not known what it meant until very recently.
Sorry UNABLE. existence wont allow anything else
if aliens came to Earth in the 1st century AD and blasted communications to us using standard radiowaves, humanity would never have known. They may have said we were unable or unwilling to respond. This is not the case, we would not have known that any communication was even being attempted.
If they were smart aliens they would be correct, UNABLE
Its a logical impossibility and a logical contradiction to look for another option, it wont work
PS. I hope you dont mind me adding one of your comments to my signature. It seems fitting and it is poor form to make up your own nickname.
Not at all and I hope you take it in the spirit it was given, a friendly jibe. I am a huge Green Acres fan and Mr Douglas, the brilliant, educated harvard lawyer amoung those silly people was a riot
His favorite expression was "You Mallethead"
But Mr Douglas you dont understand, you still have to pay the State, frieght, crate rate, on the Dully Higgins original"
Mr Douglas. "Who is Dully Higgins"
Alf Monroe, "Only the greatest freight crate writer in the county. Didnt you see his work at the Smithsonian"
Mr Douglas, "No, I missed that it must have been on the third floor"
Paul Henning was the Master,
The beverly hillbilles
Hippie, "You smoke crawdads"
Sir Jethro the Bodine. "Sure its easy, get a little pot cook it up, then enjoy it"
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-30-2011 3:27 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by IamJoseph, posted 08-30-2011 7:22 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 354 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-30-2011 10:05 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 344 of 468 (631158)
08-30-2011 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Straggler
08-30-2011 6:06 PM


Re: Prime Cause
Yes. Stemming from Greek philosophy [Aristotle; Helenist flat earth, head bashing dieties, etc] which was KO'd with the superior theology, philosophy and science of the Hebrew bible which ushered in Creationism & Monotheism and changed the universe forever. All that I R says is an infinite is preceded by an infinite! This is a circular arguement [thus the wrong path], and based on its foundation being unscientific. Genesis is superior as it posits a finite universe and is the only ancient writings which did not posit a flat earth policy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2011 6:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2011 11:13 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 345 of 468 (631164)
08-30-2011 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Dawn Bertot
08-30-2011 6:29 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
quote:
The creation myth of the OT is one of many different creation myths.
In fact the Hebrew bible stands unique among all other wiritngs; the NT is OLD because no one is discussing it. Head bashing dietes like Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Mitraish and JC were toppled away when one Abram smashed the idols in his father's house. And the universe was changed forever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-30-2011 6:29 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-30-2011 9:49 PM IamJoseph has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024