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: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Belief in God is scientific.
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 166 of 262 (695599)
04-08-2013 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 5:22 AM


divermike1974 writes:
The human brain contrary to what some of you say IS the most complex thing in the known universe and the vast majority of those brains (people) believe in some form of God, so why isn't that overwhelming majority taken seriously from a scientific point of view as 'evidence' for God?
Me in Message 97:
Percy in Message 97 writes:
Although if history is any guide, he'll retract the concession or say we misunderstood, then continue just as before.
I win.
DiverMike, you're restating your initial premise as if there hasn't already been 150 messages of discussion, which you're ignoring. You've already been told what's wrong with your proposal, so you should respond to those arguments instead of just repeating yourself.
Or you could go back to your Message 86 where you said, "I do admit I am wrong" and go over in your own mind the arguments people made to bring you to that concession. That would save us the trouble of having the same discussion all over again. The reasons you're wrong haven't changed.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 5:22 AM divermike1974 has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 167 of 262 (695602)
04-08-2013 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 6:10 AM


It's the same for people, too.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 6:10 AM divermike1974 has not replied

  
divermike1974
Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-08-2013


Message 168 of 262 (695620)
04-08-2013 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Pressie
04-08-2013 7:08 AM


Not sure if you have read the rest of the posts in this topic but this has nothing to do with denomination, or belief in any one named deity. Its just the simple fact that 80 odd percent of the worlds population believe in some form of higher intelligence not of this universe that has God like qualities.
Name one other humanity wide argumentum ad populum that covers 80 odd percent of the human population today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Pressie, posted 04-08-2013 7:08 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Rahvin, posted 04-08-2013 10:35 AM divermike1974 has not replied
 Message 172 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2013 11:30 AM divermike1974 has not replied
 Message 173 by ringo, posted 04-08-2013 12:06 PM divermike1974 has replied
 Message 178 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2013 1:53 PM divermike1974 has not replied
 Message 209 by Stile, posted 04-09-2013 5:42 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 169 of 262 (695624)
04-08-2013 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 10:04 AM


Not sure if you have read the rest of the posts in this topic but this has nothing to do with denomination, or belief in any one named deity. Its just the simple fact that 80 odd percent of the worlds population believe in some form of higher intelligence not of this universe that has God like qualities.
Name one other humanity wide argumentum ad populum that covers 80 odd percent of the human population today.
Just because a hypothesis is really really popular doesn't make our argument any less of a logical fallacy. It's logically invalid reasoning.
The reason the argument from popularity is false is because it crosses the cause and effect. People should believe hypotheses that are verifiably accurate. However, the argument from popularity suggests that a hypothesis has a greater likelihood of being true, simply because it's popular.
Whether 10 people, 100, a million, or 6 billion people think something is true has absolutely zero relevancy as to whether that idea actually is true. No matter how popular an idea is, the popularity of the idea itself is evidence only of how popular it is. It is not and can never be evidence that the believed idea is actually accurate.
You continue to make bald, outrageous assertions using terminology in ways that demonstrate that you don't actually understand the terms, and your root argument continues to be a logical fallacy. Mike, Im sorry, but your posts here are some of the most trivially easy ideas to disprove that we've ever seen here. That's why you're getting piled on - even the most rudimentary training in logic exposes your arguments as blatantly and absolutely false.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 10:04 AM divermike1974 has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 170 of 262 (695627)
04-08-2013 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Ossat
04-07-2013 7:58 AM


Re: better living through chemistry
Ossat writes:
...It's gotta be God!!
Why?
I am not saying it is not God. I am asking why do you feel it must be.
Nature seems to operate on natural processes. That is why it is called nature.
If God is nature then you are simply taking one word and substituting it for another.
This is another logical fallacy known as distinction without a difference.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Ossat, posted 04-07-2013 7:58 AM Ossat has not replied

  
divermike1974
Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-08-2013


Message 171 of 262 (695630)
04-08-2013 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Pressie
04-08-2013 7:15 AM


You must be thick, i am merely quoting the things that the worlds top scientists are saying this very day, many of them from the group of thousands with qualifications you mentioned. I thought this forum would be full of people who actually know the current state of theoretical physics, but it just seems to be full of Walter mitty idiots.
I am not claiming to know anything just merely suggesting that its strange how with such an imbalance to the believe/not believe question its not taken seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Pressie, posted 04-08-2013 7:15 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2013 12:21 PM divermike1974 has not replied

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


Message 172 of 262 (695631)
04-08-2013 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 10:04 AM


Not sure if you have read the rest of the posts in this topic but this has nothing to do with denomination, or belief in any one named deity. Its just the simple fact that 80 odd percent of the worlds population believe in some form of higher intelligence not of this universe that has God like qualities.
Name one other humanity wide argumentum ad populum that covers 80 odd percent of the human population today.
I believe I did. Ask "the human population" what happens when a running man drops an object he's carrying, i.e. what path the object takes to the ground.
And as I pointed out, the reason why they get this wrong is not because they are short of data, they've seen gravity, they've seen people dropping things. Certainly there is no body of people indoctrinating them with the wrong answer and telling them they'll go to hell if they don't provide it when asked. And yet they are consistently, overwhelmingly wrong.
Here's another thing that over 90% of people get wrong, this time in logic. I have a deck of cards, each with a letter on one side, and a number on the other. I deal out four cards so that their face-up appearance is A, B, 4, 7. I inform you that these cards follow the rule that if there is a vowel on one side, there is an odd number on the other side. Which card or cards do you need to turn over in order to check that I'm telling the truth?
About 3% of people will give the right answer. Over 80% of people will give the same wrong answer. Again, no-one had to bring them up to give the wrong answer or threaten them with damnation if they didn't.
Let's do one more, this time in math. (I could keep this up all night.) You know that your wife is one of those one-in-a-thousand people who carries the FNUD gene. You wonder if you're carrying it too, because if you are it might be better to adopt than to risk having children. You go to a genetic analyst who tests you and says that you do indeed carry the gene. If the test is 99% accurate, what is the probability that the analyst got it wrong?
Almost everyone gets this wrong. I remember getting it wrong myself when I was eighteen. Today I have a Ph.D. in math, so it's not like I'm lacking in natural aptitude. And no-one had to tell me that I'd suffer eternal torment if I didn't give the wrong answer.
The fact that almost everyone makes the same mistakes in science, in logic, and in math does not make their mistakes scientific, logical, or mathematical.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 10:04 AM divermike1974 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 173 of 262 (695637)
04-08-2013 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 10:04 AM


divermike1974 writes:
Name one other humanity wide argumentum ad populum that covers 80 odd percent of the human population today.
Why restrict it to today? What about all of the concepts that used to be popular but now most people know better? Flat earth? Geocentrism?
Popularity is fickle. Facts are more reliable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 10:04 AM divermike1974 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 3:43 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 174 of 262 (695640)
04-08-2013 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 11:18 AM


You must be thick, i am merely quoting the things that the worlds top scientists are saying this very day ...
No, look. What Pressie was objecting to was that you said that the universe was "relatively simple to explain". Now, the only two scientists you quoted on this thread said that the universe possessed "underlying simplicity and elegance". They didn't say that it was "simple to explain". The brightest and best physicists are still struggling to explain it.
I thought this forum would be full of people who actually know the current state of theoretical physics, but it just seems to be full of Walter mitty idiots.
I'm glad that there's finally someone on this forum who does know the current state of theoretical physics, and is not a "Walter mitty idiot". Could you please explain to me why M-theory suggests that SO(32) is dual to E8E8?
Is that "relatively simple to explain"?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 11:18 AM divermike1974 has not replied

  
divermike1974
Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-08-2013


Message 175 of 262 (695643)
04-08-2013 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Pressie
04-08-2013 7:31 AM


Definition of Complex = composed of many interconnected parts.
If you understood physics and how everything in the universe is actually made and works you wouldn't even ask such a stupid question in regards of the complexity of the human brain.
Comparative measurement? The human brain and the body that supports it is made up of a mixture of subatomic particles. There are only 12 different types of these particles and they are controlled and manipulated by the four fundamental forces of nature, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces and gravity. These particles and forces work together to form absolutely everything that is in existence in the universe today, from the biggest black holes, and the most powerful gamma rays down to the puss in the zits on your forehead or the sperm in your ball sack.
All of this sub atomic cookery goes by the name of quantum mechanics.
Now all this physical matter occupies what is known as space time, and obeys the laws that Einstein discovered in his theory of relativity. Relativity describes how mass and energy are interchangeable and describes how things move and evolve through this exchange. Relativity is the wooden spoon that stirs all these atoms creating and governing everything from super massive black holes to the very fabric of the human mind and thought.
The human being is thought on scale to be about halfway in size between an atom and a star. Remember atoms are governed by quantum mechanics and stars are created and governed by relativity. Life is a convergence of both quantum mechanics and relativity and the human being with its cognitive thinking self aware brain is at the very pinnacle of that convergence.
If you don't think that that defines complex and describes how the human brain is the most complex thing in the known universe then you are probably not as clever as you thought and are probably living in a fantasy dream world like all your friends.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Pressie, posted 04-08-2013 7:31 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by AdminNosy, posted 04-08-2013 12:46 PM divermike1974 has replied
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2013 12:58 PM divermike1974 has replied
 Message 179 by Rahvin, posted 04-08-2013 2:23 PM divermike1974 has not replied
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2013 6:42 PM divermike1974 has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 176 of 262 (695645)
04-08-2013 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 12:43 PM


Watch the language
So far you've been relatively mild in pejoratives but it can stop now, thank you. Your arrogance is showing and I suggest that you watch that since we happen to have a couple of posters who are actual theoretical physicists and you may be (if they bother) shown up when you get to proud of what you think you understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 12:43 PM divermike1974 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 3:27 PM AdminNosy has not replied

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


(1)
Message 177 of 262 (695647)
04-08-2013 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 12:43 PM


Definition of Complex = composed of many interconnected parts.
Well, no, so this is a bad time for you to become arrogant.
If you don't think that that defines complex and describes how the human brain is the most complex thing in the known universe ...
Well, according to your own semi-definition, it would appear that my entire body would be even more complex, since that has more interconnected parts than my brain alone. And an elephant would be more complex than that, since it has even more interconnected parts than I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 12:43 PM divermike1974 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 3:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 178 of 262 (695652)
04-08-2013 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 10:04 AM


quote:
Not sure if you have read the rest of the posts in this topic but this has nothing to do with denomination, or belief in any one named deity.
If it's about the idea that the majority opinion should be accepted as science then it SHOULD cover those questions, and a lot more. The fact that it doesn't is a strong indication that you're looking for an excuse to proclaim your belief as scientific, not a rational reason.
(Not that the gosh-wow stuff about complexity WOULD be a rational reason in the first place, but it's telling that even you don't seem to believe that it's a good argument)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 10:04 AM divermike1974 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 179 of 262 (695657)
04-08-2013 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by divermike1974
04-08-2013 12:43 PM


Definition of Complex = composed of many interconnected parts.
If you understood physics and how everything in the universe is actually made and works you wouldn't even ask such a stupid question in regards of the complexity of the human brain.
Comparative measurement? The human brain and the body that supports it is made up of a mixture of subatomic particles.
...
If you don't think that that defines complex and describes how the human brain is the most complex thing in the known universe then you are probably not as clever as you thought and are probably living in a fantasy dream world like all your friends.
If you're using "number of interconnected component parts" as your definition of "complexity," then there are innumerable things that are vastly more complex than the human brain int he Universe.
If you're really just using the number of subatomic particles, then literally anything with a greater mass than the human brain is going to be more complex (that's not entirely precise, as an equal mass of neutronium would contain fewer particles than a human brain, but it gets the point across).
If you're talking about neurons, well...the internet, as a singular example, is interconnected with millions of devices, millions of which contain hundreds of millions of transistors in their multitudinous processors and other components. The internet, then, by your own definition of the term, is more complex than the human brain.
Interesting to note on the subject of complexity is the fact that human DNA, which contains the chemical instructions for building the human brain, is orders of magnitude less complex than the DNA of other organisms, including some species of amoeba...which have no brains at all, and are in fact single-celled organisms.
"Complexity" alone, however you want to define it, doesn't mean much. It certainly has nothing to do with your argument.
And your argument remains a simple argument from popularity, nothing more. The window dressing of "complexity" and "the human brain is a computer" and the rest is all nothing more than a set of red herrings, irrelevant to your argument, made to distract attention toward intelligent sounding (but inappropriately used) terms and away from your actually fallacious core argument. You may convince a layperson with minimal education on any of the subjects you attempt to tie together (or, of course, basic logic), but not anyone with even the barest knowledge of science or logic.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by divermike1974, posted 04-08-2013 12:43 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
divermike1974
Member (Idle past 4004 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-08-2013


Message 180 of 262 (695661)
04-08-2013 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dr Adequate
04-08-2013 12:58 PM


If the whole universe is made up of a combination of 12 fundamental particles that are governed by 4 fundamental forces, then the very fact that you and i are not only self aware but also aware of each other and are involved in a discussion about our very existence is to me a definite indication that our brains are more complex than our bodies.
As for becoming arrogant, i have been hounded and hounded throughout this topic about my use of various words and phrases by people who obviously don't understand them. The definition of complex i gave came from the dictionary. And even you must see that my description shows that the Brian from any perspective is an incredibly complex thing. Arrogance doesn't even come into it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2013 12:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2013 6:20 PM divermike1974 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024