Atheists please answer this

[Joe K.]

Hello Crunchy Cat,

As I said, these things quickly develop into book length topics. I could spend hours and write many pages in response, but will have to look at your other points later.

Just to take one now, in post #127 you said

The Septuagint discussed the life of Jesus hundreds of years before he was born. That either means someone legitimately saw the future -OR- Jesus was just a story (as proto-religion suggests and the fact that humans cannot demonstrate any ability to see the future).

I denied that and stated that the Septuagint did not contain discussions of the life of Jesus and you responded,

That would be incorrect. See the section titled "Old Testament" as an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus

I guess it depends on my understanding of "prophecy" and "discussion."

Yes, there are prophecies, many of them, but not "discussions," extended and detailed discourses about what Christ would say or do.

Here is one difference from your source.

all the miraculous births in Old Testament times, and that of John the Baptist in the New Testament, are presented as the result of sexual intercourse between a married couple.

So, if you want to say "prohecies" and not "discussions," I will say that the Old Testament does show an ability to predict the future.

 

[Joe K.]

Originally Posted by Joe K.
You can say evolution is a naturalistic process, but you cannot PROVE there is no God behind it.

Explicitly defined "God" and what you mean by there being "no God behind it" and I'll probably be able to demonstrate you as being incorrect.

Do we need to define God? How about a supreme being who created everything?

Originally Posted by Joe K.
What if evolution is a fact,

It is and there is nothing you or I can do to change that.

I believe it is not a fact.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
but God started it

It is presently unknown how life began. There are alot of good theories; however, because the answer is unknown doesn't mean it's a void to be filled by "God did it" (or any other fantasy filling the gap).

Unknown - a key word. This does not mean God HAS to be used to fill it, but it does mean that God can not be or should not be ruled out a priori.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
...and God guides it and is guiding it towards some unknown end?

Evolution isn't guided so this scenario doesn't apply.

I don't believe in divinely guided evolution or any other kind of evolution, but my point is you have no scientific evidence to prove it is not guided. Your rejection of guidance is a personal decision, not a scieintific or rigorously logical one.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
You can provide evidence for evolution, but you can't prove there is nothing behind evolution. You provide evidence for the process, but not for what started it and where it might be going.

Only partially true. Evolution is a process built into reality. It isn't "started". Life is what gets "started". Excactly how that happened on Earth isn't known. Additionally, evolution doesn't "go" somewhere. It's continual adaptaton and thats it.

You don't know if it s going anywhere or not. We have progressed from little in the past to comparatively advanced forms. How do you know this proces will not continue toward some end as yet unseen by you? I am not advocating this, I am only saying you cannot KNOW this is wrong.

And, life got started - how? You don't know. What if God did start it? You can still have your evolution.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
That is not a scientifically proven fact. How we perceive, feel, think is still a mysterious process. Those who claim it is purely material do so because that is what they want to believe, there is as yet no material explanation.

That is not true. If I inject you with anesthetic, your concsiousness will cease. If I damage part of your brain, your consciousness will be hindered. If you go to sleep, your consciousness will be turned off (except when dreaming of course). Those simple observations show consciousness to be a result of your brain operating; however, here is a more detailed look at consciousness from a neuroscience perspective:

http://discovermagazine.com/video/u...re-is-consciousness/?searchterm=consciousness

Those arguments show that the human soul or the life force or spirit, whatever, works in and through the brain and is affected by material considerations. No one denies this. The point is that consciousness is not a part of the brain operating only. That within us which thinks, feels, perceives - you believe it ceases at death but this is a belief, not based on rigorous logic or evidence. And there is no known explanation of how chemicals and neurons can give rise to human feelings.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
You THINK that the soul is only chemicals etc. and dies with the body but you don't KNOW it and can't PROVE it.

That statement was incorrect across a few different areas. Firstly, there's no soul that is made up of chemicals or dies with the body. There's simply no soul. ASSERTION By removing parts of your brain, I can eliminate your memories, your identity, your emotions, your senses, your preferences, your dislikes, etc. So yes, I just did prove it.

You don't know if the soul still exists and retains all of that information but only is unable to express it as the means of communication are damaged. If I destroyed your cell phone so you were unable to call me that would not mean you had ceased to exist. You have provided an argument and evidence, not proof.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
Christianity spread with astonishing speed and was very successful, so many tried to copy it and imitate it. There is no factual or historical evidence for this claim of yours.

I'll take you through the evidence step by step. First is the absence of evidence a real Jesus. The Romans had real historians during the time period of "Jesus' life". Feel free to find a single historical document concerning Jesus. You wont find any despite that he would have been the most historically interesting thing at the time (had he really existed). Go ahead take a look. Once you've seen the sheer absence of Jesus, we'll proceed to step two.

The Roman historians were not concerned with every minor rabble rouser in obscure parts of the empire.

The four Gospels are historical documents concerning the life of Jesus. There is a wealth of information about his life and teachings from eye witnesses.

At the time he would have been unknown to the Romans and of no interest to them. If he had gone to Rome and worked his miracles there he would have been mentioned, but Christ was as the bible says sent to the Jews first.

Don't you think its odd that an invented religion about someone who never even existed could have spread with such speed throughout the empire?

Originally Posted by Joe K.
That sounds very impressive to some, but the word suggests shows you are speculating.

That is correct; however, it is a speculation based on real science.

Speculation nevertheless.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Hello Crunchy Cat,

As I said, these things quickly develop into book length topics. I could spend hours and write many pages in response, but will have to look at your other points later.

Just to take one now, in post #127 you said



I denied that and stated that the Septuagint did not contain discussions of the life of Jesus and you responded,



I guess it depends on my understanding of "prophecy" and "discussion."

Yes, there are prophecies, many of them, but not "discussions," extended and detailed discourses about what Christ would say or do.

Here is one difference from your source.



So, if you want to say "prohecies" and not "discussions," I will say that the Old Testament does show an ability to predict the future.

A valid definition of "discuss" is to "talk over or write about". The word and it's context were clear and applicable:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discussed

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Do we need to define God? How about a supreme being who created everything?

That's an easy one. Humans are part of "everything". Humans evolved; therefore, were not created.

I believe it is not a fact.

Obviously. Scientific knowledge can take you to the evidence but it can't make you accept it. Beyond that, I can't help you.

Unknown - a key word. This does not mean God HAS to be used to fill it, but it does mean that God can not be or should not be ruled out a priori.

Actually it does mean that God should be ruled out. There is no evidence such a life form exists; therefore, it shouldn't even be a consideration as it's utterly disconnected from objectively reality.

I don't believe in divinely guided evolution or any other kind of evolution, but my point is you have no scientific evidence to prove it is not guided. Your rejection of guidance is a personal decision, not a scieintific or rigorously logical one.

I don't its being understand what something "guided" looks like. When something is guided, decisions are made to intentionally change the course of something that, if left alone, would yield an entirely different result. There is no evidence of any such decisions in evolution. None whatsoever. That means it's no guided.

You don't know if it s going anywhere or not.

Yes I do. Entire lineages of species can be examined (from start to extinction) and there is no "end".

We have progressed from little in the past to comparatively advanced forms. How do you know this proces will not continue toward some end as yet unseen by you?

Because the concept doesn't apply. To have an "end" means there is a "purpose". A "purpose" can only be given by a "purposer". A "purposer" requires a sapience. The process of evolution is demonstrably non-sapient, therefor lacks purpose, and therefore has no "end".

I am not advocating this, I am only saying you cannot KNOW this is wrong.

That is incorrect. You can know as long as you are able to observe, think, and learn from existing knowledge.

And, life got started - how? You don't know. What if God did start it? You can still have your evolution.

Right now, humans are able to put together various conditions which yield basic building blocks of life on Earth. The very fact that we can do this and the fact the evolution is quite real strongly points to the start of life on Earth to be nothing more than a natural process that we simply don't have good visibility into. Furthermore, there is no reason to even consider that some super life form "started it". There's no evidence for such a life form existing in the first place.

Those arguments show that the human soul or the life force or spirit, whatever, works in and through the brain and is affected by material considerations. No one denies this.

You are denying it, but I don't think you understand that yet.

The point is that consciousness is not a part of the brain operating only.

I would agree. The nervous system is also a big part of it.

That within us which thinks, feels, perceives - you believe it ceases at death but this is a belief, not based on rigorous logic or evidence.

When you go to sleep tonight and are not dreaming... take note of what you think, feel, and perceive. You wont be able to, simply because your consciousness is effectively gone. The experience of death is no different than a dreamless sleep, it's non-experience.

And there is no known explanation of how chemicals and neurons can give rise to human feelings.

100% understood factional explanation? You are correct (we don't have that yet); however, by all means please don't discount what affective neuroscience has discovered as far as emotions are concerned.

You don't know if the soul still exists and retains all of that information but only is unable to express it as the means of communication are damaged.

Of course I know. I can also stimulate your brain in various manners and bring up long lost memories, sensations, emotional states, etc. Whether I am removing or stimulating, the results are clear.

If I destroyed your cell phone so you were unable to call me that would not mean you had ceased to exist. You have provided an argument and evidence, not proof.

A cell phone transmits radio signals to cellphone towers. Those signals are translated into binary information, sent through a network, and re-transmitted to a target cell phone in a different geographical location. A brain observably doesn't operate like that. It's a poor anology.

The Roman historians were not concerned with every minor rabble rouser in obscure parts of the empire.

Seriously? How likely do you think it is that the Romans somehow missed the most important person in the world? Historians tend to capture alot of detail; however, in looking at Roman history there is an important detail concerning prophets at the time. Did you notice what that is?

The four Gospels are historical documents concerning the life of Jesus. There is a wealth of information about his life and teachings from eye witnesses.

Yes, "lots" of eye witnesses... which somehow escaped Roman historians?

At the time he would have been unknown to the Romans and of no interest to them. If he had gone to Rome and worked his miracles there he would have been mentioned, but Christ was as the bible says sent to the Jews first.

Really? You don't think that word of a geniune Miracle man would not have reached Rome?

Don't you think its odd that an invented religion about someone who never even existed could have spread with such speed throughout the empire?

I actually find it ironic that Roman historians have no historical record of the "Man-God" behind the religion that spread throughout their empire. But to answer your question, no I don't think its odd. Look at how easily cults start and spread amongst people who want to believe.

Speculation nevertheless.

And well reasoned speculation as well. It uses the knowledge we actually have about reality.

 

[lightgigantic]

That's an easy one. Humans are part of "everything". Humans evolved; therefore, were not created.

Needless to say you've fallen grossly short of proving anything since empirical estimations about origins of evolution are rendered false due to new emerging "facts" drawn from the very disciplines that created them

Obviously. Scientific knowledge can take you to the evidence but it can't make you accept it. Beyond that, I can't help you.

Once again, given that the evidence that shapes contemporary understandings of evolution is still in a very malleable state, it appears that you too are also standing outside of assistance

Actually it does mean that God should be ruled out. There is no evidence such a life form exists; therefore, it shouldn't even be a consideration as it's utterly disconnected from objectively reality.

gawd
empirical methodologies drawing up objective reality?
gimme a break ....

I don't its being understand what something "guided" looks like. When something is guided, decisions are made to intentionally change the course of something that, if left alone, would yield an entirely different result. There is no evidence of any such decisions in evolution. None whatsoever. That means it's no guided.

not clear exactly what scale you are using to gauge what one would expect an unguided objective reality versus a guided objective reality to look like.

What are you using as a control group?
Do you even have a single data point?

... If however you are simply talking about a world view that is obedient to your (reductionist) values you are making perfect sense however (albeit relative in content)

Yes I do. Entire lineages of species can be examined (from start to extinction) and there is no "end".

huh?
If here's no end, what is it exactly that you have examined from start to finish?

Because the concept doesn't apply. To have an "end" means there is a "purpose". A "purpose" can only be given by a "purposer". A "purposer" requires a sapience. The process of evolution is demonstrably non-sapient, therefor lacks purpose, and therefore has no "end".

In the absence of a control model or even a single data point, all you have demonstrated is that you are not shy about letting your values take the mantel

That is incorrect. You can know as long as you are able to observe, think, and learn from existing knowledge.

And I think that's his point.

Your call of existing knowledge, in the complete absence of a control model or a single data point, is simply a bluff.

Right now, humans are able to put together various conditions which yield basic building blocks of life on Earth.

Only in star trek films I'm afraid

The very fact that we can do this and the fact the evolution is quite real strongly points to the start of life on Earth to be nothing more than a natural process that we simply don't have good visibility into. Furthermore, there is no reason to even consider that some super life form "started it". There's no evidence for such a life form existing in the first place.

If you've discovered the process of abiogenesis, wiki is waiting to grant you fame and fortune.

You are denying it, but I don't think you understand that yet.

I don't think you understand how emergence is distinguished from merely being localized.
I'm sure however if we applied your same general principles you use for consciousness and the brain to electricity and a light bulb you would have a tougher time denying it.

When you go to sleep tonight and are not dreaming... take note of what you think, feel, and perceive. You wont be able to, simply because your consciousness is effectively gone. The experience of death is no different than a dreamless sleep, it's non-experience.

Sheesh
another wild claim made in the complete absence of control models

Empirically you have just been falcon punched

100% understood factional explanation? You are correct (we don't have that yet); however, by all means please don't discount what affective neuroscience has discovered as far as emotions are concerned.

"far" is probably not an appropriate word

Of course I know. I can also stimulate your brain in various manners and bring up long lost memories, sensations, emotional states, etc. Whether I am removing or stimulating, the results are clear.

Hogwash
You can do nothing of the sort.
The results are anything but clear.
Neuroscience is still out to lunch on pedagogy.

A cell phone transmits radio signals to cellphone towers. Those signals are translated into binary information, sent through a network, and re-transmitted to a target cell phone in a different geographical location. A brain observably doesn't operate like that. It's a poor anology.

It does however highlight the inadequacies of mere localization in your argument for emergence

Seriously? How likely do you think it is that the Romans somehow missed the most important person in the world?

Quite easily if he rose to fame a few hundred years after his demise

Historians tend to capture alot of detail;

and they tend to miss a lot too since histography is basically glorified journalism

Yes, "lots" of eye witnesses... which somehow escaped Roman historians?

Why talk of Roman history ... you can talk amply of what the historians of WW2 missed

Really? You don't think that word of a geniune Miracle man would not have reached Rome?

Its not so much about it reaching but reaching in a form that is palatable to the political ideology/values ... since that's the very thing that shapes importance in one's eyes.

I mean how much work do your values permit you to do in the name of researching miracles performed in this era (as opposed to sitting back on your laurels and guffawing)?

I actually find it ironic that Roman historians have no historical record of the "Man-God" behind the religion that spread throughout their empire. But to answer your question, no I don't think its odd. Look at how easily cults start and spread amongst people who want to believe.

Don't worry
It just took them a few hundred years to get on the uptake with Constantine (for better or worse)

And well reasoned speculation as well. It uses the knowledge we actually have about reality.

The absence of philosophical frameworks for terms like "reality are conspicuous by their absence in numerous atheist arguments ....

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Needless to say you've fallen grossly short of proving anything since empirical estimations about origins of evolution are rendered false due to new emerging "facts" drawn from the very disciplines that created them

Wow, haven't seen you in a while light. Still fighting the good fight against truth and reason? Anyhow this is a classic non-sequitur. Joe said I cannot prove that God is not behind evolution. I asked Joe to define God. Joe defined him as the creator of everything. Humans are a subset of everything; however, reality shows they evolved (i.e. were not created); therefore, I showed that his definition of God could not be behind evolution simply because he would have created Humans (by its very definition).

Once again, given that the evidence that shapes contemporary understandings of evolution is still in a very malleable state, it appears that you too are also standing outside of assistance

How so? The theory of evolution is a model and new evidence/understanding continually shapes it. What is certain is that evolution is a real phenomenon (it's self-evident at this point).

gawd
empirical methodologies drawing up objective reality?
gimme a break ....

How about objective reality drawing up objective reality?

not clear exactly what scale you are using to gauge what one would expect an unguided objective reality versus a guided objective reality to look like.

What are you using as a control group?
Do you even have a single data point?

... If however you are simply talking about a world view that is obedient to your (reductionist) values you are making perfect sense however (albeit relative in content)

I thought I had made it clear; however, I will try to paraphrase. When you guide something, you are making decisions to change the course of that *something* to avoid an outcome that would have commenced should that *something* have been left alone. For example. Here is an example of guiding:

http://android-apps.com/best/labyrinth/

huh?
If here's no end, what is it exactly that you have examined from start to finish?

No end as in no final product / no specific outcome / no sought after result.

In the absence of a control model or even a single data point, all you have demonstrated is that you are not shy about letting your values take the mantel

Yes I know. I value truth. Your desire for a "control model" is most... hmmm... what's that word that means "do a lot of retarded work for me to demonstrate the self evident even though I could care less anyway?"... ahh yes... douchy.

And I think that's his point.

Your call of existing knowledge, in the complete absence of a control model or a single data point, is simply a bluff.

Reality is the control model. The hypothesis is that evolution is guided. Reality shows the process being unguided; therefore, there is no "desired outcome".

Only in star trek films I'm afraid

Is it that you are ignorant because of lack of education or do you actively try to maintain that state?:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

If you've discovered the process of abiogenesis, wiki is waiting to grant you fame and fortune.

Correct. I unfortunately have not; however, there is NOTHING to suggest that the process is anything other than purely natural (just the laws of physics doing its thing).

I don't think you understand how emergence is distinguished from merely being localized.
I'm sure however if we applied your same general principles you use for consciousness and the brain to electricity and a light bulb you would have a tougher time denying it.

Your reply made no sense to the context of the statement you quoted. Perhaps you would like to expand / paraphrase?

Sheesh
another wild claim made in the complete absence of control models

Empirically you have just been falcon punched

Um... the control model... have a video camera record the audio-visual aspects of the environment while your not experiencing anything and see if your lack of memory of the lack of experience matches whats on the recording. Is "Control Model" your new trendy toy? Having tools to use is a nice thing, but retarded application of tools is... well... retarded.

"far" is probably not an appropriate word

Good lord, do some reading or something. You're missing out on a lot of great work coming out of affective neuroscience.

Hogwash
You can do nothing of the sort.
The results are anything but clear.
Neuroscience is still out to lunch on pedagogy.

You are entirely incorrect:

http://www.erowid.org/tech/devices_article1.shtml
http://www.musc.edu/tmsmirror/intro/layintro.html

It does however highlight the inadequacies of mere localization in your argument for emergence

Please do point them out.

Quite easily if he rose to fame a few hundred years after his demise

There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus either. That's some pretty shitty record keeping for such an important event. There's also not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. No physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts.

and they tend to miss a lot too since histography is basically glorified journalism

Which is why you can cross reference other sources (for example the ones I exemplified above).

Why talk of Roman history ... you can talk amply of what the historians of WW2 missed

Because it's one of many nails in the coffin of fantasy ideas being peddled as real.

Its not so much about it reaching but reaching in a form that is palatable to the political ideology/values ... since that's the very thing that shapes importance in one's eyes.

I mean how much work do your values permit you to do in the name of researching miracles performed in this era (as opposed to sitting back on your laurels and guffawing)?

Just enough to know that miracles don't happen ;3.

Don't worry
It just took them a few hundred years to get on the uptake with Constantine (for better or worse)

I wonder why that was...

The absence of philosophical frameworks for terms like "reality are conspicuous by their absence in numerous atheist arguments ....

What is.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

It doesn't account for the origins of the cosmos or of life itself. True, it doesn't claim to, so it is limited and leaves a lot unanswered, as I said.

Not sure where you are going with this one.

If it is an attempt at a criticism of the theory of evolution, you may as well criticise a yo-yo because it isnt a submarine

you'd be right of course - yo-yo's do indeed make lousy submarines - the solution of course is simple

It is a PART of the methodology, not the whole. It is a limited guide, not an infallible law. Did Einstein use it to discover the theory of relativity?

I have no idea if he consciously used it- but relativity is consistent with occam's razor

I did not say God was needed, I said there was no proof to rule him out.

which isnt consistent with occam's razor

Yes, many theists do believe in evolution. And their belief in God explains the origins of life and of the cosmos as well.

no it doesnt - it provides and answer not an explanation - there's a difference

The bible teaches that Christ sustains all things by the word of his power. It says in Psalms that God makes the sun to shine, the grass to grow, he sends clouds and wind - the entire cosmos is sustained and governed by God. That he is not immediately visible does not contradict the Christian bible at all.

He does intervene and interfere every day, but in certain ways and times not on display for those who choose not to see. God allows you your unbelief.

but she does none of these things in any way that is detectable or measurable over and above the purely mundane and natural - occams razor suggests that they are best explained as non-miracles

The period of great and obvious miracles ceased a long time before the age of science, withion the first generation after Christ. But God does still act and work in the world today and does work miracles on an individual if not on a public and spectacular basis.

There have been no miracles save for the occasional holy appearance in foodstuffs - the coincidence between the sudden dissappearance of miracles and the discovery of explanations for supposed supernatural events is just too uncanny to ignore - occams razor suggests that they were never miracles in the first place.

Right, the point isn't testable. It is a mistake though to think that only that which is testable is real, that nothing can exist beyonbd the bounds you have laid down.

if it cant be tested then it isnt important.

If there were a god, don't you think it would be surprising if he conformed exactly to your expectations and did nothing beyond your comprehension? That would make you like God.

well god's purported behaviour is pretty well documented (afterall you seem to be pretty familiar with her modus operandi)- so my expectations are perfectly justified - so it is surprising that god suddenly started to act so out of character to her previous behaviour simultaneously to us beginning to be able to explain what we previously thought of as her miracles in naturalistic terms.

All highly speculative and very far from empirical

it is only speculative in the sense of whether this precise process gave rise to life on earth or another one - but the science is solid and uncontestable

 

[lightgigantic]

Wow, haven't seen you in a while light. Still fighting the good fight against truth and reason?

actually it was more that you offerred such a condensed bundle of mis-information that I couldn't help myself

Anyhow this is a classic non-sequitur. Joe said I cannot prove that God is not behind evolution. I asked Joe to define God. Joe defined him as the creator of everything. Humans are a subset of everything; however, reality shows they evolved (i.e. were not created); therefore, I showed that his definition of God could not be behind evolution simply because he would have created Humans (by its very definition).

and as I painfully reminded you, current (malleable) understandings about evolution are deeply embedded in cause and effect with a totally unclear (or at best, constantly changing) ideas about origins , so all you have shown is that you have no proof.

How so? The theory of evolution is a model and new evidence/understanding continually shapes it. What is certain is that evolution is a real phenomenon (it's self-evident at this point).

Its only when you dress it up as sufficient to rule out a creator or designer or extrapolate it to literally infinite boundaries for which there is no evidence that you step out of the whole "self evident" thing.

How about objective reality drawing up objective reality?

that says absolutely nothing for your claim to have a monopoly on it

I thought I had made it clear; however, I will try to paraphrase. When you guide something, you are making decisions to change the course of that *something* to avoid an outcome that would have commenced should that *something* have been left alone. For example. Here is an example of guiding:

http://android-apps.com/best/labyrinth/

not sure what the link is supposed to illustrate, but my point is that the "thing" you are claiming isn't working under any guidance is objective reality... which is a remarkable claim since it contextualizes not only your working senses (the nuts and bolts of the fervent reductionist), but the object of the senses too

No end as in no final product / no specific outcome / no sought after result.

How you can say this from an authority that is essentially metonymic (aka empiricism) is a mystery

Yes I know. I value truth. Your desire for a "control model" is most... hmmm... what's that word that means "do a lot of retarded work for me to demonstrate the self evident even though I could care less anyway?"... ahh yes... douchy.

actually you value empiricism. I'm just reminding you what it requires in order to come close to truth

Reality is the control model. The hypothesis is that evolution is guided. Reality shows the process being unguided; therefore, there is no "desired outcome".

A classic example of the hogwashiness of circular reasoning
Reality (specifically your douchy version of it) is the very thing under scrutiny

Is it that you are ignorant because of lack of education or do you actively try to maintain that state?:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

The general pattern for the claim that we are capable of synthesizing is to dumb down the definition of life. This takes the form of declaring that life is non-different from the chemicals it utilizes.
Your link is a fine example.

Correct. I unfortunately have not; however, there is NOTHING to suggest that the process is anything other than purely natural (just the laws of physics doing its thing).

Perhaps the scores of physicists who run back with their tails between their legs when they attempt to approach biology.

Your reply made no sense to the context of the statement you quoted. Perhaps you would like to expand / paraphrase?

You cite different functioning levels of the brain to indicate that it is the reservoir of consciousness (from normal waking consciousness to coma to death ... as a broad spectrum).
One could similarly cite different functioning states of a bulb to indicate that it is the reservoir of electricity (bright, dim and extinguished) ... except of course that the science behind electricity enables one to make the distinction between the energy and the energetic.

IOW what you (completely) lack is a break down of the source - all you have is a localized claim bluffed up to assume credible as emergent

Um... the control model... have a video camera record the audio-visual aspects of the environment while your not experiencing anything and see if your lack of memory of the lack of experience matches whats on the recording. Is "Control Model" your new trendy toy? Having tools to use is a nice thing, but retarded application of tools is... well... retarded.

not sure where this leaves you with your wonderful claim of the experience of death ....

Good lord, do some reading or something. You're missing out on a lot of great work coming out of affective neuroscience.

Seems that neuroscience (or at least the version that you are painting up to completely encompass life) is also missing quite a bit too ...

You are entirely incorrect:

http://www.erowid.org/tech/devices_article1.shtml
http://www.musc.edu/tmsmirror/intro/layintro.html

errr ... Big difference between inducing an epileptic fit and a successful pedagogical model

Please do point them out.

If you can't determine that a mobile phone is localized (IOW if you can't isolate the energizing force behind it - namely the user ... much like your model of neuroscience can't isolate the energizing force behind life ... since death is still powering along wonderfully at the rate of 100%) you can talk of a person ceasing to exist once the binary information that forms their communication (the "objective reality") falls corrupt.

There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus either. That's some pretty shitty record keeping for such an important event. There's also not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. No physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts.

Text critical issues come to bear on events as recent as WW2, what to speak of events 2000 years ago ... what to speak of events that surround a personality 2000 years ago who rose to popular fame several hundred years after his demise.
Much like one can entertain a lopsided view by granting empiricism a monopoly on all claims of objective reality, one can also carry a lop sided view of history when one doesn't triangulate

Which is why you can cross reference other sources (for example the ones I exemplified above).

Its not really cross referencing when you claim "if the romans didn't record him (even though he was practically a no one at the time) he didn't exist"

Because it's one of many nails in the coffin of fantasy ideas being peddled as real.

Given the problems that even plague modern history, it should be clear that you're the one peddling a fantasy if you're prepared to advocate wholesale rejection solely on the basis of roman record keeping .... ....

Just enough to know that miracles don't happen ;3.

a good answer to the question how much work of investigation your values permit you ...

I wonder why that was...

Because previously christianity was comprised exclusively of reformed jews and didn't even have the numbers to be a minority group

What is.

your absence of philosophical framework is duly noted again

 

[Crunchy Cat]

actually it was more that you offerred such a condensed bundle of mis-information that I couldn't help myself

It always amazes me how much those plagued by the supernatural tend to find mis-information.

and as I painfully reminded you, current (malleable) understandings about evolution are deeply embedded in cause and effect with a totally unclear (or at best, constantly changing) ideas about origins , so all you have shown is that you have no proof.

I demonstrated Joe incorrect strictly on logical grounds. The fact that the start of life on earth is unclear doesn't make an omnipotent life form a possibility either.

Its only when you dress it up as sufficient to rule out a creator or designer or extrapolate it to literally infinite boundaries for which there is no evidence that you step out of the whole "self evident" thing.

It rules out the claimed creator/designer claimed by humans. Can't help that... when you have silly stories (for example) about adam, a rib, and magic and then compare it to reality, it's clear that those silly stories are what they appear to be. Silly stories.

that says absolutely nothing for your claim to have a monopoly on it

Understanding something better than the supernaturally plagued doesn't make a monopoly.

not sure what the link is supposed to illustrate, but my point is that the "thing" you are claiming isn't working under any guidance is objective reality... which is a remarkable claim since it contextualizes not only your working senses (the nuts and bolts of the fervent reductionist), but the object of the senses too

The link illustrated an example of guidance. You guide a steel ball through a maze. It's a demonstration of a concept. Unless you're claiming that your senses aren't enough to detect a "decision" it stands that evolution is not guided.

How you can say this from an authority that is essentially metonymic (aka empiricism) is a mystery

Because there is demonstrably no intent, no sapience, no guidance behind evolution. Without that, there is no goal as sapience is required to have a goal.

actually you value empiricism. I'm just reminding you what it requires in order to come close to truth

All that is required for truth is a simple relationship between what's in your head and actual reality. If the relationship is that of correspondence then you have achieved truth.

A classic example of the hogwashiness of circular reasoning
Reality (specifically your douchy version of it) is the very thing under scrutiny

I have news for you. When you test an idea against reality, whatever reality validates or invalidates is what determines if the idea is correct or not. Reality is NEVER incorrect. It has the final say on everything.

The general pattern for the claim that we are capable of synthesizing is to dumb down the definition of life. This takes the form of declaring that life is non-different from the chemicals it utilizes.
Your link is a fine example.

Life is what is common to all entities considered living. All such entities are functionally collect energy to persist. Whether you like that or not, it is what it is and there are no known exceptions to it either.

Perhaps the scores of physicists who run back with their tails between their legs when they attempt to approach biology.

Or the scores of chemists who try to approach computer science. Non-sequitur.

You cite different functioning levels of the brain to indicate that it is the reservoir of consciousness (from normal waking consciousness to coma to death ... as a broad spectrum).
One could similarly cite different functioning states of a bulb to indicate that it is the reservoir of electricity (bright, dim and extinguished) ... except of course that the science behind electricity enables one to make the distinction between the energy and the energetic.

IOW what you (completely) lack is a break down of the source - all you have is a localized claim bluffed up to assume credible as emergent

Then it's your understanding that is incorrect. The brain isn't a reservoir of consciousness. It is a parallel quantum computer where consciousness is showing itself to result from the circuits competing to hold the stage for a moment. That's why it's important to understand what happens when those circuits are off, misfiring, etc.

not sure where this leaves you with your wonderful claim of the experience of death ....

It leaves it right where it started. Death is non-experience.

Seems that neuroscience (or at least the version that you are painting up to completely encompass life) is also missing quite a bit too ...

Of course, the knowledge gained from it is incomplete; however, it has resulted in a lot of good knowledge.

errr ... Big difference between inducing an epileptic fit and a successful pedagogical model

Non-sequitur again. None of what you stated detracts from you being very incorrect.

If you can't determine that a mobile phone is localized (IOW if you can't isolate the energizing force behind it - namely the user ... much like your model of neuroscience can't isolate the energizing force behind life ... since death is still powering along wonderfully at the rate of 100%) you can talk of a person ceasing to exist once the binary information that forms their communication (the "objective reality") falls corrupt.

Let's see here.

* Cellphones were made for users... check.
* Cellphones don't exhibit sapient behavior... check.
* Cellphones and users are observable... check.
* Cellphones and users function just fine independent of each other... check.
* LG's cellphone analogy is evidently retarded... check.

Text critical issues come to bear on events as recent as WW2, what to speak of events 2000 years ago ... what to speak of events that surround a personality 2000 years ago who rose to popular fame several hundred years after his demise.
Much like one can entertain a lopsided view by granting empiricism a monopoly on all claims of objective reality, one can also carry a lop sided view of history when one doesn't triangulate

Its not really cross referencing when you claim "if the romans didn't record him (even though he was practically a no one at the time) he didn't exist"

Given the problems that even plague modern history, it should be clear that you're the one peddling a fantasy if you're prepared to advocate wholesale rejection solely on the basis of roman record keeping .... ....

An "individual"? We're talking about a deity. It's interesting that all throughout history, major players (whether their fame was immediate or after their death) are reasonably well documented... except this one. At the same time, this poor elusive fella' is documented before and after death... just not during life. And lets not forget proto-religion similarities.

a good answer to the question how much work of investigation your values permit you ...

Just the right amount to be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

Because previously christianity was comprised exclusively of reformed jews and didn't even have the numbers to be a minority group

Hmmm... sounds like a great way to gain some influence. Start a cult, get it recognized, and viola!!! On the path to glory!

your absence of philosophical framework is duly noted again

Consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory. Just like my absence of philosophical framework.

 

[lightgigantic]

It always amazes me how much those plagued by the supernatural tend to find mis-information.

it always amazed me how staunch reductionists can be possessed by such strong reservoirs of emotional baggage .... I don't require to bring in anything exterior to even your own value system in order to [point out the inadeqaucies

I demonstrated Joe incorrect strictly on logical grounds. The fact that the start of life on earth is unclear doesn't make an omnipotent life form a possibility either.

The fact is that there is no proof for the origin of life so all your gallivanting amounts to nil . The evidence for this is that there are several different ideas on the subject (one being that it came from outer space )

It rules out the claimed creator/designer claimed by humans. Can't help that... when you have silly stories (for example) about adam, a rib, and magic and then compare it to reality, it's clear that those silly stories are what they appear to be. Silly stories.

The old testament isn't celebrated for its strong text critical issues ... but then its not surprising that you take the weakest form of theism as central to your criticisms ... but that said, you can take the strongest from of abiogenesis and having nothing better since it still remains a claim totally isolated from any doable procedures (which is, after all, the methodology that grants credence to the discipline of empiricism) .

Understanding something better than the supernaturally plagued doesn't make a monopoly.

Deeming that the claim is false on the grounds that it stands outside the jurisdiction of one's favored monopolizing agent is certainly not an understanding at all.

The link illustrated an example of guidance. You guide a steel ball through a maze. It's a demonstration of a concept. Unless you're claiming that your senses aren't enough to detect a "decision" it stands that evolution is not guided.

Once again I fail to see the relevancy of the article.
In the case of the link, the articles in question (the maze and the ball) can be fully analyzed in terms of decisions ... and one can further draw a control model in the absence of any agent of decision.
Unless you are making the claim that objective reality be obedient to the values of human intelligence, its hard to understand the parallel.
The moment you start to talk about what you "see" in "objective reality" to indicate that there is no guiding force, you depart from the safe confines that the link operates out of.

Because there is demonstrably no intent, no sapience, no guidance behind evolution. Without that, there is no goal as sapience is required to have a goal.

with a demonstrative absence of a controlled environment to base such claims (what to speak of a total lack of reference of the values indicative of a universal sapience) this is tripe

All that is required for truth is a simple relationship between what's in your head and actual reality. If the relationship is that of correspondence then you have achieved truth.

sure

that's why if the idea of "|actual reality" (such as "reality is defined by the workings of the senses") has no basis other than your head, you are guilty of circular reasoning.

I have news for you. When you test an idea against reality, whatever reality validates or invalidates is what determines if the idea is correct or not. Reality is NEVER incorrect. It has the final say on everything.

the problem is that you are not talking about reality.
What tests do you have to show that life is the consequence of material elements?
What tests do you have to show that evolution is not guided by intelligence?
What tests do you have to show that all phenomena are materially reducible?
Answer : zero
:shrug:

Life is what is common to all entities considered living. All such entities are functionally collect energy to persist. Whether you like that or not, it is what it is and there are no known exceptions to it either.

I'm not sure how this helps your claim that life is non-different from the chemicals it utilizes ...

Or the scores of chemists who try to approach computer science. Non-sequitur.

actually they don't have that problem
chemists (plastic and metal fabricators) are the very ones who manufacture computers

Then it's your understanding that is incorrect. The brain isn't a reservoir of consciousness. It is a parallel quantum computer where consciousness is showing itself to result from the circuits competing to hold the stage for a moment. That's why it's important to understand what happens when those circuits are off, misfiring, etc.

the circuits of a parallel quantum computer ?

Pseudo science here we come!!

It leaves it right where it started. Death is non-experience.

then it becomes even less clear why you attribute it to sleep or memory loss ... which is the experience of practically everyone.

Of course, the knowledge gained from it is incomplete; however, it has resulted in a lot of good knowledge.

none of which evidence your claims

Non-sequitur again. None of what you stated detracts from you being very incorrect.

Perhaps you could prove your point by highlighting the bits you think deal with pedagogy ... or even indicate what (successful) pedagogical models are in place that rely solely on reductionist language.

Let's see here.

* Cellphones were made for users... check.
* Cellphones don't exhibit sapient behavior... check.
* Cellphones and users are observable... check.
* Cellphones and users function just fine independent of each other... check.

kind of amazing the conclusions one can draw up when one has the power to isolate the energizing force behind it, huh?

* LG's cellphone analogy is evidently retarded... check.

try again
Its our very ability to isolate the workings of a mobile phone that grants fraudulence to the claim - using it as an analogy draws a parallel to the inconsistencies of your claim

An "individual"? We're talking about a deity.

not necessarily
some text critical issues frame him as god's representative

It's interesting that all throughout history, major players (whether their fame was immediate or after their death) are reasonably well documented... except this one. At the same time, this poor elusive fella' is documented before and after death... just not during life. And lets not forget proto-religion similarities.

the problem is that your break down of "well documented" is "validated by roman authorities"
:shrug:

Just the right amount to be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

needless to say, if you can't do the work to investigate, your claim of status is debatable ...

Hmmm... sounds like a great way to gain some influence. Start a cult, get it recognized, and viola!!! On the path to glory!

there's a similar pattern with darwinism, dawkinism or anything else on the face of the planet that draws a social influence

Consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory. Just like my absence of philosophical framework.

Your inability to come up with a philosophical framework shows that the only persistent qualities are inconsistency and contradictory

 

[scifes]

there was a muslim philosopher who had this theory that when cotten burns because of flames, it's not the flames that make the cotton catch fire, but god putting the cotton on fire as the flames come near, the reason he "orders" the cotton to burn everytime we bring the flames closer to it, is for us to navigate our world easier. in other words, physical laws don't exist per se, they don't govern anything, but are merly a trend for us to pick with our given logic about how god does things.*
miracles are when god decides he wants to do somthing outside our known trend.
funny though, those are what science labels "Anomalistics"

The term itself was coined in 1973 by Drew University anthropologist Roger W. Wescott, who defined it as being "...serious and systematic study of all phenomena that fail to fit the picture of reality provided for us by common sense or by the established sciences."[citation needed]

...
so much for the most comprehensive outlook on life eh? ALL of science could be breadcrumbs laid down by god..

*i actually reached this "theory" by myself one day on the way to school[or uni, i forogt], and i thought it'd get me another nobel prize without a doubt..boy how was i disappointed when i first read that wiki page...but it was made up for by the awesome fact that thre actually existed someone as brilliant as me before, and that he cared to write down notes.

 

[Joe K.]

A valid definition of "discuss" is to "talk over or write about". The word and it's context were clear and applicable:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discussed

If you want to claim that the New Testament naratives about Christ are not original because they were "discussed" in the Septuagint (which is only the Greek translation of the Old Testament), you will find no discussions of many outstanding features of Christ's life. Walking on water, feeding the multitudes, healing a man born blind, and so on. There are references to being pierced, being born of a virgin, being born in Bethlehem, but these are all made in passing, sufficiently clear for those who believe in Christ but sufficiently obscure so those who do not believe in Christ can sey they don't apply. To me they are not "discussions."

Anyway, if the writers of the old Testament were in facat able to predict the future, then references to a later Christ show not imitation by later writers, but true prediction by earlier ones.

Of course, you cannot scientificall refute the possibility of prediction.

 

[Joe K.]

You secularists like to pride yourselves on your logic, but pride can be a barrier.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
Do we need to define God? How about a supreme being who created everything?

That's an easy one. Humans are part of "everything". Humans evolved; therefore, were not created.

If humans evolved - a very big "if," by no means a matter of proven fact.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
I believe it is not a fact.

Obviously. Scientific knowledge can take you to the evidence but it can't make you accept it. Beyond that, I can't help you.

Also, other forms of reasoning can point you to the existence of a God behind all natural order, above and beyond the very limited grasp of science, but can't force you to accept them. This is not a matter of logic and evidence and science only, but also of deep personal needs, emotions, fears . . . what if some atheists are afraid of God, and do try to pretend he doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
Unknown - a key word. This does not mean God HAS to be used to fill it, but it does mean that God can not be or should not be ruled out a priori.

Actually it does mean that God should be ruled out. There is no evidence such a life form exists; therefore, it shouldn't even be a consideration as it's utterly disconnected from objectively reality.

You arbitraily define "objective reality" according to your own personal criteria - but your custom made concept of reality is arbitrary and limited, and excludes much. Objective reality is larger than you think it is, and the nature of various sorts of evidence as well as the ways of interpreting that evidence is not confined to your personal level of understanding.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
I don't believe in divinely guided evolution or any other kind of evolution, but my point is you have no scientific evidence to prove it is not guided. Your rejection of guidance is a personal decision, not a scieintific or rigorously logical one.

I don't its being understand what something "guided" looks like. When something is guided, decisions are made to intentionally change the course of something that, if left alone, would yield an entirely different result. There is no evidence of any such decisions in evolution. None whatsoever. That means it's no guided.[?QUOTE]

You say there is no evidence of guidance. If one saw a bare construction site and then saw evidence of construction, fist the foundation dug, then foundation and supports etc., all of this observed at night with no one working, there would be evidence of some progression.

If we consider the first emergence of life (SOMEHOW!) as a single cell form and then compare it with the results of millions of years advancement (according to your THEORY) there is clear evidence of the process going somewhere.

You say there is no evidence it is guided- I say there is a lot of evidence. Is your interpretation purely detached and objective? Or do you have some hidden reason unknown even to yourself that makes you want to deny God?

Originally Posted by Joe K.
You don't know if it s going anywhere or not.

Yes I do. Entire lineages of species can be examined (from start to extinction) and there is no "end".

You examine only extinct forms, but not living ones, showing that the process goes on? Highly selective evaluation of evidence. Your argument is only that, an argument, not a proof. A lot of wood is wasted in chips and shavings when a carpenter makes a table. Some wastage does not prove there is no process. Your point does have some merit and is a good one, but it is not a PROOF.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
We have progressed from little in the past to comparatively advanced forms. How do you know this proces will not continue toward some end as yet unseen by you?

Because the concept doesn't apply. To have an "end" means there is a "purpose". A "purpose" can only be given by a "purposer". A "purposer" requires a sapience. The process of evolution is demonstrably non-sapient, therefor lacks purpose, and therefore has no "end".

The process may be non-sapient, but it doesn't follow that there is no sapience behind it. The working of a car engine is non-sapient - does it follow there is no intelligence behind it?

Originally Posted by Joe K.
I am not advocating this, I am only saying you cannot KNOW this is wrong.

That is incorrect. You can know as long as you are able to observe, think, and learn from existing knowledge.

One can observe, think, and learn yet still have limitations to one's knowledge. Someone can study and think and learn from existingknowledge and KNOW that 9-11 was the reults of a plot by the American government. Or, someone else can study the same information and "know" otherwise.

You overestimate I fear the certainty of knowledge.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
And, life got started - how? You don't know. What if God did start it? You can still have your evolution.

Right now, humans are able to put together various conditions which yield basic building blocks of life on Earth. The very fact that we can do this and the fact the evolution is quite real strongly points SPECULATION to the start of life on Earth to be nothing more than a natural process that we simply don't have good visibility into RIGHT. Furthermore, there is no reason to even consider that some super life form "started it." sez who? There's no evidence for such a life form existing in the first place.

Your response is loaded with subjectivity. And, my point stands. You don't know, no one does.

As to your statement "humans are able to put together various conditions which yield basic building blocks of life on Earth," it has two problems. (1) They are still very far from creating anything like a living organism. (2) Those basic building blocks are created by human intelligence in very elaborately controlled situations - and you want me to believe this is the same as things happening by accident.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
Those arguments show that the human soul or the life force or spirit, whatever, works in and through the brain and is affected by material considerations. No one denies this.

You are denying it, but I don't think you understand that yet.

No, I am not denying it. I know as everyone does that the human spirit is affected by material considerations. What we deny is that it is affected by material considerations only. You see the part and mistake it for the whole.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
That within us which thinks, feels, perceives - you believe it ceases at death but this is a belief, not based on rigorous logic or evidence.

When you go to sleep tonight and are not dreaming... take note of what you think, feel, and perceive. You wont be able to, simply because your consciousness is effectively gone. The experience of death is no different than a dreamless sleep, it's non-experience.

That consciousness disappears when we sleep is refuted by the fact that people while sleeping can and sometimes do have dreams directly related to problems they are having.

Also, we sleep, and then we wake up. The soul does not vanish, the personality. Or do you claim that the personalitydisappears during sleep so that every day we wake up completely new and different persons than we were when we went to sleep?

Also, after we sleep, we wake up and life goes on. same with death. The souls is parted from the body but still lives. Your contrary contention is not scientific fact, just speculation without evidence.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
And there is no known explanation of how chemicals and neurons can give rise to human feelings.

100% understood factional explanation? You are correct (we don't have that yet); however, by all means please don't discount what affective neuroscience has discovered as far as emotions are concerned.

I do discount it and claim they will never unravel the mystery of the human personality by going that route.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
You don't know if the soul still exists and retains all of that information but only is unable to express it as the means of communication are damaged.

Of course I know. I can also stimulate your brain in various manners and bring up long lost memories, sensations, emotional states, etc. Whether I am removing or stimulating, the results are clear.

The results show that consciousness is intimately connected to the brain, which no one denies. The results do NOT show that there is nothing else which exists apart from the brain, and only uses it much as you use the computer (just an analogy, not a proof and not exact in every detail, no analogy is).

Originally Posted by Joe K.
If I destroyed your cell phone so you were unable to call me that would not mean you had ceased to exist. You have provided an argument and evidence, not proof.

A cell phone transmits radio signals to cellphone towers. Those signals are translated into binary information, sent through a network, and re-transmitted to a target cell phone in a different geographical location. A brain observably doesn't operate like that. It's a poor anology.

No analogy is ever identical to the thing it attempts to clarify. If it were identical, it would cease to be an analogy. I still maintain that preventing communicationby damaging part of the brain does not prove there is nothing apart which does the communicating, and may still exist even if it is prevented from communicating.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
The Roman historians were not concerned with every minor rabble rouser in obscure parts of the empire.

Seriously? How likely do you think it is that the Romans somehow missed the most important person in the world? Historians tend to capture alot of detail; however, in looking at Roman history there is an important detail concerning prophets at the time. Did you notice what that is?

Jesus was not visibly the most important person in the world during his life. He stated plainly that he had been sent first to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. It was not until after his deathand resurrection and the granting of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost that the gospel began to spread widely among the gentiles. To the Romans, this was all at first just one more of the many sects and religions that abounded in that part of the world.

Historians do capture a lot of detail, about certain things. But which of the roman historians - Tacitus, Livy, Sallust, you name one - were concerned with minor events in Palestine, a provincial backwater?

You say there is an important detail concerning prophets at that time. I welcome further information from you. One detail would not refute my claim that Christ during his life and for sometime thereafter was not of interest to Roman historians. How much did they write about Pontius Pilate, someone much more significant in the Roman scheme of things?

Originally Posted by Joe K.
The four Gospels are historical documents concerning the life of Jesus. There is a wealth of information about his life and teachings from eye witnesses.

Yes, "lots" of eye witnesses... which somehow escaped Roman historians? ... Really? You don't think that word of a geniune Miracle man would not have reached Rome?

Which Roman historian is going to believe strange stories of miracles coming out of a minor province? If he even heard them he would probably react the same way you do now - "nonsense." Rumors or knowledge of Christ did not reach Rome until after his death, and then it would be many years before Christianity was taken seriously enough to merit real study.

Again, you offer arguments, not proof.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
Don't you think its odd that an invented religion about someone who never even existed could have spread with such speed throughout the empire?

I actually find it ironic that Roman historians have no historical record of the "Man-God" behind the religion that spread throughout their empire. But to answer your question, no I don't think its odd. Look at how easily cults start and spread amongst people who want to believe.

How easily cults spread all over the world and last nearly two thousand years and become integral parts of Western civilization?

Nothing like Christianity has ever happened before in world history. Islam was spread in its first vital centuries by force and conquest.

But, people do believe in strange things easily- they can even believe people came from monkeys and that the universe just sort of happened somehow.

Originally Posted by Joe K.
Speculation nevertheless.

And well reasoned speculation as well. It uses the knowledge we actually have about reality.

"Knowledge," "reality," "well reasoned" - in your personal view. Your definitions are arbitrary and subjective.

 

[Joe K.]

Originally Posted by Joe K.
It doesn't account for the origins of the cosmos or of life itself. True, it doesn't claim to, so it is limited and leaves a lot unanswered, as I said.

Not sure where you are going with this one.

If it is an attempt at a criticism of the theory of evolution, you may as well criticise a yo-yo because it isnt a submarine

you'd be right of course - yo-yo's do indeed make lousy submarines - the solution of course is simple

I agree with you, evolution doesn't claim to explain the origins of life or of the cosmos. It assumes those things and takes them for granted. So, how do you explain them? Evolution won't help here. It is a limited and partial explanation solidly grounded on a foundation of mist and fog.



It is a PART of the methodology, not the whole. It is a limited guide, not an infallible law. Did Einstein use it to discover the theory of relativity? ... I did not say God was needed, I said there was no proof to rule him out.

I have no idea if he consciously used it- but relativity is consistent with occam's razor ... which isnt consistent with occam's razor

I repeat, Occam's razor is a rule of thumb, an aid, not a proof.

Yes, many theists do believe in evolution. And their belief in God explains the origins of life and of the cosmos as well.

no it doesnt - it provides and answer not an explanation - there's a difference

No significant difference that I can see - an answer and an explanation can both be true or false, valid or invalid.

The bible teaches that Christ sustains all things by the word of his power. It says in Psalms that God makes the sun to shine, the grass to grow, he sends clouds and wind - the entire cosmos is sustained and governed by God. That he is not immediately visible does not contradict the Christian bible at all.

He does intervene and interfere every day, but in certain ways and times not on display for those who choose not to see. God allows you your unbelief.

but he does none of these things in any way that is detectable or measurable over and above the purely mundane and natural - occams razor suggests that they are best explained as non-miracles

"Suggestion" shows you are speculating here.

The period of great and obvious miracles ceased a long time before the age of science, withion the first generation after Christ. But God does still act and work in the world today and does work miracles on an individual if not on a public and spectacular basis.

There have been no miracles save for the occasional holy appearance in foodstuffs - the coincidence between the sudden dissappearance of miracles and the discovery of explanations for supposed supernatural events is just too uncanny to ignore - occams razor suggests that they were never miracles in the first place.

You are not privy to all of the things happening all over the world. You assertion there have been no miracles is not based on empirical data.

Also, a razor is good for shaving, not for chopping down redwoods and splitting them up into lumber. There is more to life than Occam's razor.

Right, the point isn't testable. It is a mistake though to think that only that which is testable is real, that nothing can exist beyonbd the bounds you have laid down.

if it cant be tested then it isnt important.

According to you. Your statement is not empirically verifiable. You think if it can't be studied in the lab it doesn't exist? That a scientific lab is the center of the universe?

If there were a god, don't you think it would be surprising if he conformed exactly to your expectations and did nothing beyond your comprehension? That would make you like God.

well god's purported behaviour is pretty well documented (afterall you seem to be pretty familiar with his modus operandi)- so my expectations are perfectly justified - so it is surprising that god suddenly started to act so out of character to his previous behaviour simultaneously to us beginning to be able to explain what we previously thought of as his miracles in naturalistic terms.

I repeat my unanswered question: If there were a God, don't you think it would be surprising if he conformed exactly to your expectations and did nothing beyond your comprehension?

God is much greater than you, and he does things beyond your comprehension. I say nothing about his m.o., but only make the obvious point that our very small brains are not the final measure of reality.




it is only speculative in the sense of whether this precise process gave rise to life on earth or another one - but the science is solid and uncontestable

Some science is solid, or much of it, but not all speculation by scientists is solid. "Science" does not equal "speculation by scieintists on things beyond the reach of experiment (including the origin of the cosmos).

 

[spidergoat]

"Science" does not equal "speculation by scieintists on things beyond the reach of experiment (including the origin of the cosmos).

Yes it does. And they are not beyond reach of experiment, just because they happened in the past. Speculation is the first part of the process. There are some plausible theories on the origin of the first cells. The latest one:

We may never be able to prove beyond any doubt how life first evolved. But of the many explanations proposed, one stands out - the idea that life evolved in hydrothermal vents deep under the sea. Not in the superhot black smokers, but more placid affairs known as alkaline hydrothermal vents.

This theory can explain life's strangest features, and there is growing evidence to support it.

Earlier this year, for instance, lab experiments confirmed that conditions in some of the numerous pores within the vents can lead to high concentrations of large molecules. This makes the vents an ideal setting for the "RNA world" widely thought to have preceded the first cells.

If life did evolve in alkaline hydrothermal vents, it might have happened something like this:

1.

Water percolated down into newly formed rock under the seafloor, where it reacted with minerals such as olivine, producing a warm alkaline fluid rich in hydrogen, sulphides and other chemicals - a process called serpentinisation.

This hot fluid welled up at alkaline hydrothermal vents like those at the Lost City, a vent system discovered near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in 2000.
2.

Unlike today's seas, the early ocean was acidic and rich in dissolved iron. When upwelling hydrothermal fluids reacted with this primordial seawater, they produced carbonate rocks riddled with tiny pores and a "foam" of iron-sulphur bubbles.
3.

Inside the iron-sulphur bubbles, hydrogen reacted with carbon dioxide, forming simple organic molecules such as methane, formate and acetate. Some of these reactions were catalysed by the iron-sulphur minerals. Similar iron-sulphur catalysts are still found at the heart of many proteins today.
4.

The electrochemical gradient between the alkaline vent fluid and the acidic seawater leads to the spontaneous formation of acetyl phosphate and pyrophospate, which act just like adenosine triphosphate or ATP, the chemical that powers living cells.

These molecules drove the formation of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins – and nucleotides, the building blocks for RNA and DNA.
5.

Thermal currents and diffusion within the vent pores concentrated larger molecules like nucleotides, driving the formation of RNA and DNA – and providing an ideal setting for their evolution into the world of DNA and proteins. Evolution got under way, with sets of molecules capable of producing more of themselves starting to dominate.
6.

Fatty molecules coated the iron-sulphur froth and spontaneously formed cell-like bubbles. Some of these bubbles would have enclosed self-replicating sets of molecules – the first organic cells. The earliest protocells may have been elusive entities, though, often dissolving and reforming as they circulated within the vents.
7.

The evolution of an enzyme called pyrophosphatase, which catalyses the production of pyrophosphate, allowed the protocells to extract more energy from the gradient between the alkaline vent fluid and the acidic ocean. This ancient enzyme is still found in many bacteria and archaea, the first two branches on the tree of life.
8.

Some protocells started using ATP as well as acetyl phosphate and pyrophosphate. The production of ATP using energy from the electrochemical gradient is perfected with the evolution of the enzyme ATP synthase, found within all life today.
9.

Protocells further from the main vent axis, where the natural electrochemical gradient is weaker, started to generate their own gradient by pumping protons across their membranes, using the energy released when carbon dioxide reacts with hydrogen.

This reaction yields only a small amount of energy, not enough to make ATP. By repeating the reaction and storing the energy in the form of an electrochemical gradient, however, protocells "saved up" enough energy for ATP production.
10.

Once protocells could generate their own electrochemical gradient, they were no longer tied to the vents. Cells left the vents on two separate occasions, with one exodus giving rise to bacteria and the other to archaea.​

​

Until even these speculative theories are discounted, a non-supernatural origin of life must prevail.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes it does. And they are not beyond reach of experiment, just because they happened in the past. Speculation is the first part of the process. There are some plausible theories on the origin of the first cells. The latest one:



Until even these speculative theories are discounted, a non-supernatural origin of life must prevail.

Geez

Has there been a time in the past 80 years or so where there hasn't been a latest plausible speculation about the origins of first cells?
:shrug:

 

[synthesizer-patel]

I agree with you, evolution doesn't claim to explain the origins of life or of the cosmos. It assumes those things and takes them for granted. So, how do you explain them? Evolution won't help here. It is a limited and partial explanation solidly grounded on a foundation of mist and fog.

I still dont really understand why you are choosing this as a talking point - my comprehesive guide to Asian cookery doesnt explain the origins of life or the cosmos either - so what?

I repeat, Occam's razor is a rule of thumb, an aid, not a proof.

perhaps not - but it is essential to the process - without it science can become pseudo-science.
for example - the suggestion that we are obliged to include non-detecable, non-measurable, supernatural entities in naturalistic explanations would make the following statement completely valid, and certainly as valid as including god as a guiding force in evolution.

"All measurements show that tides are created by a combination of the gravitational attraction of both the moon and the sun on the worlds oceans, and the centrifugal forces resulting from the earth's rotation, however as we cannot rule out the intervention of gangs of invisible 2ft 3 inch green pixies called steve from dimension X, we must also conlude that they are also responsible"

No significant difference that I can see - an answer and an explanation can both be true or false, valid or invalid.

an explanation is more satisfying

"Suggestion" shows you are speculating here.

no it doesnt - I'm a scientist so I use scientific language - we tend to be circumspect

You are not privy to all of the things happening all over the world. You assertion there have been no miracles is not based on empirical data.

Miracles would be big news - they arent in the news - they arent happening

the simple fact is that most supposed miracles need to be "interpreted" as such - but survive other and better explanations

Also, a razor is good for shaving, not for chopping down redwoods and splitting them up into lumber. There is more to life than Occam's razor.

Indeed there is - but it is very useful for a surefire quick method of blowing away obvious bullshit - which is why it is so useful with your assertions

According to you. Your statement is not empirically verifiable. You think if it can't be studied in the lab it doesn't exist? That a scientific lab is the center of the universe?

actually you couldnt find something more empirically verifiable than that - show me 1 peer reviewed scientific paper that demonstrates something that cant be measured

I repeat my unanswered question: If there were a God, don't you think it would be surprising if he conformed exactly to your expectations and did nothing beyond your comprehension?

and I repeat my answer - perhaps you just need to understand it - try reading it for starters

Some science is solid, or much of it, but not all speculation by scientists is solid. "Science" does not equal "speculation by scieintists on things beyond the reach of experiment (including the origin of the cosmos).

present 4 recent peer reviewed papers discussing the origin of the cosmos and describe precisely what is speculative about them - or admit that you have nothing more to offer than opinion on that subject.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Here's a suggestion.

Let's say for example we decide to completely change the way science is done and include the supernatural entity of your choice as an undetectable guiding force for evolution.

in what way is that useful?

how does that improve our understanding?

what new questions does that raise?

 

[nirakar]

it always amazed me how staunch reductionists can be possessed by such strong reservoirs of emotional baggage ....

You secularists like to pride yourselves on your logic, but pride can be a barrier.

I agree with both of you.

I like science because it tries to find truth. Atheists are indeed a persecuted minority. We got a black president of the USA and will probably have a female president long before we get an openly gay or openly atheist president.

But having a belief persecuted by irrational religious people does not make that belief scientific. Atheism is not a scientifically based belief. Anybody who thinks atheism is scientifically based is either a second rate scientific thinker or is blinded by their own emotions on the topic of atheism.

I wrote the quote below in another thread an hour ago at http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2614612#post2614612 before seeing this thread. Strange coincidence that Joe was talking about pride as a barrier to science and so was I. Pride as a barrier to science is not a very common thought but here at Sciforums science loving atheist pride and dogma is somewhat like the religious pride and dogma displayed elsewhere and this inspires thinking about pride in science as a barrier to scientific thinking. The science loving atheist proud /dogmalike belief is so funny because by holding science as it's proof and the reason for the pride and dogmalike beliefs the dogmalike beliefs of the science loving atheists includes the negation of the dogmalike beliefs of the science loving atheists but the proud science loving atheists can't see that.

They are barely aware of their pride.

by simply saying that Science should be secular.


........... I am simply asking if you agree that science should be separate from organized sets of beliefs that are simply not based on facts but instead on faith.

"Should be" is a a subjective idea that is at the essentially religious or political.

Science is science. Anything that is not science is not science. Beliefs that are simply not based on facts but instead on faith are by definition unscientific beliefs,

Scientific thinkers have no difficulty recognizing that religion is not scientific.


But lesser Scientific thinkers have difficulties recognizing that the exterior style of science is not scientific. Wearing a lab coat and making provocatively anti-anthropomorphic statements unbased on real science was an example of working the look of science rather being scientific. I am thinking about some idiots who thought they were scientists and came on PBS TV in the 1970s claiming that they had proved animals were not conscious while their actual experiments were deeply flawed scientifically.

Here at Sciforums I have seen unscientific thinking trying to associate atheism with science. Atheism is not scientific but rather is another belief form more similar to religion than to science. The fact that a disproportionate number of scientists are atheists does not make atheism scientific. The fact that atheism is a persecuted religion by the majority who happen to believe in god religions does not make atheism scientific.

Pride in science is not scientific. Having pride in anything is not scientific. The science and the pride should remain separate so that the pride does not bring impurities into science.

Science is an style of thinking based on experiments and logic and the collected results from that style of thinking. Good logic never forgets that assumptions are just assumptions. Seeing what would be consistent or inconsistent with the assumptions is Logic. Experimentally testing the logic and the assumptions is the other component of science.

Because I hold science sacred, I hate it when people turn science into a religion because that brings impurities into science. Because I hold science sacred I don't like it when people pretend to be scientific by adopting the mannerisms common among scientists because it is science and only science that is science. The unscientific beliefs and mannerisms and styles of dress common among scientists should not be mistaken for science.

The religious parallel to mistaking the trappings of science for science is idolatry which is mistaking the idol that symbolizes some aspect of god for god.

By impurities in science I mean unscientific thinking wrongly believed to be scientific thinking.

My holding science to be sacred and wanting to protect science from the impurities that mistaking the trappings of science for science brings into science and to protect science from the impurities that pride in science and pride in scientists brings into science is not scientific thinking. Holding anything to be sacred is not scientific thinking.

Pride and reverence and "should"/(how things ought to be) are not part of scientific thinking. People can think scientifically about pride and reverence and "should"/(how things ought to be) but these feelings have no place in science nor does rejecting these feelings have any place in science.

Occam's razor is good for cutting religion and the belief in god out of scientific thought but it also cuts atheism AKA the belief that god does not exist out of scientific thought. Neither belief in god nor belief that god does not exist are scientific ideas. They have no practical application in science and are not supported nor unsupported by logic and experimentation. To be in alignment with the principle of Occam's razor then you would be an agnostic.

Some of the religious ideas other than the belief in god do run into conflict with science and that conflict invalidates major sections of various religious doctrines and proves that religious doctrine has a low probability for truthfulness; But that conflict between the details of religious doctrine and science in no way scientifically validates atheism.

 

[lightgigantic]

Here's a suggestion.

Let's say for example we decide to completely change the way science is done and include the supernatural entity of your choice as an undetectable guiding force for evolution.

in what way is that useful?

how does that improve our understanding?

what new questions does that raise?

I'm not sure why we have to label god as "undetectable" from the onset.
Perhaps you are alluding that one bring the phenomena of "god" to the table of empiricism (so "undetectable" actually means "undetectable by empiricism"), but this also makes it unclear what the requirement for this is.
It makes me wonder what problems you have with theistic based discipline which tend to focus on "stat of being" as opposed to "state of the working senses".