It's word of mouth, unfortunately. And I don't claim to be a guru in this area. I thought you said you had read the posts?
PM me if you want the address of one of them.
best arguments against religion (no theists)
- Thread starter cato
- Start date
PM me if you want the address of one of them.
Actually to tell you the truth I also have this lawn mower that can do tax returns ... and without an accountant too I might add.
I guess it depends whether one can concede that measuring microkelvins is a topic dealt exclusively within the discipline of science.
Lucky you. Is the lawn mower tax deductible?
Anyhow, are you now going to answer the questions posed of you that were posed in #189?
I await your response to them.
I'm afraid that if you can't understand the reason why one can't use a tape measure to measure microkelvins there is no scope for answering them.
@lightgigantic --
Comparison fail. In the case of strictly using a tape measure to measure temperature there is demonstrably something to measure, the same is not true of theism or religion.
Show us that there's something to measure and then explain why science can't measure it.
Comparison fail. In the case of strictly using a tape measure to measure temperature there is demonstrably something to measure, the same is not true of theism or religion.
Show us that there's something to measure and then explain why science can't measure it.
Kind of like "If there are microkelvins to measure show us how to measure it with a tape measure"
:shrug:
If theists have the tools to receive confirmation of God, why do they ever become atheists? And why was Mother Teresa so full of doubt herself?
Here is something to measure. Faith should use different parts of the brain compared to thought processing via sensory evidence, since faith sort of by-passes sensory input. What you do is measure each, in terms of the which parts of the brain are required, and correlate that to which is more primitive and which is more progressive.
My guess is faith uses more of the modern parts of the human brain since it begins where the sensory input ends.
My guess is faith uses more of the modern parts of the human brain since it begins where the sensory input ends.
What?
How would you highlight it?
How do you stop thinking about anything but faith to get that part to show up?
Does thought rely on sensory input?
Yeah, back to your specious and unsupported supposition again.
@wellwisher --
Even if your premise were true, that still wouldn't be the most likely result. Modern religion, and thus modern faith, have their roots in our basic agency detection software which is built into our brains. And we've had this software(working at various degrees of efficiency) for pretty much the entire time we've had brains. This would support the hypothesis that as our brains become less primitive(i.e. less like our ancestor's brains) we as a whole would become less faithful. Lo and behold, that's pretty much what we observe if we look at history, faith being replaced by knowledge.
Even if your premise were true, that still wouldn't be the most likely result. Modern religion, and thus modern faith, have their roots in our basic agency detection software which is built into our brains. And we've had this software(working at various degrees of efficiency) for pretty much the entire time we've had brains. This would support the hypothesis that as our brains become less primitive(i.e. less like our ancestor's brains) we as a whole would become less faithful. Lo and behold, that's pretty much what we observe if we look at history, faith being replaced by knowledge.
How often did we suppose a moving bush in the night to be a bear? Was better to be safe than sorry.
@Sci --
Oh I fully agree, and even in this day and age it's still a useful bit of biological programming to have around. I was merely countering Wellwisher's implication that faith is somehow "more advanced" because of his faulty assumptions.
His test is bunk anyway, I was just attempting to show that basing conclusions on insufficient or faulty data is a great way to come to faulty conclusions.
Oh I fully agree, and even in this day and age it's still a useful bit of biological programming to have around. I was merely countering Wellwisher's implication that faith is somehow "more advanced" because of his faulty assumptions.
His test is bunk anyway, I was just attempting to show that basing conclusions on insufficient or faulty data is a great way to come to faulty conclusions.
And then nature spirits were devised to account for the weather and such, and ghosts, to account for some noises. Better to be wrong 99 times than to ignore the one situation when it really does count. You have great posts, as always, Arioch.
For the same reason people drop out or prac fail in any discipline of knowledge you care to mention
On what grounds is Mother Teresa representative of the top wrung practitioner?
You : "Show us that there's something to measure and then explain why science can't measure it. "
Me : "If there are microkelvins to measure show us how to measure it with a tape measure"
If you can see the idiocy in my statement I am not sure why you can't see the idiocy in yours?
No.
Asking
"How do you calibrate a tape measure to measure temperature, without using any other measuring tool for this calibration?"
is a legitimate question to someone who has claimed such is possible, but hasn't explained how.
And if you are referring to your post 226 - then you are in fact arguing from personal credulity.
But okay:
Just as LG sends us to gurus and spiritually qualified people, while he himself cannot explain this or that about God, while claiming it is true,
so you claim it is possible to calibrate a tape measure to measure temperature without using any other tool for that calibration, while you also say that you don't know how specifically this is done, but that you know it can be done and that there are people who can do it.
Okay. Fair enough.