Statistical evidence of god

greenberg said:
Blindman saying that.

Oh, the irony ...
Click to expand...

Not at all ! As the Buddha said: " And this I tell you O bhikkus, that a blind man who has tasted the Darma sees more than one who knows it not "

Secret verses of the Budda, sutra 9.
 
spidergoat said:
Scientists want their theories to be overturned
Click to expand...

Sure, but overturned on whose terms?

It is in the intrinsic buildup of science that it does not deal in absolute truths. This is why science will never admit ultimate defeat because in its understanding, there is no such thing as an ultimate defeat.
In scientific understanding, theories follow one upon another, one overturning another, but the possibility that there might be one that would be the final one does not exist.

Theistic doctrines, however, are about absolute truths. I find it nonsensical that science would address theistic doctrines and seek to prove or disprove them.
As far as I can see, science and theism are incompatble fields of inquiry.
 
Blindman said:
You would think that a divine entity would do a better job of design when it comes to the eye.

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

Just a few samples of the thing that can go wrong with the eyes, or maybe the designer was doing a study in suffering when he created the trillions of entities called life.
.
Click to expand...
Or maybe there is an issue about why the material world is designed the way it is that you are not addressing

The rational argument of design started off with a serious handicap that left it open to Hume's attack.

4) Though the different parts of the great machine of nature work together systematically, these parts (for instance, rainfall) are sometimes deficient, sometimes excessive. Thus it seems nature works without higher supervision. Why, if God is infallible?

The handicap was incomplete knowledge of the purpose of creation. In her book Heresy, Joan O'Grady writes that this problem arose from a tenet ...

... developed from the Old Testament, that God, the Creator, made a world that is good. And God saw everything that He had made and, behold, it was very good. (Gen 1.31) From that it follows that our bodies are good.

If the world and our bodies are good, what are they good for?
well?
suggestions?
:D
 
Spidergoat

but those observations don't equal thought - IOW they may observe some sort of chemical activity, but th eissue of thinking cannot be reduced to the said chemicals
”
Probably not, but at present the model of thought originating in the brain is well supported by the data. It was actually discovered long ago, when the nerves were found to all lead to the brain.
Click to expand...
but once again, since the chemical analysis of what those nerves are undergoing doesn't in any way resemble the nature of thinking (or "consciousness") it doesn't amount to a physical proof. So if you want to herald reductionist paradigms as the flagstone that credible knowledge traverses, you've just alienated anyone who uses the word "mind".

“
once again, thats merely inference, not a finding (since fish and land animals remain separate
”
The theory made a prediction that was later found to correspond to the fossil record. The presence of this transitional fossil was exactly what could be expected if evolution were true.
Click to expand...
an inference as a result of an inference remains an inference

The rise of germs that are anti-bacterial agent resistant was also predicted by evolution.
Click to expand...
and a spindly milk sapped plant can give rise to a similarly spindly milk sapped plant - if I want to take that a step further and say that a spindly milk sapped plant can give rise to a eucalyptus tree, its an inference.

“
even if that was the case, it doesn't help your argument against irreducible components
”
There is no sequence of small changes that could be a transition between a mousetrap and a nuclear weapon, with each small transition also being useful.
Click to expand...
sure there is
you don't think a mouse trap could be rigged up to make a warhead detonate?


“
"reiterated" might be a more apt word than "verified" ....
”
Now you are being dogmatic. DNA was not known during Darwin's time, but now we know that genes are the mechanism of inheritence. If you understood how science works, you would see that the basic concept of evolution is confirmed by the most rigorous experimentation. Someday we may give up or improve the theory, but only when a better one comes along.
Click to expand...
and since the extent of the knowledge about the extent of inheritance is limited it remains (you guessed it) an inference
“
.... mainly because there is no substance to evolution. If it was suddenly deemed a fallible outlook by the scientific community, the only thing that would suffer is the egos of a few persons in esteemed intellectual positions
”
Scientists want their theories to be overturned, because when that happens, it's a scientific breakthrough, leading to greater understanding of reality.

Newtonian mechanics were deemed fallible, but they are still used for many purposes. They still work on most levels, but they do not explain what's going on at the level of the atom or smaller, they don't explain relavistic effects.
Click to expand...
I think greenberg addresses this issue concisely
 
Iceaura
“
Originally Posted by LG
claims of god based on the issue of design are just as valid as claims of macro-evolution based on the fossil record
”
No, claims of God based on evidence of design and an argument from that evidence would have some validity - depending on the nature of the God claimed.

So far there has been no such evidence produced nor any argument visible, so the nature of the God hasn't come up, in scientific argument.
Click to expand...
google "intelligent design" and read something that is not composed by an atheist
“
Originally Posted by LG
2) If there were no evidence and argument, the inference would not be made.
”
thus the flexible nature of inference makes it the weakest limb of empiricism (since "science" prides itself on the notion of "getting the job done")
”
Of course. So?
Click to expand...
the higher the volume on inference, the weaker the empirical claim
“
Originally Posted by LG
once again, thats merely inference, not a finding (since fish and land animals remain separate
”
1) It's a predicted finding, predicted by inference from a theory applied to previous findings. That's what a scientific theory does - makes predictions that check out.

2) There's nothing "mere" about such inferences - they're the payoff of good theory. The capability of making them is the most important achievement of Western civilization, IMHO.
Click to expand...
usually the distinctions between predictability and inferences require a rigorous standard ... an inference based on an inference doesn't somehow magically lose its status
 
lightgigantic said:
If the world and our bodies are good, what are they good for?
well?
suggestions?
:D
Click to expand...

Someone reads in an old book that " our bodies are good"

Is a leper's body good ? A consumptive's body god ? A body riddled with cancer good ? Are bodies with all sorts of terrible diseases good ?

Our bodies are as they are, neither good nor bad per se. One could say an athlete's body is good for sport wheras a cripple's is not. If, by making comparisons of this kind we arrive at notions of bodies which are good or bad, we do so in relation to some arbitrarily chosen attribute.

So the broad statement that bodies, meaninfg all bodies. are good is meaningless.

Reference to an incomplete understanding of creation suggests that someone has a complete understanding and could explain

a) How the universe was created. It would be helpful to see evidence supporting this view.

b)Why knowledge of the creation process is known to some but denied to many. Who are the priveliged ones ?
 
Last edited:
Myles said:
Someone reads in an old book that " our bodies are good"

Is a leper's body good ? A consumptive's body god ? A body riddled with cancer good ? Are bodies with all sorts of terrible diseases good ?

Our bodies are as they are, neither good nor bad per se. One could say an athlete's body is good for sport wheras a cripple's is not. If, by making comparisons of this kind we arrive at notions of bodies which are good or bad, we do so in relation to some arbitrarily chosen attribute.

So the broad statement that bodies, meaninfg all bodies. are good is meaningless.
Click to expand...
IOW you suggest that the "goodness" of our bodies lies in its ability to facilitate us having a good time or something ... and that their inability to meet that standard indicates there is something wrong with this idea?
 
lightgigantic said:
IOW you suggest that the "goodness" of our bodies lies in its ability to facilitate us having a good time or something ... and that their inability to meet that standard indicates there is something wrong with this idea?
Click to expand...

I have not accepted that our bodies are good, so you must direct your question elsewhere.

Note that I have made an addition to my response, which has no bearing on the question of whether our bodies are good.
 
Myles said:
I have not accepted that our bodies are good, so you must direct your question elsewhere.
Click to expand...
So your reasoning is something like this

Are our bodies good? No because they are so lousy at granting us a good time.

yes?

Note that I have made an addition to my response, which has no bearing on the question of whether our bodies are good.
Click to expand...

ok
a) How the universe was created. It would be helpful to see evidence supporting this view.

b)Why knowledge of the creation process is known to some but denied to many. Who are the priveliged ones ?
Click to expand...
why is knowledge of how the universe is created in a fashion that is repeatable to your capability and powers of perception so important to you?
;)
 
lightgigantic said:
So your reasoning is something like this

Are our bodies good? No because they are so lousy at granting us a good time.

yes?



ok

why is knowledge of how the universe is created in a fashion that is repeatable to your capability and powers of perception so important to you?
;)
Click to expand...


I have said our bodies simply are. If someone says they are good, we need to know in relation to what and what it would mean to say they are bad.

Is water good ? Good if you are thirsty, not so if you are drowning. The truth is that water simply is. Same for our bodies.

You brought up the question of an "incomplete understanding of creation" in a futile effort to undermine Hume. That is why I asked what I did. If you don't know , just say so.
 
Myles said:
I have said our bodies simply are. If someone says they are good, we need to know in relation to what and what it would mean to say they are bad.

Is water good ? Good if you are thirsty, not so if you are drowning. The truth is that water simply is. Same for our bodies.

You brought up the question of an "incomplete understanding of creation" in a futile effort to undermine Hume. That is why I asked what I did. If you don't know , just say so.
Click to expand...
hello? are we on the same page?

- hume is talking about why our bodies are not good



:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top