Because that's what science does exactly. Words, (hypothesis based on observation) are backed up with actions (repeatable experiments).
Statistical evidence of god
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
Because that's what science does exactly. Words, (hypothesis based on observation) are backed up with actions (repeatable experiments).
and thats exactly what you don't have with aspects of macro-evolution and reductionist paradigms of consciousness
I think it's there. What about the recent analysis of the t-rex collogen sequence? It's relationship with birds is confirmed by the experiment.
Consciousness cannot be observed directly, only it's effects. The hypothesis that the brain is a neural-network computer that causes reactions based on input is also confirmed by observation of it's electrochemical activity, no other non-material phenomenon is required.
Consciousness cannot be observed directly, only it's effects. The hypothesis that the brain is a neural-network computer that causes reactions based on input is also confirmed by observation of it's electrochemical activity, no other non-material phenomenon is required.
- other than the hypothesis that "consciousness cannot be observed directly, only it's effects" and that "the brain is a neural-network computer that causes reactions based on input".
What? The hypothesis is non-material?
hello? are we on the same page?
- hume is talking about why our bodies are not good
We are not on the same page and, yes. you are confused. Hume is not saying that our bodies are bad. He uses rain of an example arguing that it is sometimes good, sometimes bad and that this suggest there is no higher supervision,. He is countering the argument that there is a creator who made everything perfect. In short Hume is saying that things per se are neutral, not always good as a theist would have us believe.
As I have pointed out , what would it mean to say our bodies are good without reference to some criterion. This statement is typical of theist nonsense which appears to say something at first sight but is empty when examined closely.
You and your fellow pygmies are so keen to undermine a great mind that you either fail to read or do not understand what Hume is saying. This is not the first time you have got him wrong. Your argument is typical of what one finds on a Creationist site which preys on the uninformed. I suggest you study Hume rather than pick up bits and pieces which you either fail to understand. interptet according to the requirements of your argument, or quote out of context.
As to what was said about a lack of understanding of creation, can you explain what this means ? Who does understan and how does one come by that knowledge ? As it stands, it is purely a statement without foundation which the author you referred to believed would undermine Hume. Some chance ! Let's have a considered argument rather than an unsupported assertion.
I can prove God statistically as well from the very first seven words of the Torah.
Well, it's words, concepts - they usually are not considered "material".
What you think is immaterial. Consciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain activity. No brain activity of a particular type , no consciousness.
I have never read anything substantial on intelligent design that was composed by an atheist - it's a kind of nonsense that usually requires very strong faith in a deity to believe.LG said:
There is no evidence for it. It's simply the argument from incredulity, dressed up in fancy language. I recall picking up Behe's book on the topic because of a genuine interest in the concept - my own background is in mathematical biology, and the topic was and is fascinating from that point of view - and getting about forty pages into it before realizing that there was nothing there,that he was never going to get to any point - the guy just didn't understand evolutionary theory, and wrote a booklength embarrassment of himself.
But the money must be a consolation, if he's not still in denial.
And the more supporting evidence, especially verified predictions, the stronger the empirical claim. Your point ?LG said:
Of course. Again. So what ?LG said:
Do you plan to replace inferences with certainties, in science, somehow ?
I think it is a mistake to use the "GOD" label because all that does is bring people into this debate who have an aversion to religion but do not do anything for science at all.
Look at it like this, knowing what we do about biology and complexity of living organisms it is just not even a theory that life as we know it could form from a bog or any kind of water\soup\goo all on its own accord. Give it billions, give it trillions of years and it makes no difference. NONE. So where does that leave us? Well obviously any closed system needs for the foundation of life to be introduced- one way or another.
For instance, should we take statistics accordingly when created from some kind of design? Is a design a design because it is obvious?
In theomatics, the first values of the seven words of the Bible are
296-407-395-401-86-203-913
And from this, without going into how the system works, i was able to deduce mathematical acrobatic systems:
37 x 7 = 259
39 x 7 = 273
(259)(273)= 70707 Palindrome/IE
37 x 273 = 10101 Palindrome/IE
39 x 259 = 10101 Palindrome/IE
37 x 7 = 259 x 39 x 39 = 393939
37 x 7 = 259 x 93 x 93 = 939393
39 x 7 = 273 x 37 x 37 = 373737
39 x 7 = 273 x 73 x 73 = 737373
77 x 37 x 13 = 37037
77 x 73 x 13 = 73073
77 x 39 x 13 = 39039
77 x 93 x 13 = 93093
77 x 7 x 13 = 7007
7007 x 39 = 273273
7007 x 37 = 259259
3773(37 x 13 x 39)= 70777707
This alone, is it proof of an intentional design and placement of theomatics? Well, wouldn't statistics prove this? I statisticated this small work at: $$1$$ in $$1.9 x 10^24$$
or more precisely
$$1$$ in a massive $$1,968,212,810,225,485,111,967,227$$
To say that there was some type of supernatural design in the literature of the Bible's first seven words. Even though the statistic seems... amazing to the eye, how much does it state it proves God?
In theomatics, the first values of the seven words of the Bible are
296-407-395-401-86-203-913
And from this, without going into how the system works, i was able to deduce mathematical acrobatic systems:
37 x 7 = 259
39 x 7 = 273
(259)(273)= 70707 Palindrome/IE
37 x 273 = 10101 Palindrome/IE
39 x 259 = 10101 Palindrome/IE
37 x 7 = 259 x 39 x 39 = 393939
37 x 7 = 259 x 93 x 93 = 939393
39 x 7 = 273 x 37 x 37 = 373737
39 x 7 = 273 x 73 x 73 = 737373
77 x 37 x 13 = 37037
77 x 73 x 13 = 73073
77 x 39 x 13 = 39039
77 x 93 x 13 = 93093
77 x 7 x 13 = 7007
7007 x 39 = 273273
7007 x 37 = 259259
3773(37 x 13 x 39)= 70777707
This alone, is it proof of an intentional design and placement of theomatics? Well, wouldn't statistics prove this? I statisticated this small work at: $$1$$ in $$1.9 x 10^24$$
or more precisely
$$1$$ in a massive $$1,968,212,810,225,485,111,967,227$$
To say that there was some type of supernatural design in the literature of the Bible's first seven words. Even though the statistic seems... amazing to the eye, how much does it state it proves God?
truly bizarre
It doesn't. It just proves that - like Absane - you get off on doing sums.
We have, in fact, a very good theory that is sufficient to account for life arising "of its own accord" out of soup/goo whatever.john said:
That's the big question answered by Darwinian theory - an evolutionary process such as that can - will, in time - produce arbitrarily great complexity from very simple beginnings; it arises on its own.
In fact, it has to be stopped by something to not do that, if circumstances allow.
But we have not described the exact events, or accounted for several difficulties. So it's a hypothesis. But it's sufficient - it can account for what we know so far.
If you say so ! So are you now going to enlighten us by explaining the point about the lack of understanding of the purpose of creation that you referred to or have you got another "smart" answer to that one ?
it was more like - how you can reject the notion of something being "good" (by calling it "neutral" )and some how avoid the issue what it was originally advocated as good for?
I mean, at the very least, you don't seem to be working with the idea that the body is a good means of indicating something neutral.
it was more like - how you can reject the notion of something being "good" (by calling it "neutral" )and some how avoid the issue what it was originally advocated as good for?
I mean, at the very least, you don't seem to be working with the idea that the body is a good means of indicating something neutral.
Can you clarify your statement. You mentioned O'Grady ( ? ) who explained what had been misunderstood about creation. I asked how she knew, why you appear to believe her and what evidence supported her claim. Can you give a straightforward answer or not ?
Who claims to know what the body is good for and if it is wholy good with what is it being compared ?