What has god done for you

[GhostofMaxwell.]

Oh come on, its pretty clear that most physicists just make it up as they go along.

e.g. what is your idea of the big bang and how does it correlate to the laws of thermodynamics?

I suppose we made your computer, your TV, your car, satellites in orbit, rockets to the moon up as we went along aswell, with a little help from praying to the god of atheism?

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

Go home to mommy and come back when you meet REAL LIFE.

Moron.

 

[S.A.M.]

I suppose we made your computer, your TV, your car, satellites in orbit, rockets to the moon up as we went along aswell, with a little help from praying to the god of atheism?

Are you Maxwell's ghost or Maxwell's demon?

Moron.

Snob.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, whoever heard of a scientist who hasn't heard of the moon splitting.

Foolish, irrational, narrow-minded mortals.

You're a fine one to talk. I was thinking of you when I made that claim.

 

[Fugu-dono]

God has made it hard for me to get a job where I can earn six digits per day. Oh yeah maybe it's because I don't believe in his crazy ass!?

 

[lightgigantic]

GostofMaxwell“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic

the question is, if it is true that even mundane science is investigated by people who have met the prerequisites of science, why is it that atheists often assume that their opinions about the nature of god are valid when they ar ehard pressed to even theoretically understand what the prerequisites of theistic knowledge are, much less practice them .... how is this situation different from say a garbage collector talking about physics?
”
Those involved in the scientific process have degrees and phd's, a garbage collector will not last 5 minutes without falling flat on his face and being shown the door. Unless, of course, he had a Physics degree.

similarly established theists have their foundations of theory and practice which supports their values/realizations.

Once again I ask, how is this situation (in regards to atheists elaborating on theistic values/realizations) different from say a garbage collector talking about physics?

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

similarly established theists have their foundations of theory and practice which supports their values/realizations.

A scientific theory has to have a foundation of evidence and stand up to testing in the real world. Show me where a thiest does the same.

Once again I ask, how is this situation (in regards to atheists elaborating on theistic values/realizations) different from say a garbage collector talking about physics?

Physics is highly technical, often counter intuitive and requires advanced maths skills such as calculus.

Garbagemanship requires the skill of picking up mars bar wrappers and used teabags with a stick.

Theism requires the skill of making up stupid storys. Subsequently fear and enticement are used to give them an impact and prevent the seeking of validation from the victims/followers.

Getting any clearer to you?

 

[lightgigantic]

Celpha Fiael
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
then why was newton's theories superseded?
”
Newton's theories were superseded because honest scientists found out that what he had presented wasn't the whole truth. They were able to test this tangibly and come to a unanimous and universal recognition that this was the case. The point is that for somebody with a biased tie with Newton's theories who didn't want them to be superseded, it would be a virtual impossibility to hold up Newton's findings as the dominant theory in the face of the rest of the scientific community. Refining is automatic in science, this is what GhostofMaxwell has been saying as well.

so to get back to the original issue

“
me - outside of faith do you have any guarantee that what you are reading at the moment in the name of science will not fail such a test
”
you - Yes I do, it's the evidence of the success and honesty of science that has been proven over and over

you have no guarantee

“
generally people don't see people dropping dead or getting chronically sick yet they still accept the words of their doctor.

generally people don't seriously investigate the success rate of the repairs of their local car mechanic yet they still take their car there to get repaired.

generally people do not go to university to become even partially conversant with law when they run into legal difficulties, yet immediately consult a solicitor.

so to get back to the issue that you didn't address, what evidence does a person have access to in determining the validity/falsity of claims in physics?
(surely if you advocate such a view, it would be easy for you to find the error in the chart I posted - its not like you can say "I cannot say because I am not properly versed in chemistry", especially if you don't want to violate the standards of being "rational" that you established earlier
”
Let's get back to the issue that you addressed, of which all these issues are subsequent to, including the issue I apparently "didn't address": you think that by reading a scientific journal, a reader is taking the findings on faith.

if they don't have the necessary qualifications in the field, yes, definitely

In the examples you gave, you would say that the patient is taking the word of the doctor on faith; that the driver, by taking his/her car to the mechanic, is having faith in the mechanic's abilities. MY POINT, that you so contradictorily ask for then ignore, is that these are not instances of faith, and neither is the scenario with the scientist; these acceptances are derived from common sense.
If a doctor said to a particular patient, "You will not drop dead because of this illness," then drops dead soon after because of that illness, it's safe to say no rational person would go to that doctor without hesitation. If a mechanic returned a car to a customer only to have it break down before leaving the lot, that customer most likely wouldn't return to that mechanic.

it wouldn't be that their faith in the said doctor or car mechanic had been shattered (due to direct perception I might add)?

This is analogous to the grounds upon which the scientific community's honesty is gained and reinforced constantly; it is done through common sense derived from a collective consciousness that has proven itself to be trustworthy on objective and universal terms, NOT faith. Gah, it's amazing how you can't wrap your mind around this concept.

all you have done is placed the label "common sense" on top of "faith"

“
still can't find the error on the chart eh?
what does that make you then?

if its "automatic" just find the error on the chart, doofus.
”
I apologize for my insults, it's just that you beg them so easily.

that was another ad hom that you slipped in there BTW - how would you like it if I said I apologize for calling you a doofus but you actually its because you are a doofus

Of course I can't find the error in the chart, as you said, I'm not up to speed in that area of study. I could show you thousands of diagrams where you don't know what is going on either.

of course - that is the nature of knowledge - it hinges on a foundation of theory and practice, and anyone outside of that foundation "yays" or "nays" it according to their perceived credibility of the authorities in the field (aka faith)

That's entirely aside the point though (hence "wtf mate, completely irrelevant"); if I were to take that chart seriously, then I would first get the expert analysis of several different scientists who would be able to explain to me via objective processes and in layman terms what is wrong with it (if there's anything wrong with it in the first place) before ever claiming to know the answer to your insidious question.

and how would you propose to determine whether they were telling you the truth or not? (apart from giving them a yay or nay according to your perceived credibility of them - aka faith)

“
are we having the same conversation?

religion works on a similar foundation - there are claims not only of direct perception of god but also claims of how to come to the position of direct perception
”
We are having the same conversation, but you insist on bending it into a circle. I've already fully provided sufficient commentary on this trite statement of yours-- bolding it, underlining it, resizing it, and coloring it will not make your sentence any more meaningful. (But look on the bright side, it can't make it less either, for it is already vacuous of relevance.)

okay, lets take a look at it

You seem to be incapable of recognizing that science provides hard evidence

evidence that makes sense to other established scientists, yes

while religion provides only personal interpretation

.
... maybe that passage I put in bold wasn't bright enough?

For example, of "direct perception", of "god", even of "how to come to the position of direct perception". There is NO objective grounds upon all religions can test the validity of their opinions;

by putting "direct perception" and "methodology" in quotation marks are you meaning to say that they identical?
:m:

in science, THERE IS.[/I]

only if one can see a distinction between the claims of science and the claims of methodology of science

“
i am not talking about that - I am talking about classical empiricism, which holds that anything that is real can be demonstrated to the senses (in other words is ultimately reducible to material components)
”
Don't try to verbally acrobat yourself out of the ring via an apparently dramatic difference in what versions of empiricism we're talking about, my points still rest easy.

If you don't know what empiricism is, feel free to ask

Out of curiosity though, can you tell me of anything that is real that can't be demonstrated to the senses?

many things
the easiest would be your great great great great great great great great great grandmother (if I tell you she was a hamster and your great great great great great great great great great grandfather smelt like elderberries, can you prove me wrong with your senses - aka sight, touch, taste, smell, hearing)

a more topical one, however, would be consciousness

“
how do you propose to falsify/validate something that has either a cause or effect beyond your sense perception (feel free to call on the resources of all the grade 3's in the universe)
”
EXACTLY. Science is a universal account of sense perception, hence it is collectively applicable; it absolves the problem of possible a cause and effect scenario that MY UNIQUE sense perception interprets differently, cannot go, or hasn't gone yet. The only rebuttal I can imagine to this would be to question the validity of our sense perceptions (and hence our objective processes of acquiring this universal account) in the first place. But EVEN IF we are ALL wrong and faulty in our sense perceptions from some metaphysical perspective, then this doesn't debase said collective account because it is what we have to work under.

yes yes yes
that is why the foundation of science (the empirical variety) is the senses (in all their glory)
and that is why scientific theory (distinct from scientific fact) is something where the cause or effect is beyond the senses
the foundation of empiricism is quite different from the foundation of transcendental knowledge

Another point of mine you've reinforced with your statement is that the metaphysical realm that you are so adamant about imagining would by definition be beyond our sense perception.

the metaphysical can be perceived by the senses - the metaphysical cannot be controlled by the senses however

So, if you are undervaluing our entire sensory input concerning THIS realm (which you are not doing a very good job of), you have done exponentially more so with your metaphysical realm.

discussion on the prerequisites for understanding transcendental subject matter hinge on the normative descriptions in scripture - from my experience here on sciforums, I know this is an unpopular subject matter with atheists

“

there is nothing that hints that consciousness is materially reducible, so its not clear why you advocate a POV that denies the existence of this possibility (unless its simply an issue of faith)
”
A perfect example of you smearing someone else's knowledge about something that you don't know about as "faith"; THERE IS PLENTY that hints that consciousness is materially reducible.PLENTY.

really?
such as?
(I want to be the first to say I heard it on sciforums)

Go do some research on quantum mechanics and the brain.

Like this?
by persons like this?

“

sorry thats just the way knowledge works - if you want to understand physics, it is best to study and abide by the foundations of physics - if you want to understand transcendental knowledge, it is best to abide by the foundations of transcendental knowledge - it seems you don't so much have an issue with god/religion but instead have issues with how knowledge works
”
But that's the problem right there; transcendental knowledge. Physics has an origin of study which its roots are firmly planted in (the material realm)

incorrect
the foundation of physics is the perception of the material reductionism through the senses
hence the foundation is the senses (mostly sight)

, while transcendental study, once again by definition, finds its roots in whatever and wherever the scholar wishes to derive it from.

Sorry, that's just the way reality works. (That last sentence was a jibe using your own words, I would never myself apologize for the way something works unless it was something I knew the other person couldn't agree with because they were made up by my own terms.)

to say the least, persons established in the field of transcendental knowledge disagree

“
Of COURSE you are going to assume that transcendental knowledge is false, since you assume that material reductionism has all bases covered
”
It takes much more assumption to envision a metaphysical existence and deny the obvious and tangible world we operate in than it would for me to assume against that, were I assuming in the first place. I'm not assuming anything, I'm simply deriving from rationality and evidence.

it doesn't require assumption - it requires the same general principle you have applied to establish yourself in your current world view of reality, namely grounding oneself in the foundation of theory before beginning practice, which inevitably gives results in the field of conclusions/values.

Once again, as far as I can tell, the materialistic view does all of reality covered. You have yet to convince me even slightly otherwise.

you are assuming that there is nothing superior to the platform of sense perception (ie those materially reducible things that can be controlled by our senses) - given the very fallibility of the senses

--imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
---tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake
--- tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
----a cheating propensity ... our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc

is one of the best arguments against this claim of superiority

“
then your next challenge would be to provide normative descriptions to validate that claim
”
Exactly, which is why I brought up the scenario; you can't provide normative descriptions to validate my claim, and the same goes for your claim of your imagined metaphysical realm.

on the contrary, I can provide normative descriptions for my claim
(in brief)

BG 4.10: Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me — and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.

Reductionism in your sense is somebody who attempts to explain complicated things directly in terms of the smallest parts, ignoring the whole.


Reductionism in my sense of the word is synonymous with an honest desire to understand how things work, the whole being tackled only after the prerequisite smaller understandings are firmly in place.

good luck

 

[lightgigantic]

Ghost of Maxwell
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic

similarly established theists have their foundations of theory and practice which supports their values/realizations.
”
A scientific theory has to have a foundation of evidence and stand up to testing in the real world.

This merely begs the question a step further back since - yes, evidence that is validated/falsified by (you guessed it) other scientists who are versed in (you guessed it) theory

Show me where a thiest does the same.

answering this requires a discussion of normative descriptions in scripture (ie it requires a discussion on the foundations of theory in the said field) much like answering the above question in fields of science requires a discussion of theory likely to be encountered in literature on the subject

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Once again I ask, how is this situation (in regards to atheists elaborating on theistic values/realizations) different from say a garbage collector talking about physics?
”
Physics is highly technical, often counter intuitive and requires advanced maths skills such as calculus.

Garbagemanship requires the skill of picking up mars bar wrappers and used teabags with a stick.

from here onwards its all a tentative claim

Theism requires the skill of making up stupid storys.


Subsequently fear and enticement are used to give them an impact and prevent the seeking of validation from the victims/followers.
Getting any clearer to you?

the evidence that it is a tentative claim is that I can cut and paste it to produce an opposite conclusion eg -




”
Theism is highly technical, often counter intuitive and requires advanced degrees of self control over things such as lust, wrath, envy, avarice etc.

Garbagemanship requires the skill of picking up mars bar wrappers and used teabags with a stick.

Physics requires the skill of making up stupid storys with big sounding words.

Subsequently false prestige is used to give them an impact and seek huge sums of money in the name of grants , while the real problems of life, namely death, old age and disease, continue unhindered

BTW - this is not meant to be a serious critique of physics - it is meant to illustrate the absolute foolishness of arguments that are tentative

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

answering this requires a discussion of normative descriptions in scripture (ie it requires a discussion on the foundations of theory in the said field) much like answering the above question in fields of science requires a discussion of theory likely to be encountered in literature on the subject

No answering it requires evidence. It doesn't rquire me to dumb down to an inferior level of logic and reasoning. It requires you to raise yourself up to a level above : what you are told goes.

 

[lightgigantic]

No answering it requires evidence.

and what does evidence require, if not qualification (or a foundation of correctly applied theory)

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

and what does evidence require, if not qualification (or a foundation of correctly applied theory)

No evidence reqires: e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e

 

[lightgigantic]

No evidence reqires: e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e

then why are forensic experts required to come on a murder scene if evidence is self evident?
:shrug:

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

then why are forensic experts required to come on a murder scene if evidence is self evident?
:shrug:

For the same reason your doctor may use computer aided tomography of your brain before prescribing your medication.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

Lightgigantic, I think you've exposed your ignorance sufficiently enough for me to see that this conversation will never go anywhere, so I'm going to suggest we end it now. You're obviously an extreme fundamentalist in your faith, which is to say that you are incapable of changing your mind. It is exactly as one who private messaged me concerning you said, "[Lightgigantic] is extremely opaque in his explanations, indeed even very disconnected, with no base other than his own proprietary definitions and usually accompanied by copied quotes from Hindu religious texts."

Good luck to you in your delusion, sir.

 

[lightgigantic]

For the same reason your doctor may use computer aided tomography of your brain before prescribing your medication.

(sigh)
okay then - but tell me why a forensic detective could not derive the same understanding as the doctor from the computer aided topography, much less prescribe the right medication, if it is as you say, evidence is self evident (as opposed to evidence being inextricably linked to qualification of knowledge)

 

[lightgigantic]

Lightgigantic, I think you've exposed your ignorance sufficiently enough for me to see that this conversation will never go anywhere, so I'm going to suggest we end it now. You're obviously an extreme fundamentalist in your faith, which is to say that you are incapable of changing your mind. It is exactly as one who private messaged me concerning you said, "[Lightgigantic] is extremely opaque in his explanations, indeed even very disconnected, with no base other than his own proprietary definitions and usually accompanied by copied quotes from Hindu religious texts."

Good luck to you in your delusion, sir.

I find it amusing that you received such a PM since the only heated discussions I have had with persons concerning the vedas are by persons who cannot reference it to support their opinions of it.


It all seems like a bit of a straw man actually, since most of the flaws atheists make in their presentations are fallacies of logic and truth, and I have hardly referenced scripture to dismantle such shows

Professor Lewis Wolpert, biologist at London's University College, writes ....

"most scientists today are ignorant of philosophical issues. Though at the beginning of the twentieth century a professional scientist normally had a background in philosophy,
Today things are quite different, and the stars of modern science are more likely to have been brought up on science fiction ... the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic."

BTW if you find any "progressive" threads here, let us know

 

[Sarkus]

It all seems like a bit of a straw man actually, since most of the flaws atheists make in their presentations are fallacies of logic and truth, and I have hardly referenced scripture to dismantle such shows

Professor Lewis Wolpert, biologist at London's University College, writes ....

"most scientists today are ignorant of philosophical issues. Though at the beginning of the twentieth century a professional scientist normally had a background in philosophy,
Today things are quite different, and the stars of modern science are more likely to have been brought up on science fiction ... the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic."

LOL!
You claim atheists' flaws are ones of logic and truth (which, afterall, is what EVERY flaw is, regardless of discussion topic) - and yet you commit an appeal to authority with your next paragraph.

If you don't think you have - why did you post the quote from a Biologist?
It has no bearing on the thread, and is merely someone saying that scientists generally don't study philosophy any more. So what? You haven't explained why they should. You haven't supported this statement with anything other than the name and qualification of the writer - and as such it is an appeal to authority.

LG - You appear more and more wound up in your circular argument of "believe to believe". The pity is that you can not see that this is what it is you are seemingly trapped in.

C'est la vie. :shrug:

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

(sigh)
okay then - but tell me why a forensic detective could not derive the same understanding as the doctor from the computer aided topography, much less prescribe the right medication, if it is as you say, evidence is self evident (as opposed to evidence being inextricably linked to qualification of knowledge)

They both can not find evidence of DNA mental health problems respectively unaided, which is quite usual.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

I find it amusing that you received such a PM since the only heated discussions I have had with persons concerning the vedas are by persons who cannot reference it to support their opinions of it.


It all seems like a bit of a straw man actually, since most of the flaws atheists make in their presentations are fallacies of logic and truth, and I have hardly referenced scripture to dismantle such shows

Professor Lewis Wolpert, biologist at London's University College, writes ....

"most scientists today are ignorant of philosophical issues. Though at the beginning of the twentieth century a professional scientist normally had a background in philosophy,
Today things are quite different, and the stars of modern science are more likely to have been brought up on science fiction ... the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic."

BTW if you find any "progressive" threads here, let us know

You're never going to find any progressive threads here for the same reason nobody can give you a satisfactory answer; your definitions and philosophy are grossly idiosyncratic and astoundingly close-minded.