Who designed the designer?

[davewhite04]

It's not a belief, it's critical thinking. I'm a critical thinker.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying show me the evidence.

Natural evidence for a personal supernatural event? You'll have to ask someone else.

Which is fine. But you're here raising it for discussion on a public forum about our unconscious mind. If you don't want your beliefs challenged, don't raise them in a public discussion.

Here's the mini Hitler gibberish James. How many mods is there?

I have asked questions and have answered them. What else can I do?

I accept there can be more than one answer. Show me some evidence of an alternate explanation.

I guess you don't know what philosophy is either.

 

[DaveC426913]

Natural evidence for a personal supernatural event? You'll have to ask someone else.

Exactly. So it's an anecdote.
You have no business demanding that other people accept it as fact. So, why so mad?

Here's the mini Hitler gibberish James. How many mods is there?

I am simply a member discussing on a discussion forum.
Are you trying to moderate what I can and can't discuss?

I have asked questions and have answered them. What else can I do?

What else do you need to do?
What were you expecting? Did you think there wouldn't be any discussion? Here? On the public science forum?

I guess you don't know what philosophy is either.

You are in the wrong forum if you want to talk philosophy.
Hardly fair to move the goalposts and then accuse others of not accepting it.

DW, what exactly are you expecting to happen here?
You were going to talk about your personal experience, and then what? We would just nod and close the thread?

What are you yelling at me for? You're way off point.

 

[davewhite04]

Exactly. So it's an anecdote.
You have no business demanding that other people accept it as fact. So, why so mad?

I'm not demanding anything, either you have proof(scientific) or not. Asking me for proof is silly, and I know that.

I am simply a member discussing on a discussion forum.
Are you trying to moderate what I can and can't discuss?

You don't discuss anything.

What else do you need to do?
What were you expecting? Did you think there wouldn't be any discussion? Here? On the public science forum?

No I thought the opposite actually.

You are in the wrong forum if you want to talk philosophy.
Hardly fair to move the goalposts and then accuse others of not accepting it.

I forgot, you're the one who doesn't know what forum they're in. Easily done.

DW, what exactly are you expecting to happen here?
You were going to talk about your personal experience, and then what? We would just nod and close the thread?

Something that isn't happening now.

I never said a word about my "personal experience". Why not nod, there are certainly worse ways to end a thread.

What are you yelling at me for? You're way off point.

How do you yell on a keyboard? Oh it's YELL I've never done that to anyone on this site, or any other medium for that matter. Science at work eh...

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm not demanding anything, either you have proof(scientific) or not. Asking me for proof is silly, and I know that.

We don't 'prove' things in science. We have 'a preponderance of evidence' for a theory. In this case, a correlation between the brain and consciousness.

No I thought the opposite actually.

OK. We're discussing. Not sure what reason there is to get upset.

Maybe we could just go back to discussing.

 

[spidergoat]

Wait. Evidence is possible, via personal experience. It is about realities. If you had an experience that changed your reality, you would probably go on a lifetime quest to find meaning to this experience. It would become a fact in time to you(as long as you believe in yourself).

Have you had a supernatural experience?

I wouldn't know.
Example:
Someone says they saw a ghost. I would ask, what was your actual experience? Something like, I saw what looked like a translucent white floaty thing in the shape of a human. It came towards me and I heard a whisper that sounded like my dead mother. "Seeing a ghost" was not your personal experience. "Seeing a ghost" is your explanation of your experience, colored as it is by assumptions and culture. There are numerous possible explanations including: a ghost, drug hallucinations, drug or alcohol withdrawal, an adverse reaction to a medication, fever, brain infection, a brain tumor, a brain injury, eye and ear dysfunction, undiagnosed mental illness, a video projection, an alien visitor, a previously unknown airborn animal, dreaming, or virtual reality. The ghost explanation is the only one of those which can never be confirmed by external evidence. This is called unfalsifiable in science. Unfalsifiable explanations can't be dismissed unless alternative explanations are proven, but they can also never be confirmed, and are thus worthless in term of gaining any knowledge.

 

[davewhite04]

We don't 'prove' things in science. We have 'a preponderance of evidence' for a theory. In this case, a correlation between the brain and consciousness.

Science does "prove things" via the scientific method.

Science hasn't agreed on what exactly conscience really is.

 

[davewhite04]

I wouldn't know.
Example:
Someone says they saw a ghost. I would ask, what was your actual experience? Something like, I saw what looked like a translucent white floaty thing in the shape of a human. It came towards me and I heard a whisper that sounded like my dead mother. "Seeing a ghost" was not your personal experience. "Seeing a ghost" is your explanation of your experience, colored as it is by assumptions and culture. There are numerous possible explanations including: a ghost, drug hallucinations, drug or alcohol withdrawal, an adverse reaction to a medication, fever, brain infection, a brain tumor, a brain injury, eye and ear dysfunction, undiagnosed mental illness, a video projection, an alien visitor, a previously unknown airborn animal, dreaming, or virtual reality. The ghost explanation is the only one of those which can never be confirmed by external evidence. This is called unfalsifiable in science. Unfalsifiable explanations can't be dismissed unless alternative explanations are proven, but they can also never be confirmed, and are thus worthless in term of gaining any knowledge.

I don't know what you are failing to understand. I know a personal experience is not evidence/knowledge to a person who didn't experience the ghost event for example.

Science cannot explain the supernatural, and you dismiss it so why are we still talking?

 

[spidergoat]

I don't know what you are failing to understand. I know a personal experience is not evidence/knowledge to a person who didn't experience the ghost event for example.

I'm asking why a perception is evidence of the supernatural to you, given that even you have no basis to call the experience supernatural.

Science cannot explain the supernatural, and you dismiss it so why are we still talking?

Given that the nature of the supernatural is such that no evidence, even personal experience, can show it's true, why do you believe it?

 

[davewhite04]

I'm asking why a perception is evidence of the supernatural to you, given that even you have no basis to call the experience supernatural.

This applies to you which I have explained in another post. I get the impression that you are not interested in debating but rather to pick apart what I say then tell me how to think.

Given that the nature of the supernatural is such that no evidence, even personal experience, can show it's true, why do you believe it?

It doesn't matter what I say, I have learned, people like you will go on and on questioning what a person should and should not believe. You are not unique, in fact you're at the same level as most atheists in here, same attitude everything. Why not be a student for a change, you might learn something.

I'll let you get the last word in, after all that is all you want.

 

[DaveC426913]

Science does "prove things" via the scientific method.

No, it does not.

Science hasn't agreed on what exactly conscience really is.

While the details of how it actually works is currently an area of active research, the science community is pretty much agreed that it is an emergent property of the brain. There is currently no evidence of entities outside the brain involved in consciousness, such as a soul.

 

[DaveC426913]

It doesn't matter what I say, I have learned, people like you will go on and on questioning what a person should and should not believe.

It's a public discussion forum. He's simply asking a question - a clarification about something you said. He gets to do that.

There is no need to be so defensive. If you don't want something challenged, don't being it to the table. Anything you bring to the table is fair game for discussion. That's how public discussion works.

 

[davewhite04]

No, it does not.

Surprised at your answer, but it is correct. Now you're thinking.

While the details of how it actually works is currently an area of active research, the science community is pretty much agreed that it is an emergent property of the brain. There is currently no evidence of entities outside the brain involved in consciousness, such as a soul.

I know. Science has the same amount of objective evidence for the non-existence of the soul , or anything supernatural as the believers have in this subject.

So the floor is blank.We are working with no evidence so how can we discuss anything?

 

[Write4U]

So the floor is blank.We are working with no evidence so how can we discuss anything?

Before we get to a designer, perhaps we can discuss the "design" and if a designer is neccessary.

 

[Write4U]

Natural evidence for a personal supernatural event? You'll have to ask someone else.

And so it is with everyone who claims to have experienced a supernatural event. We must ask someone else and invariably no one else has experienced that same event the same way.

 

[davewhite04]

Before we get to a designer, perhaps we can discuss the "design" and if a designer is neccessary.

I don't think we can discuss the design because things are still changing every second. For example. how can we discuss the design of a car if it is half built?

Is a designer necessary?

I can't imagine DNA not being used as part of a "project". Unless DNA is some floating code for life which was the result of the big bang.

I can easily imagine an alien race designing planets for a living, and using DNA as some sort of evolving code. As I've said, there will be random code in there, so that might be why they're keeping an eye on us

With science we have no design, and that's the way it should be studied.

 

[davewhite04]

And so it is with everyone who claims to have experienced a supernatural event. We must ask someone else and invariably no one else has experienced that same event the same way.

We don't experience anything the same way, so why would it be different for the people who had experienced the same supernatural event?

 

[DaveC426913]

Surprised at your answer, but it is correct. Now you're thinking.

Don't be silly.
You made an incorrect statement. I corrected it, because I can science.
If you think I don't know how to science then you have not been paying attention.

So the floor is blank.We are working with no evidence so how can we discuss anything?

We go with Occam's Razor and the Null Hypothesis.
Start with the simplest explanation that covers all the observables. And
There isn't a connection between two things until there's a connection between two things.

 

[Write4U]

We don't experience anything the same way, so why would it be different for the people who had experienced the same supernatural event?

Because no one can agree to the facts, because there aren't any.

With science we have no design, and that's the way it should be studied.

You are right, there is no design, thus we need not study a designer.
However......
Everything is a pattern (a natural design), the universe is a self-assembling pattern. This is why we have constants, the abstract natural mathematical and physical potentials which are fundamental and inherent in all natural universal values and functions.

No designer is required. We have proof that physical particles tend to interact and form patterns, all by themselves. It's called chemistry and you need only look at the table of elements to observe the patterns of elemental atoms.

 

[davewhite04]

Don't be silly.
You made an incorrect statement. I corrected it, because I can science.
If you think I don't know how to science then you have not been paying attention.

Oh I know how you can science. You did teach me that science can prove nothing as I assumed it would at least get that one right.

We go with Occam's Razor and the Null Hypothesis.
Start with the simplest explanation that covers all the observables. And
There isn't a connection between two things until there's a connection between two things.

I agree.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh I know how you can science. You did teach me that science can prove nothing as I assumed it would at least get that one right.

OK, but you do understand that 'proving' something is not possible, or desired, when it comes to learning how the world works, right?
What we do is create models to explain the world. The best model wins. But they can always be updated.
That's how science beats faith and other forms of belief in rationalizing our world.