UFO buffs - Watch Larry King on July 3 chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: UFO buffs - Watch Larry King on July 3

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 26 (view)

UFO buffs - Watch Larry King on July 3 Posted: 6/24/2009 8:43:29 PM
Thankfully they have Seth Shostack on the program, too. I hope he gets just as much air time as the UFO loonies.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 25 (view)

UFO buffs - Watch Larry King on July 3 Posted: 6/24/2009 8:39:20 PM
Larry King, king of the credulous. If he married Oprah he'd become the emperor of woo. And Bluesman, I love how you call actual testable hypotheses based on objects we know to exist (i.e., flares) "the usual nonsense," and yet positing mysterious alien beings who come here to probe our anuses only from seeing lights in the sky or trodden-down cornfields is somehow plausible.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 73 (view)

Ruling Out The Higher Power: Kant's Critique of Pure Reason Posted: 6/12/2009 12:34:35 AM
I read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason a while ago, but I don't remember all the gory details, just the generalities and the spots where I disagreed with him. Here are a few quick comments on the work: 1. I find his distinction between the noumenal and phenomenal world to be totally arbitrary and unnecessary. He doesn't really put forth much of an argument for the noumenal realm and hence I don't find that aspect of his philosophy particularly convincing. It is a classic example of a nonfalsifiable hypothesis to put forward some "unknowable" realm, and the fact that it is not subject to criticism or proof in its favor is reason enough to abandon such an idea. 2. The Critique of Pure Reason is quite famous in the philosophy of religion for advancing many arguments against the three supposed "logical proofs" of God's existence. Kant's critique of the ontological argument is particularly well-known, as his criticism is that the argument treats existence as a predicate when existence should not be treated in such a manner. 3. Some aspects of Kant's philosophy are interesting and seem to hint at later developments. In a general sense, his idea that the human mind and its "categories" shape experience was spot on and quite in line with modern cognitive science, although he was certainly not using any sort of empirical research to arrive at these conclusions. Ultimately, though, I don't think Kant really answered Hume's skepticism with his philosophy, as was his intent. Something along the lines of Pearce's pragmatism is a better epistemological system for addressing such problems, I think. 4. As many others have said, this book is incredibly dry. Not only that, but Kant is famous for being a horrendous writer. I've never read the original German, of course, but based on the translations I've read, that hypothesis appears to be correct!

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 21 (view)

Carbon Monoxide or hauntings? Posted: 3/15/2009 11:42:24 AM
I wouldn't say most hauntings are caused by carbon monoxide. Most are caused by gullible people interpreting every little sound as a ghost, and/or the prevalence of "ghost hunter" shows on TV that show people blatantly misusing electronic equipment and misinterpreting them as showing ghosts exist. Just because there's a cold draft in a home doesn't mean it's a ghost, people. There's a better explanation: WIND.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 3 (view)

Can we create life artificially? Posted: 12/26/2008 10:00:16 PM
There are many potential avenues science can use to create "life". One possible route is for science to use DNA and the common physical components of life as we know it and simply create a new sort of creature by rearranging genes and so on. We've already been doing this for millions of years. (To use one wild example, we can make animals that glow in the dark by transplanting phosophorence genes from certain plants, for instance--but would you consider that creating life?) Another manner is that scientists can create self-replicating machines. This is already being done to some degree, as well. These machines currently don't just self-replicate, but could theoretically "photocopy" any three-dimensional object if given enough supplies (even a bike!). But the boundary between life and non-life is a little fuzzy anyway. Viruses are right on the boundary, as they lack the means to reproduce independently, but if you wanted to get really technical, pretty much every organism is interdependent and can't reproduce "independently"--we all need to use other organisms as sources of energy and so on--so these distinctions are a bit arbitrary, if you ask me.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 136 (view)

Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory? Posted: 12/21/2008 5:34:50 PM
You said: THE FACT IS, scientist have speculated, that evolution from ape to man is the ONLY way, (according to some) modern man could derive. That is a plausible theory, BUT not the only one. Given the evidence that we have, evolution is the MOST plausible theory. It isn't the only theoretical construct that can be constructed to explain all the data (hypothesizing that "it's magic!" would do so as well), but it predicts the most fulfilled observations than any other theory. The problem with your reasoning is that you are trying to characterize evolution as an idea on equal footing with some loony idea about aliens, when this couldn't be further from the case. Pointing out that theories are underdetermined by the data doesn't mean that all theories are therefore epistemically equal. Evolution, given the evidence, is the most plausible theory. Ideas about aliens or claiming it is "just magic" or anything like that is NOT plausible because it is not supported by any evidence. it would be considered shitty police work if they JUST FOCUSED on what seemed to be the most obvious No, it would be considered shitty police work if the police investigated every conceivable explanation for a crime, from the possibility that aliens committed the crime to the possibility that time-traveling gremlins who live in an alternate dimension framed the aliens and so on ad infinitum. Police don't investigate every possible explanation, but only those that, as you put it, are most "obvious", or as I would describe it, those that are more probable given our current knowledge and evidence-base. Police who investigate every conceivable angle would never get anything done, and they'd be ignoring all of the initial evidence that already points toward more plausible explanations. If someone cut your heart out, and ate it for lunch, you would be dead. That has been fully empirically proven... I could go on all day on the things that are empirically proven. That doesn't empirically "prove" anything in an absolute, logical sense. For instance, simply because I stopped showing all signs of life doesn't mean I'm not still living. If you assert that living things in the past have never come back once signs of life have ceased for a certain period of time, I can just throw Hume's problem of induction at you. My basic point is that you can find a "hole" in any scientific, empirical claim because that's just the nature of our epistemic limitations. But that doesn't mean we can't accept something as more or less true. Things do not need to be proven with absolute certainty to be known to be true. So, yes, it would be totally unreasonable for you to doubt that I am still living after you have dined on my heart, even though you can't know this with ABSOLUTE certainty. In the same manner, it is TOTALLY UNREASONABLE for you to doubt evolution given the wide abundance of evidence in its favor, even though you can't know this with absolute certainty.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 122 (view)

Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory? Posted: 12/20/2008 8:48:27 PM
Yes, scientific methodology, empirically proven, all good and just, but the only problem, is that "ALL" the known data is assumed to be correct. How exactly is this a "problem"? Would a better methodology assume that all data is incorrect and do away with any need for data or evidence? The point I'm making is that though we are naturally epistemically limited, science with all its limitations is the best method we have for arriving at truths about reality. As for your example, I think it is a bit much to imply modern geological theories such as continental drift are based on purely circular reasoning. For one, I'm not sure why you think the assumption about consistent weather patterns is somehow a foundational support for continental drift. It's founded ona variety of other observations, and taken as a whole they help cement the whole framework into place. There is the coherence with and outside coherence with biological distribution of fossils along once-connected land masses, the actual observations of new ocean floor being created along the atlantic ridge, the entailments of volcanoes and earthquakes being present along fault lines, and much more, I'm sure. The fact that it would cohere with evolutionary geographic distributions is a particularly solid fact, as a field totally outside of geology has bearing on its truth. So I think that particular example is a bit misleading. There are more questionable hypotheses out there, and I think an example from more obscure cosmological hypotheses would have served your point better!

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 117 (view)

Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory? Posted: 12/20/2008 2:05:36 PM
THere are MANY THEORIES Yes, there are many theories to explain any given set of facts or observations. It does not follow, however, that all of these theories are equally supportive of or supported by the data. When you enjoin others to be open to a particular explanation when all of the data supports the opposite conclusion and when your explanation has no legitimate evidence in its favor, then this is just shoddy reasoning. For instance, the following quote from you speaks volumes about the problems with your reasoning: The issue is nobody has been able to FULLY PROVE IT... Just because we don't know for sure doesn't mean it didn't happen. NOT SAYING IT DID, but I am not going to rule it out. Being unable to "fully prove" something is NOT an issue. Nothing empirical can be fully proved. Science only attempts to adduce evidence in support of various theories that allow us to rule out and consider those that are more or less supported by the evidence. To say you won't rule out an idea merely because it has the barest possibility of being true, when so much evidence supports a conflicting theory and no actual evidence supports the idea in question, then that is simply unreasonable. I'm sure you'd recognize this elsewhere. If someone insisted a twelve-foot tall**oach made of rainbows was currently in your closet, and upon investigating you find no evidence of such a thing, you rule this out. Even though you cannot "fully prove" this in a mathematical, logical sense, you are able to rule it out based purely on the evidence, or lack thereof. But for someone to call this idea about the huge, rainbow**oach in your closet "plausible" would just be laughable and insane, or else show that they don't really know what the word "plausible" means. The point is, you and a couple others seem to feel this need to put me on evolutionary as being the ONLY explainable explanation to man kind. That is not what we are saying. We are saying that evolution is the most well-supported explanation in terms of the available evidence, and that contrary ideas are not supported by nearly as much evidence, if any evidence at all. It is not as if we are plugging our ears and saying, "I won't listen to anything else; evolution is true!" What we are insisting is that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and the evidence for alternative theories is either wholly underwhelming (as with the alien idea) or else makes no legitimate predictions and thus can't be said to be supported by evidence (as with creationism). And to borrow your own skepticism, I will consider the possibility that you are not an honors student and did not score well in your critical thinking courses, as the evidence here certainly suggests otherwise. Perhaps additional evidence will remedy this, but for now it is the most plausible assumption!

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 7 (view)

What is mind....? Posted: 12/19/2008 10:50:33 PM
I currently believe that the mind is an emergent property of brain states. That is, I do not necessarily think the mind IS a brain state, but that it is a sort of epiphenomenom that arises from these states. One can think of the mind's relation to the brain in the same way we would consider the relation of an artistic image to the blobs of paint that make it up. In a sense, you can reduce a painting to specks of paint and nothing more, but on another level, you get an emergent property of a picture or image. So in a way, the mind is almost illusory. One can perfectly describe human interaction in terms of firing neurons and physical elements, like one can perfectly reproduce and describe a painting as layers of paint. Thinking about metaphysical and ontological questions like this was never my strong suit, though, and it hurts to think about. It gets to the heart of what we even mean by existence or even nonexistence, and these terms aren't as clear-cut as they seem at first! At the moment I also strongly lean toward the idea of the mind as mostly a rationalizing entity. That is, we don't have a "free will" that we use to act and do things. Rather, we do things and then our minds rationalize our actions after the fact, in essence saying, 'This is what I meant to do!" This is borne out by a few famous experiments in cognitive science, believe it or not.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 113 (view)

Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory? Posted: 12/19/2008 10:35:46 PM
I was simply going on the plausibility, and even NOW find it a plausible idea, just as evolution is plausible... No, no, no! The alien hypothesis is NOT plausible. There is absolutely NO evidence to support it, and in the face of a conflicting explanation that is a scientific theory supported by mountains of evidence, it becomes even more implausible. One can say it is logically POSSIBLE (but then again, it is logically possible that in the next five minutes I will turn into a chocolate easter bunny), and that's about it. It is not plausible in the slightest given even a basic understanding of the natural world. There are holes in all of the origin of man kind theories... There are "holes" not just in all origin theories, but in all theories ever constructed about anything. This is a feature of our limited epistemic capacities as human beings, and a result of the fact that we cannot deduce empirical truths about reality from thin air and a priori. A theory may have a "hole" because it is not fully explained or spelled out, but few things have to be fully explained to be known. For instance, the hole in this word---evol_tion---may be pretty glaring, but nevertheless we can still know what's there regardless. So while there may be certain unexplained phenomena in biology, there is still abundant evidence to support the fact that creatures have evolved. In contrast, there is NO evidence to support anything about alien life constructing mankind. I deal in provable facts from what I am going to school for, that is JUST part of where I am at. No, you don't. It is philosophically naive to think you deal with "provable facts" in the law whereas science deals with "just theories". For one, it is obvious that facts are theory-laden. That is, you can't even make sense of facts or speak of facts unless they have a theoretical context. If I present to you the "facts" of blood on a man's shirt, a dead body at his feet, and a bloody knife in his hand, those facts don't tell you anything unless they are put into some theoretical context. Perhaps he killed the person, and that explains why he is covered in blood and holding a knife. Or perhaps he found the person dead, removed the knife from the body, and got blood on himself in doing so. As you can see, constructing theories is integral to the law, and it is hardly just a matter of accumulating facts. What is done is that theories are formed (theory x, he's a murderer, or theory y, he's innocent and found the body) and then observations that follow from these theories are adduced. If he's the murderer, for instance, we might expect a certain type of blood splatter on his body consistent with knife thrusting, whereas if what we find is a blood smear from someone leaning over a body and removing a knife, this is more supportive of the other theory. In the end, one can construct an endless array of theories to explain various facts, but there are theories that are more or less plausible than others, and there are even theories that are wholly implausible (ie, if a defendant suggested that aliens killed the woman, even though this doesn't explain any of the evidence away nor is it accounted for by any additional evidence). This is one reason I find it odd that you are going on about how you don't need to know about science because you are more concerned with going into law, but understanding the subtleties of the scientific method is one of the most important things you could learn before practicing law, as the hypothetico-deductive method is used constantly in trying to establish guilt or innocence. Trying to portray your discipline as somehow completely different epistemically is just nonsense. WHICH shouldn't be a big deal to any of you, because I am going to be practicing legal advocacy, and not anything to do with evolution, OR astronomy. I hope the above explains why I DO think it is a big deal, even if you are not becoming a biologist or astronomer. Someone practicing legal advocacy should be capable of understanding that the theory of evolution is infinitely more plausible than other theories on the basis of the evidence. If you continue to sit on the fence it betrays an unwillingness to consider evidence or to come to a reasonable conclusion, making you seem almost an unreasonable total skeptic. And in law you certainly can't be a complete skeptic! Unlike the sciences, one is forced to come to a conclusion in the law, so you better be good at analyzing the available evidence and adopting pragmatic epistemic standards that do not require absolute certainty, lest you find yourself completely lost and sea and unable to do anything!

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 112 (view)

Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory? Posted: 12/19/2008 10:13:25 PM
There are many unanswered questions There are many unanswered questions. Whether humans evolved, however, is NOT one of them. The questions that still remain to be uncovered are the details. We have more than enough evidence from many different sources that evolution occurs. The questions that often remain are to explain in explicit detail how certain things evolved with a bit more specificity. For instance, it is like finding icing on your dog's muzzle, paw prints on the counter, and only a few remaining crumbs on the counter top of your kitchen. From this evidence you KNOW that your dog ate that cake, but you may have remaining questions about how exactly the dog got on the counter, whether the dog ate the cake quickly or slowly, etc., that remain to be answered. In a similar manner, we know evolution occurred, but scientists are just left with other details to fill out. The similarities we see in life, combined with these similarities being arranged in a linear fashion throughout millions of years, combined with vestigial features, combined with geographic distributions that imply common descent, combined with its coherence and synthesis with modern genetics and even with theories of geology like plate tectonics--all of these lines of evidence coalesce to produce a virtually impenetrable case for evolution. It isn't being a FOOL to think there is plausibility in something, it just means I don't limit myself to what one group wants to say where our origins have come from verses another. One would be foolish to reject evolution IF they are familiar with the evidence that supports it. The evidence is so overwhelming that you'd have to be intellectually dishonest or very foolish to deny evolution in the face of it. This isn't a question of limiting yourself to certain sources of knowledge, but of accepting those sources of knowledge that have been established with tons of evidence, and rejecting those other sources that rest on no evidence whatsoever (alien theories, intelligent design, etc.). I suspect that you simply are not familiar with all of the evidence, so I don't presume you are a fool, but instead ignorant of the basic arguments and evidence for evolution. As a student in legal studies, I DO have a higher expectation of empirical proof than a lot of other people, simply because that is part of my training. And my point is that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that your standards for empirical proof would have to be so high as to be unreasonable in order to reject evolution. Were your standards consistently so high as to put evolution into doubt, you'd also find yourself rejecting gravity, the belief that fire will burn you, and so on. In short, there's no way your standards could be so high as to rule out evolution, otherwise you'd basically be unable to believe anything, given the rather solid evidentiary foundations that evolution rests upon. This is supposed to be a fun site, and not something that demands a PhD in archeology, or fields of that nature... You don't need a Phd to understand evolution. I don't even have a bachelor's degree in the sciences and I understand it better than a great many people. (My degree is in English, of all things.) And I see what you are saying about this being a "fun" site, but evolution is not a trivial thing. We live in a world where a great many people doubt evolution and are constantly fed lies and misrepresentations about it from various religiously-motivated groups. In the US, science education has suffered as a result. I didn't even learn anything of substance about evolution in high school, and instead had to teach it to myself. You can go on believing whatever you'd like about biology, but I will go on correcting anyone who says silly things that imply evolution is not a rock-solid theory concerning the origins of species. Because though you may disagree, I think evolution is a very fun thing to discuss, and I also think it is a very important thing to discuss.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 106 (view)

Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory? Posted: 12/19/2008 5:11:13 PM
Nexthyme, I am not "bashing" you by calling you ignorant. Saying someone is ignorant is not an insult. It does not mean you are stupid. Nor does it mean I'm smart. It only means that you perhaps are not as educated on the subject of evolution as you should be. Your quotes betray this fact, as the classic "If evolution is true then why are there still apes" meme could only be used as a rebuke by someone with absolutely no understanding of evolution, and this is precisely why you hear similar sentiments repeated by creationists. (And, for the record, the question is also nonsensical because humans ARE apes.) We are all allowed our opinions based on the different theories and experiences we have had. I am not saying you are not allowed to believe as you wish. You can believe the moon is made of cheese if you'd like. My argument is that your belief is not well-founded in evidence and your understanding of evolution that informs that belief is sorely lacking. If you are so smart on the subject then why didn't YOU explain where the missing link is, and WHY we still have a missing link??? The concept of a "missing link" is a poor layman's misconception. Each and every generation is technically a "missing link" in that some genetic information has been jumbled and changed. The conception of a species is not a black and white dividing line, but instead a fine gradient, owing to the very nature of evolution. Thus, to ask for "a" missing link, as if there is only one, and to think that every generation that ever existed could even be fossilized, just betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of modern evolution. What we HAVE found is that chimpanzees are our closest relatives, and our next closest relatives are found in the apes, and then the monkeys. We've also found fossil evidence for all kinds of human ancestors; australopithecus aferensis is one example. So in short, there isn't any "missing link" and indeed this idea doesn't even make sense--in fact, it is just the sort of misleading characterization of evolution spread by creationists. This is perhaps why you are ignorant, as your sources of information are even more ignorant. As for the appendix, it is clear that it is a vestigial part. For one, it doesn't serve an optimal role as a regulator of gut flora. This also explains why it can be removed without harm, why it causes more harm than benefit most of the time, and why people have even been born without appendixes. To say a part is vestigial doesn't mean that it can't serve a suboptimal function. Again, this is a standard creationist misrepresentation of the argument from vestigial parts. Once again it goes to is it PLAUSIBLE, and I say yes, it is a plausible theory... THEORY does not mean fact, but based upon different evidence there is enough to support it being a theory that is possible. More creationist misrepresentation. You seem to think something's being a "theory" means it can't be just as well-supported as a fact, and that's completely wrong. For something to be a "theory" in science only means that it is predicts and is supported by a wide array of facts. Because it is supported by so many interrelated facts, you can say that theories are in reality BETTER than facts in terms of evidentiary support, and also in explanatory power. And I didn't say the theory of evolution was merely "plausible." I said it was MORE plausible than any theory about aliens, and that the alien theory is totally implausible and not supported by any evidence at all. We have NO imperical proof as to where the missing link is between apes and humans... After my OWN research the theory still falls short between the last evolutionary step of the neanderthal to modern man. I've already explained to you that we DO have fossil evidence (as well as indirect evidence from genetics and comparisons with existing apes) that more than adequately show our common ancestors with non-human apes. The concept of a single "missing link" is a mistaken conception. Also, modern humans didn't evolve from neanderthals, so perhaps that is where your "research" is going awry (we shared a common ancestor). In fact, modern humans existed alongside neanderthals and we more than likely caused their extinction. You subscribe to what you want to believe, and I leave the door open to the possibility that aliens may have intervened... In the end, calling another person ignorant, is something I would expect out of a 12 yr old... Is it possible that aliens were the cause of humanity? Possibly. Is this a plausiable idea supported by evidence? No. It is not supported by any evidence whatsoever, and in the face of a legitimate theory for which there is reams of evidence (that is, evolution), only the hardiest of fools could possibly still be open to any "alien" theory as being just as legitimate as evolution.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 76 (view)

Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory? Posted: 12/17/2008 6:19:03 PM
My question always falls back on this, if we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes??? And this is the kind of question that could only be asked by someone completely ignorant of evolution. Apes still exist because evolution isn't a linear line, but a branching tree. The fish that branch out to oxygen-deprived swamps may evolve lungs from their swimbladders and eventually trek out onto land, but those that stay in the deep oceans have no selection pressure to evolve lungs. Hence, fish with lungs evolved from fish without lungs, and we don't need to explain why fish without lungs still exist. The same goes for our own evolution. Why would some decide it was cool to get smart, and others to use twigs to pick bugs out of the ground, and swing from trees??? Because it isn't necessary to have intelligence to survive. Bacteria, social insects, and all sorts of brainless creatures survive a lot better than we do. Like anything, there are trade-offs that come with our intelligence. Our brains use up a ton of our energy intake, for instance, and we also lack the capacity to run like a cheetah, to have the strength of a gorilla, etc. There are many different ways to survive. The evidence for evolution is solid and overwhelming. We have evidence from transitional fossils, observations of homologous and vestigial parts, evidence from geographic distribution of species, and countless other lines of evidence. To use just one example, whales have a mammalian bone structure, implying they evolved from land mammals. They also have vestigial hip and leg bones in their bodies. On top of that, scientists have found transitional fossils for whale ancestors, and as you go back further in time, you see they resemble more and more land-dwelling mammals (in fact, you can even trace the progression of the nostril as it moves up the head over time to become the blowhole). This is not to mention the DNA analysis that can confirm mammalian evolution, as well as the fact that they breathe AIR despite living in water, like a land creature would. This is just for whales. We see similar lines of evidence converging like this for ALL life. The only plausible explanation for this wide variety of facts is that whales evolved. (And by the way, you mention the appendix--this is another strong case for evolution, because evolution predicts we'd inherit parts from our ancestors that once served a purpose but that no longer serve such functions as we evolve to fill new evolutionary niches. As for what the appendix once did, it was an aid to digestion, a lot like the gullet in a chicken.) There is NOTHING plausible in believing aliens had something to do with our creation, and to portray it as equivalent to evolution in terms of evidentiary plausibility just betrays your ignorance on the matter.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 66 (view)

Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory? Posted: 12/16/2008 10:14:03 PM
This is all outlandish nonsense. For instance, you repeat claims about Sumerians having knowledge of extraterrestials and even of Sumerian tablets that show a knowledge of gene splicing and genetics we haven't even mastered today, and there is simply no reason at all to think this. What tablet mentions genetics? What "archeologist" is making such an absurd claim? In all likelihood, what you'll find is some wacko without an actual degree looking at pictures on Sumerian tablets and then interpreting them according to his own biases in a modern historical context and totally ignoring anything at all like historical fact or the scientific method. That is, he'll see what looks like a circle carved into a tablet and say that is a UFO without any reason for saying such a thing. This is not how historians and scientists do their jobs, nor is there ANY precedent for thinking ancient peoples believed in extraterrestials, much less had a working knowledge of genetics! As for the "sudden upgrade" of homo sapiens from our ancestors, this isn't true, either. Frankly, we don't know the linguistic or intelligence capacities of our most recent ancestors, because fossils do not tell us about such behaviors. What we can know, of course, is that our ancestors may have been tool users, showing signs of intelligence in that regard. We even have evidence from modern chimps that they possess some rudimentary capacity for understanding language and tool use. Chimpanzees have even been demonstrated in test conditions, for example, to have BETTER short-term memories than homo sapien college students! To think that our intellectual capacity is a sudden upgrade in need of explanation that involves aliens is to overstate the case and posit entities for which there is absolutely no good evidence. All of this talk of aliens and UFOs as we know it is a rather modern invention stemming from the early 1900's. There is no reason to think there is any historical precedent. In the past the mythologies involved demons, angels, gods, and so on. Some pseudo-historians and archealogists have tried to explain this in terms of aliens, but it is simply a bad interpretation of history that ignores the actual historical context to support a rather shoddy hypothesis. If life does exist somewhere else in the universe, the likelihood that it has the capacity to travel billions of light years, to locate another planet with life, and to come here specifically to stick metallic objects up our asses is extremely low. If we ever do find life, it will be unicellular at best or possibly some sort of space algae, and it will be very, very far away from us. I wouldn't expect much more.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 35 (view)

How did the ancients know? Posted: 11/28/2008 8:02:04 PM
This is a bunch of hogwash. The Sumerians didn't know there were nine planets, nor did they know that the planets were spherical and circled the sun. We have clear, direct evidence of Sumerian cosmology and it is nothing at all like modern cosmology (it is known that they thought the Earth was flat, for instance). What is said to be "the solar system" as depicted in these tablets is simply wishful interpretation by some fringe pseudoscientists who are reading modern cosmology into the interpretation without any good reason for doing so. So the answer is simply that the ancient Sumerians DIDN'T know how many planets there were, and this is best explained because idiots who know nothing about archealogy are misinterpreting drawings from the time period.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 37 (view)

Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory? Posted: 11/28/2008 7:53:32 PM
This theory is not plausible in the slightest. For one, we have no evidence of extraterrestial life at all, much less life that is highly intelligent, sophisticated, and close enough to the Earth to muddle with the organisms there. Second, your appeals to the "improbabilities" of language development and other things thought to be especially human are little more than arguments from ignorance that strongly resemble unnecessary creationist skepticism. Flight, too, also seems improbable on the face of it, yet you do not posit extraterrestials to explain flight. What about metabolism, the immunue system, etc.? Second, and perhaps most devastating to the case for aliens, is the fact that the existence of aliens would also have to be explained, and we would have to reason that they evolved from simpler organisms. But if these aliens are so complex and sophisticated to be able to genetically engineer humans, then surely they couldn't have evolved (by virtue of your own argument for why humans couldn't have evolved), and hence they must have been created by even more sophisticated aliens, and they by even more sophisticated aliens, and so on and so forth until we reach an infinite regress. Obviously, the buck has to stop somewhere, and in the absence of any credible evidence for highly intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, it makes sense stop the buck right at our own origins on earth. We evolved, plain and simple.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 115 (view)

New Spin To Creationism Posted: 11/28/2008 7:46:31 PM
Your idea isn't borne out by the evidence, because the evidence for evolution also indicates that all living organisms share a common ancestor, meaning that there is no reason to suspect God created humanity's early ancestors, as the evidence shows our immediate ancestors also having distinct evolutionary lines and ties. Really what you are positing isn't a new spin to creationism at all. A lot of the folk who support Intelligent Design have similar sentiments, thinking evolution occured in some areas but some things are simply too complex (this is Behe's stance, for instance). When it all comes down to it, though, the God hypothesis is simply unnecessary and certainly not scientific. As Laplace famously said, "God? I have no need of that hypothesis."

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 7 (view)

Is having a faith / philosophy a turn-off? Posted: 10/12/2008 9:55:46 PM
Having a faith is a turn-off, because that is by definition not evidence-based and therefore unreasonable. Having a philosophy, however, is not so much of a turn-off, provided that philosophical outlook is not some form of vulgar relativism or overtly religious.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 133 (view)

Philosophers and Great Minds Becoming Endangered Species??? Posted: 10/12/2008 9:47:38 PM
The problem isn't that there were more great minds in the past, but that the problems in the past were easier to tackle. Just look at pretty much any discipline. As more knowledge accumulates, the subjects become more and more esoteric and require more and more background knowledge. In the 18th century science and philosophy could be done by lay people without any fancy mathematical knowledge or strange equipment, but nowadays to make a huge discovery requires a ton of knowledge of all kinds of esoteric subjects in math, logic, and many other disciplines to contribute anything original that builds off the past foundations laid by other great thinkers.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 2 (view)

Coming Soon to a Grocery Near You: Genetically Engineered Meat Posted: 9/26/2008 8:47:25 PM
Already in a grocery store near you: Genetically engineered meat! The only difference is that it was genetically engineered through selective breeding. But really, the distinction is kind of silly.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 12 (view)

In an infinite universe... Posted: 9/26/2008 8:42:27 PM
Brian Greene, author of "The Elegant Universe" and a proponent of string theory, often makes just such an argument---that an infinite string of universes would mean there are infinite possibilities being embodied, including a universe where pigs fly (if that is indeed a real possibility). It's the same sort of argument that shows that a million monkeys banging on typewriters for an infinite duration will eventually produce all the works of Shakespeare. So yes, the implications are basically that anything that is possible would be actual in some other dimension or universe.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 2 (view)

Dealing with religion/science while dating. Posted: 9/24/2008 4:50:09 PM
My interests, and even my job, is educational and scientific in nature, so basically my life revolves around scientific issues. I listen to skeptical and scientific podcasts, watch science documentaries, and write extensively about these things online. Given that, I just don't think a really religious person could identify with me at all, nor I with them. I've tried it, and the relationship ended up being purely sexual. The only bad thing is that it is ridiculously difficult to find women who are interested in such things. Even this website has a list of things "not to talk about" to women, and science is right at the top of the list.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 4 (view)

Plato's Critique Of Democracy Posted: 9/21/2008 10:08:44 PM
I disagree with Plato on this one. While there are admittedly flaws with democracy, it is simply the best system to have because it emphasizes checks and balances and enforces justice on a society-wide level. I tend to be more in line with Popper's thesis in The Open Society and Its Enemies.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 23 (view)

Occam's razor is sometimes false. Posted: 9/21/2008 7:16:14 PM
You are correct that Kant had an anti-razor philosophy, and that is precisely the downfall of his philosophy! He posits a noumenal realm for no reason and with no apparent justification, and that bit is the most highly criticized portion of his philosophy. I have to disagree with your assessment of Ockham's razor, though. The principle of Ockham's razor isn't meant to be an infallible heuristic for making correct judgments. If I hear screams outside, it is likely a child given my present state of information, but further examination may show that it is indeed an alien out there screaming. The function of the razor is to ensure that our theories are evidence-based. The moment we make evidence-free judgments acceptable is the moment we essentially shoot legitimate inquiry in the eye, because it denies us the capacity to assess and test our theories further, and would ultimately promote shallow dogmatism. Ockham's razor can and does lead to false conclusions, just as any science or evidence-based inquiry would if we are lacking certain key pieces of evidence or observations. So when you assert that Ockham's razor was wrong in the past, that's not really a criticism of the principle. The function of Ockham's razor is to ensure that we can find out if we are wrong when we are wrong. If we dispose of the principle and posit theories and entities without any evidence whatsoever, we forego any possibility of judging or assessing things. So really you are completely misunderstanding the purpose of the razor if you think it can cause us "to ignore valuable leads that could bring new information in." It does just the opposite, by showing us that we HAVE to acknowledge new information can come in and that this is the best way to build up knowledge about the world. Your rejection of the razor actually produces the situation you fear, as those who would make evidence-lacking assumptions would have no need of "brining new information in". They wouldn't need evidence in the first place to posit any number of unwarranted things!

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 26 (view)

Artifice.. Posted: 9/17/2008 5:12:45 PM
Sassy said: since none of us can offer proof regarding God, we are ALL free to believe as we wish. And since that is the case, there truly cannot be any be any exclusive rights to truth. How can there be.. ? If it were proven, we would all know, end of debate. 1. If it were proven, it is not the case that everyone would know and the debate would end. The status of evolution in America is an obvious example. This theory has been proven to such a degree that it is pretty much undoubtable, given the current evidence, and yet people still don't believe it, and there is a very real debate! 2. If there is no evidence for a position one way or another, that doesn't mean BOTH sides are true! It only means that neither side can make a legitimate claim to truth. But existential questions are an entirely different beast, which leads me to my next claim. 3. Existential statements have to live up to a burden of proof for the simple reason that we wouldn't expect evidence for nonexistent things. This is why someone denying existence need not prove the negative to have the superior position, because the lack of evidence is specifically what we'd see if something did not exist, whereas we'd at least in principle be capable of seeing evidence for something that does exist. (And to nip one objection in the bud, that God "transcends" evidence: my response is then that such a God is purely unknowable, and anyone who asserts such a God to exist is therefore asserting nothing, as they couldn't possibly know what they mean.) But again, this is a side issue. The point you were trying to make is that asserting someone is wrong is a problem with this forum, as if thinking someone is incorrect is the same as belittling them or calling them names. But this is obviously not the case. I'll say it again: Do you think I'm wrong in my arguments above? If you say yes, you've contradicted yourself by saying I am wrong (something you think can't be said). If you say no, then I'm right and everything I've said follows (including the fact that asserting someone else's wrongness is not problematic). And if you can't weasel out of it by saying: We can BOTH win Saint, and that is my whole entire point! That's not true! The question is a "yes" or "no" question. Both can't be true based on simple logic. Either I'm right or I'm wrong. We are not "both" winners if both answers are mutually exclusive! One HAS to be correct. And you can't make an appeal to "there is no evidence either way," because in we aren't talking about God in this context, but an argument about whether expressing the exclusivity of truth is somehow impolite. And the evidence is fully in my favor, because if you assert that exclusive truths ARE inappropriate, you are asserting an exclusive truth in that and therefore being inappropriate, and if you assert the opposite, then you are agreeing with me!

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 19 (view)

Artifice.. Posted: 9/16/2008 11:04:25 PM
There is a difference between saying my beliefs are true for me and I respect that your beliefs are true for you.. and of saying you are WRONG for not seeing it my way. I don't understand what is hard about this!!! There's the problem right there. One can think a belief is "true for me" but another is "true for you" and still be impolite and uncivil. (An example, "Truth is relative, and we are both right, you stupid #(&#!") One can also think that another's belief is wrong and still RESPECT it. You seem to think respecting a belief is the same thing as thinking it can possibly be true. That's, to put it bluntly, a load of nonsense. I think you are wrong on a wide number of issues. This does not mean that I do not respect you, or that I don't respect your right to hold these beliefs. To say that thinking another person can be wrong is the problem with these forums is downright silly, and I think you realize this intuitively. The problem is being uncivil, whether you think truth is exclusive or inclusive is irrelevant to such questions. In my view they are because neither side has proof. To me that levels the playing field in a way that tolerance and nothing else can. Exactly. You are a relativist. You think that both are "true." But that is clearly impossible. Mutually exclusive opinions cannot be true! It's a matter of simple logic! Besides, your own statement that "they are both true" would be an "exclusive truth," which therefore contradicts your dictum that we can't think another person is wrong. But if I think MY truth is superior to your truth.. how freakin tolerant am I being? What do you even mean by "tolerant"? I can think your opinion is wrong and still tolerate it. I can think your belief is inferior and still tolerate it. Simply because someone thinks your belief is wrong doesn't mean that they think you don't have the right to be wrong. Yes, I think you are wrong. Am I being intolerant? No, because you are free to believe what you want. I just think you are wrong, and that's that. I'm not calling you names, I'm not insulting you--I just think you are wrong. Now listen very carefully to my next point, because it is devastating to your argument: Am I wrong on this issue, Sassy?* If you say yes, you are clearly contradicting yourself and embracing an exclusive truth. If you say no, then I'm not wrong, and therefore what I've said is correct and you're wrong. You're stuck between a rock and a hard place here. Just say it with me: The problem is not our beliefs about the nature of truth--the problem is people behaving uncivilly, resorting to personal attacks and insults, and generally being rude. How can you possibly think the issue is something other than that?!

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 16 (view)

Artifice.. Posted: 9/16/2008 10:39:11 PM
Personally I don't understand your villification of "exclusivity of truth". The truth really is exclusive! Mutually exclusive beliefs cannot both be true. An atheist cannot also profess to believe in God, and a theist cannot profess to also disbelieve in God. It is simply not possible to say they are "both" right. There is nothing wrong with saying that the truth of the matter is exclusive to a particular side. What is wrong is to express this idea rudely with insults and personal attacks. (And I'm sure even you would recognize that someone of your stripe who went about saying, "The truth is NOT exclusive, you F(#&$&#@!" is clearly part of the problem, which just goes to show that holding a particular attitude about the nature of truth is wholly irrelevant to the issue.) So it is silly to frame this as an issue of the relativity of truth. A forum full of relativists will not solve the problem, as even relativists can be mean---what is needed is a forum full of people who, even if they are diametrically opposed to each other, do not resort to personal attacks, do not call people names, and behave civilly. But there is nothing wrong with thinking the truth is exclusive, because the truth IS exclusive, by definition! (I do hope you see why that is the case, because if it isn't, then it the concept "truth" would also include "falsity", and clearly that causes some logical muddles.) So yeah, don't frame this in those terms, because not all of us are postmodern relativists, and those who aren't relativists shouldn't be portrayed as the problem and insulted in such a manner. The problem is simple impoliteness. I think another aspect of the problem is that relativists of your stripe are keen to interpret disagreement on truth as "a personal insult," but there doesn't seem to be much warrant to that. After all, you apparently believe in the "exclusive truth" that exclusive truth shouldn't be allowed here--another fairly obvious contradiction in terms. I think those who can't differentiate between one asserting the exclusivity of truth and one being an impolite, insulting troll probably needs to reexamine their position a bit more carefully.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 140 (view)

Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists? Posted: 9/16/2008 10:16:56 PM
Ameerra, I think the bulk of our disagreement can stem from basic misunderstandings. For one, I think you have misunderstood my reason for having this discussion with you. But most importantly, I think you are in error when trying to argue that this is a dispute of "opinions" and when you claim that everything is "subjective." In regards to the misunderstandings about subjectivity and objectivity, you said: ...because all of what you're saying is also subjective, in my opinion. The whole world is filtered through what WE see, what WE believe, what WE accept as true, what WE disbelieve -- you are not excepted from that rule. What you may accept as proof and evidence may not convince ME and visa versa. Now, this is very important, because it shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what "objectivity" is. When something is objective, that means it can be sensed and experienced by anyone. So when I make appeals to evidence, I am making appeals to objectivity, not subjectivity. Why is this important? Because this is proof that can convince anyone, as anyone has access to it to test it, challenge it, etc. About "opinions," you said: Who is "we"? YOU? On what authority have they/you set themselves/yourself up to judge anyone? You are expressing YOUR OPINION. Now, am I really expressing an opinion? Before I answer that, let me give you an example. Suppose I say that, should you ram your car into a wall at 90 miles per hour, you are likely to injure yourself and destroy your car. If you were to say, "That's just your opinion," that wouldn't really be the case. What I've said is a statement of fact. A statement of opinion would be something purely subjective that could not be assessed by others, like "Chocolate is my favorite flavor of ice cream." In the context of this discussion, I am mainly addressing epistemological issues, which are not matters of opinion. Either something is true or it is not. There are clear and well-delineated ways to assess truth and falsity. So when I say, "My argument is that their belief needs to be proved in an objective, testable fashion if we are to judge it reasonable or based on sound evidence," what I mean by "we" isn't some select panel os supersmart people, but "we" as in EVERYONE and ANYONE, otherwise it can't really be adequately assessed, because a subjective belief is only accessible to a single person who is prone to all sorts of cognitive biases that cannot be controlled for. So when you say the following: You've asked me to suspend with my own judgment, place the confirmation of my beliefs in the hands and minds of others, who are objective and I suppose mentally superior (as I am suffering from hallucinations) so as to then determine what I should believe? Sir, that sounds a lot like MIND CONTROL -- which doesn't surprise me in the least. Scientists have a great fascination for that subject. you are misunderstanding me completely. I am not saying others are mentally superior, they have the same biases and cognitive problems as any other human being. But when you are capable of putting ideas onto the public marketplace in an objective fashion, then it can be better assessed, obviously. We can "control" for various variables that may influence us and lead us away from truth. This is not "mind control," as you imply through some sort of absurd free association, but the control of VARIABLES. All it means is that you are doing your best to prevent errors in reasoning and bias which are common in subjective beliefs, which is why we do not accept hallucinations and delusions as truthful. So in a way, you are wholly wrong when you try to portray my position as one of arrogance and superiority. The reason I rely on the scientific method is because I strongly believe that my own individual experiences are insignificant and prone to error, and that objective confirmation from others is necessary to adequately assess information. Your own position, however, is that your subjective experiences take precedence over anyone else's, that you don't need to control for your own biases and potential errors in knowledge, and in effect treating yourself superior and beyond the pale of anyone else in reasoning. Do I really think you explicitly believe this? No. But it is implicit in your position, chained as it is to subjectivity. It is just one reason I think it is quite strange you are trying to portray my own stance as one of superiority and infallibility. In regards to my motives, you've repeatedly said that I "must" care about what others think if I discuss this at such length. Perhaps you didn't read one of my first posts here, which was addressed to you, where I said I do not expect to change your mind, and enjoy these types of discussions because they can potentially change the minds of those NOT involved in the discussion who read it, and because it presents a learning experience by seeing other perspectives, and because it gives me a chance to hone my own skills of rhetoric and look up new evidence. Notice that none of this implies that I want you to change your mind. I honestly don't care what you choose to believe. Obviously I think your thinking is a bit erroneous in many respects, but you are free to think erroneously if you'd like. I like discussing these issues because I find the issues interesting, and that's that. One last thing, about the "belief in God is mental illness" claim you mistakenly applied to me. Here is the original context: Ameerra: You'd rather believe that millions of people are delusional and cannot think straight, even though they present themselves as intelligent, rational, free thinking human beings! You'd even rather reduce them to persons suffering from mental illness! I then explained that I was NOT saying belief in God is a mental illness, but rather that it shares certain chracteristics with hallucinations (in that they are both subjective experiences). I explain this in terms of apples and oranges by saying merely comparing apples to oranges isn't the same as saying an apple is an orange. Therefore, if I compare belief in God to mental illness, this is not the same as saying belief in God is a mental illness. Which brings us to your current rejoinder: Yet there is a reason the old adage was coined, Let's not compare apples with oranges -- because even though they share similarities (like your belief in God is comparable to hallucinations theory ) they are still DIFFERENT. This is what I have been saying ALL ALONG. Remember, you were the one who claimed I said people who believe in God can be reduced to those who have a mental illness. I said no such thing, and now you are demonstrating the point I was making in the first place as if this is a refutation to what I was saying. You are talking in a circle on this particular point.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 76 (view)

How to understand the world if evolution were false Posted: 9/16/2008 5:36:49 PM
Because when faith base people end their belief with the "I don't know" part, scientific thinkers demand that they go further and tell them that they can't stop there; they require evidence and proof and when it isn't forthcoming, then say: See, your belief is nonsense. Your argument is highly confused. When people of faith can't justify their belief and have to admit they don't know and have no evidence for God, that's quite different than someone who says they don't know the origin of the universe as a whole but is offering overwhelming evidence in support of the fact of evolution. I don't know how to explain this to you in a better way, because it really is a quite simple point, and I don't understand why you can't grasp it. For instance, say for example I want to explain how my toaster works. I explain that an electrical current generates heat in the wires inside which then cook the toast. I could then show that this is true by appealing to numerous pieces of evidence, like the fact that the wires get red, you can touch them and see they are hot, you can unplug it and see if it works without electricity, etc., and this all suitably demonstrates that what I've said fits the facts and is likely true. But if you insisted that I'd also have to explain the ultimate origin of the raw materials for the toaster, where and how it was made, how it formed in supernova and ultimately in the Big Bang, obviously your questions would be absurd. And if you were to say that being unable to answer these questions somehow undermines our well-supported evidence in favor of how the toaster works, then it would be clear that your epistemic demands are absurd. Why don't I have to explain HOW the Big Bang started to create all the matter that makes up life? Because it is A GIVEN. We already know that organisms exist, that they change, and that their development portrays an evolutionary progression. To ask where it all came from is an entirely different question. Please give me an example of a "faith-based" claim that is at all analagous to this, and I'll happily explain to you just how different it is.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 138 (view)

Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists? Posted: 9/15/2008 11:44:53 PM
True. If that's all a person was presenting (an appeal to majority). True. There were also deliberate appeals to confirmation bias and other fallacies. But unfortunately layers upon layer of fallacy doesn't build a case. Ah, the Grand Myth resurfaces again. Please provide actual evidence that "millions of people" "thousands of years ago" believed that "the word was flat". Thank you. This isn't a grand myth. It is a myth only in so far as the application is to the middle ages and beyond, where it is not true that most people believed the Earth was flat. By then most knew it was spherical. But before the Greeks, I assure you that it is not a myth that most people regarded the world as flat, and there is plenty of evidence that this is the case. Ancient maps, for instance, depict the earth as flat, evidenced by its accordance with ancient Mesopotamian writings on the shape of the Earth. The Far East also had myths and beliefs concerning the Earth's flatness. Given that this is found in numerous documents that were well-known at the time, and given the rather intuitive impession one gets of the Earth's shape by naively looking at it, it seems that this is more than enough evidence to think most people in the ancient world before the Greeks thought the world to be flat. they may or may not have been, but that's immaterial. At the moment there is no evidence that millions of people have been wrong before (see below if you're going to claim that one). It's purely your own opinion. And wholly anecdotal. Umm, no. There is plenty reason to think that millions of people were wrong about theories of disease. Why? Because if they actually KNEW the real cause of disease, they would have treated it accordingly, and yet they didn't so often in the past. I could name any number of things that people could not possibly have known and for which we'd have no reason to believe they know, and this would more than establish that those millions in the past were wrong in their ancient thoughts on whatever topic I choose. This is not "wholly anecdotal" in that I'm arguing from a single story to a universal, but from many lines of historical evidence. Perhaps you are searching for indisputable mathematical proof, but then you are just being silly if you would demand that level of proof for empirical phenomena. But even if you could establish as a fact that "millions of people have been wrong before" it wouldn't matter. Yeah, the "I" word. It most certainly would matter. If the person is trying to bolster their argument by saying greater numbers of people believing in something is evidence in its favor, and I point out that this is not true, then obviously it matters quite a deal. It doesn't establish that the person in question IS wrong, but it certainly does establish that their belief is not supported by a coherent argument, and if the other argumnts are similarly incoherent, then they are indeed likely wrong.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 137 (view)

Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists? Posted: 9/15/2008 11:22:59 PM
I have said and keep saying: GOD IS KNOWABLE TO THOSE WHO WANT TO KNOW HIM, OBSERVABLE TO THOSE WHO WANT TO OBSERVE HIM. I think addressing the question of God scientifically is an exercise in futility -- I said that before. But if God is subjectively knowable, then science can study it just as it can study any number of subjective phenomena, like emotions, hallucinations, etc. What is problematic is that you'd be claiming an entity with purely "subjective" evidence is actually external (just as someone seeing an illusion would interpret his subjective experiences as external), and science would have to conclude the opposite if there is no evidence outside of your subjective experience. So in that sense, science would be able to address the question. You would have to posit a totally unknowable God that cannot interact with the world in any way if you were to claim that it is untouchable by scientific investigation, something like the God of deism. If someone told me this, and I thought it was plausible, I would try and see if I could see the elephant, too. The more people who said it, the more curious I'd be. Even if I thought it was a load of nonsense, I wouldn't begrudge the Purple Elephant Believer's their beliefs or ask them to prove their belief with science. What's it to me? To each their own. I think you are missing the point. I'm not trying to argue that people can't believe what they want to believe, or that they MUST prove their belief in an objective, testable fashion. My argument is that their belief needs to be proved in an objective, testable fashion if we are to judge it reasonable or based on sound evidence. People can believe whatever silly thing they want, for all I care. But that doesn't change the fact that belief in a subjective purple elephant makes no sense and is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. I also think it is interesting that you would think the purple elephant is a load of nonsense, but for some reason you'd find it more plausible if more people believed in the purely subjective elephant. Why would that make a difference? As I've noted, the number of people who believe something does not establish truth. Goodness gracious, are you in my heart, that you can profess to assume to tell me what I am feeling? Talk about arrogant! Erm, I'm not sure why you think I am putting words in your mouth or being arrogant. I'm stating what you explicitly said, which is that you have subjective experience of God. Hallucinations and delusions are also purely "subjective" experiences. So when I say that those who experience God are having experiences in just the same way those who have hallucinations do, I am only reiterating what you have said about the subjectivity of your experience. That is, after all, how we distinguish a hallucinated elephant in the room from a real elephant in the room--if it can be objectively sensed and observed, it is real, whereas if it is purely subjective to a few individuals, obviously it is a delusion of some sort. So basically I'm only saying what you've already told me, and remarking how it bears all the hallmarks of a hallucination in its subjectivity. Let's not quibble with words here. You are comparing the belief in God to a mentally ill person's hallucination. That is not entirely correct. For one, not all hallucinations are the products of mental illness. You can get them from exposure to certain drugs, sleep deprivation, even sleep paralysis. Second, and most important, I am only COMPARING belief in God to hallucinations, which is a far cry from saying it IS a hallucination. What I said is that belief in God is comparable to hallucinations in that they are both purely subjective with no observable external entity. Similarly, if I were to compare an apple to an orange, it would be misleading for you to exclaim that I am saying apples and oranges are the same thing. So indeed, let's not quibble over words here. Please St. G, come on over and have Thanksgiving with my family this year. They'll tell you that the Turkey is a Roast Pig, and they will believe it. They will argue with you that YOU are delusional and just trying to ruin a perfectly wholesome dinner. And I'd be able to point to observable evidence for my conclusions, whereas they could not. I could show the observable anatomy of the bird, show various features of birds lacking in mammals, compare the size, even go as far as sending off the meat to be genetically analyzed. Whereas your family would have no observable evidence to stand on, and could only reiterate endlessly that it is a pig. Are they welcome to believe what they want? Sure. But is their belief true or supported by any evidence? Absolutely not! Please remember that I am not making an argument about whether people CAN or CANNOT believe what they want--I don't care what people believe. I am only arguing that certain beliefs are not as justified with evidence as others, and that the evidence offered is not very supportive. Scientifically and logically your suspicions are baseless. What makes you think my suspicions are baseless? Cognitive science tells us that confirmation bias is a well known phenomenon. Scientific protocols tell us that blinding procedures (even double blinding of both the participants AND the researchers) are necessary to control for biases brought about by our expectations and desires. And you've admitted numerous times that your belief can only be known if you WANT to believe, which sends up a huge red flag to anyone who knows about cognitive science and scientific protocols. My suspicion that your personal experience is suspect has much basis in science, given this fact! The fact that you admit your experiences are entirely subjective and can't be assessed objectively by an outside party is yet another reason to question the foundations for your belief, as this shares the main features of hallucinations and delusions that are essential for thinking these things untrue. Read that last bit to yourself S L O W W W W L Y. I not only read it slowly, I also wrote it! Science is such a useful tool because it corrects for and controls these well-known biases and cognitive distortions that often muddle our thinking. That's why we double-blind and randomize studies. That's why science is a process of accumulating new evidence and revising theories with the evidence as it comes in. But when you believe something WITHOUT evidence that is purely speculative and subjective, you open yourself to all these biases and cognitive problems and are unable to control for them. You will find yourself believing things without warrant, without any hope for evidence that can overturn your belief, and even finding evidence where there isn't any because you are exercising deliberate confirmation bias! Ameerra, I'm not saying you can't believe in God based on your subjective experiences. You can! That's fine with me! But what I'm trying to get you to recognize is that your methodology is highly suspect and the content of your belief, being totally subjective, is virtually indistinguishable from a delusion or hallucination. You've not differentiated belief in God from my analogy of the invisible elephant, and even admitted you'd consider trying to 'see' the elephant, but I think internally you realize quite how silly this is but are forced to admit it to preserve your subjective sense of God. You've even made direct appeals to obvious fallacies and well-known cognitive biases, like when you've repeatedly appealed to the bandwagon fallacy (when you say that millions have believed in God, and that you'd believe in an invisible purple elephant if "more people said it"), and when you lay out your confirmation bias (by directly stating you have to believe in God to see the evidence). I am sure you have had subjective experiences and you find them convincing. My point is that you probably shouldn't find them convincing, because we are fallible beings with limited knowledge, and whose best chance of overcoming these epistemic limitations is by allowing our ideas to be examined by others objectively, to be accessible and not purely subjective, and to control for known biases.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 67 (view)

How to understand the world if evolution were false Posted: 9/15/2008 10:26:50 PM
I asked the question NOT because I don't believe in evolution -- I do. I really wanted to hear what you guys would say, which as I'm reading is: I DON'T KNOW. I didn't say I don't know. I explained to you how the heavier elements that constitute life were formed: they were the products of supernova from very large early stars (heavier elements can only be formed in high-energy situations like in the core of large stars or in supernova), the debris of heavy elements ejected later coalesced into further planets and stars, and that is how we have elements like carbon, oxygen, hydrogen that are essential for life. I find that interesting, because "I don't know, but I believe" seems to be an unacceptable answer from those who believe in things that they can't prove. I guess it's because you have not added a belief behind the I don't know, is that what makes it okay? This is a misrepresentation, and I think you know it. I know evolution, and I believe. What I may not know with as much detail is the exact chemistry and physics behind abiogenesis or the big bang. But this has nothing to do with evolution. For instance, I also know how a swing works, but if you ask, "Ah, but do you know how to make the plastics that make up the swing?" and then imply that this means "I don't know, yet still believe" concerning the question of how a swing works, you are being disingenious. You may as well ask me if I know all the lyrics to Britney Spears' latest song, and then proclaim that my ignorance of that somehow has something to do with evolution. For instance, the big bang, what caused it? I am not a physicist and I know virtually nothing of physics (I'm knowledgeable about evolution, though), but I will try to give an answer. As far as my understanding goes, to ask what "caused" the big bang is to ask a nonsense question, because causality implies time, and there was no time before the big bang. According to relativity, if you take the observed expansion of the universe and "rewind it," you get a singularity that is basically infinitely dense and hot, but with time becoming finite, which means there is a beginning to time. The physics breaks down at that point, and you can't go any further with the mathematics. There are various candidate hypotheses about what the singularity or the "very beginning" was like (some involving string theory, others quantum mechanics), but these are as yet untested and highly questionable (although maybe in the coming months the LHC will shed some light on these problems). Basically, the science can only explain the universe just up to the big bang, but not before, obviously, because there was no before, and not right at that moment, because the physics breaks down. However, we still know the Big Bang occurred because of the evidence of an expanding universe from redshift, the cosmic background, radiation, and various other lines of evidence involving observations in space. It is important to recognize that because we don't know the cause doesn't mean we don't know THAT something happened. If, for instance, I see my dog on the top of my roof tomorrow, I may not be able to explain the cause for this sight, but that doesn't mean my dog isn't actually on the roof, obviously.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 64 (view)

How to understand the world if evolution were false Posted: 9/15/2008 10:05:05 PM
Ameerra, those supposed "human" footprints along with dinosaur footprints ARE fake. Notice that the "evidence" for this hasn't been assessed by any peer-reviewed source, it isn't in a reputable science journal, etc. Not only that, even other batcrap crazy creationists insist that the "human footprints were found along with dinosaurs" argument is one that you shouldn't make! See Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp. Also, your quotes about the probability of organic creatures arising from random chance have nothing to do with evolution, because the process of natural selection is not random. The very fact that certain traits are being SELECTED for on the basis of the survival advantage they confer is the obvious reason the mechanism is not random. But not only are the appeals to probability "by chance" irrelevant because evolution is not a chance process, they are also unable to refute the evidence that nevertheless shows evolution occurs. For intance, let's say you have a million page book and drop it to the floor. It opens to page 34. What are the chances it would open to THAT specific page? One in a million! But to argue that the small chance means it didn't happen, when you have other evidence that it did, is foolish. Obviously evidence takes precedence over appeals to probability.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 60 (view)

How to understand the world if evolution were false Posted: 9/15/2008 9:40:31 PM
Ameerra said: I was addressing the fact the the theory of evolution doesn't address the origin of life. If you embrace an evolutionary process, I think you can't just stop there; you must then explain how the evolutionary process began and with what. You are bringing up an irrelevant objection. Evolution is meant to explain the diversity of living organisms, and to an extent explains how replicating "non-living" organic material could become life, paving the way for various theories of abiogenesis. But you are asking where the original material came from, and that's not a question for biology, but for physics. And the short answer is that the heavier elements were formed in stars; these early stars were very large and exploded into supernova, ejecting all the heavier elements; the heavy elements coalesced through gravitational forces into planets of various compositions; and it just so happened that Earth formed with organic elements like carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, essentials for life that make up sugars, water, and various proteins. The theory of evolution, however, has nothing to do with the explanation of how higher elements formed in stars--that's a question for physicists and chemists to a degree. For instance, suppose you explained how a swing worked by saying you pushed it, giving it energy, and then it came back down as a result of gravitation, and so on and so forth. If I were to say, "That can't be right! Where did the materials for the swing come from? Where did you come from?" that would obviously be a red herring. To explain how the swing works I don't have to account where the raw materials came from, because that's a given. The same reasoning applies to your objections, which are huge red herrings.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 89 (view)

The Scientific Experiment Most Likely to End the World! Posted: 9/15/2008 9:31:34 PM
But they can't (won't) cure cancer? Who knows, maybe the experiment will give us ideas about how to cure cancer! I mean, it's not like the people who originally studied electromagnetism ever envisioned computers and the internet resulting in part from their discoveries.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 88 (view)

The Scientific Experiment Most Likely to End the World! Posted: 9/15/2008 9:30:10 PM
OP-- I think part of the problem is that you are getting your information on the LHC from cracked.com. This is a HUMOR website. The LHC does not cause a miniature Big Bang. What it does is replicate certain conditions that may have existed less than a second after it occured. This does not entail the creation of a new miniature universe. The Big Bang wasn't just "smashing protons together". The Big Bang was ALL THE ENERGY IN THE UNIVERSE combined into an infinite point called the singularity. I assure you that colliding a couple protons will have nowhere near the energy levels of all the energy in the universe! The LHC's collisions produce very large amounts of energy on a very, very tiny scale. Like dropping a hydrogen bomb with only two hydrogen molecules. Scientists do not know what exactly will happen, but they do know what won't happen--the end of the universe. They know this because the same thing happens in uncontrolled conditions we can't observe all the time, and we have not yet been destroyed. The part scientist's aren't sure about is whether they will discover the Higgs boson, or perhaps a bunch of new particles, or maybe even nothing at all. But there is absolutely no reason to think the world will end. I suspect that the first caveman who tamed fire had to deal with criticism like this. "But Fug, you will destroy Earth as fire god burn everything in rage!"

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 33 (view)

Has anyone ever said to you I have been praying for you...? Posted: 9/15/2008 8:19:35 PM
It really depends on the context, as does much everything else. For instance, if one of my friends slaps me on the back at a bar and says, "Go &*#@ yourself!" while smiling at me and buying me a beer, obviously he doesn't mean anything. But if the same friend says the same thing with a scowl after I've accidentally dented his car, he probably means something quite different! With that said, most people who have told me they are praying for me are saying it in a self-righteous tone. Usually it is in a context of a debate about religion. They will try to say I am going to hell, and then, inevitably, they will say they will pray for me. I suspect believers would quickly realize how self-righteous it sounds if I were to do something similar: "Oh, you don't believe in Zeus? Don't you know you'll end up in Hades?" And then when they say they don't believe in Hades I can respond, "I'll sacrifice five dozen doves for you!" This lets them know that I not only think they are wrong, but also that I think they are almost assuredly going to be suffering for eternity, and I'm reminding them of it. When my dad passed away and coworkers gave me a card offering prayers and such, however, obviously that context isn't offensive, as it is clear they aren't saying that in a sense that means "I think you or your loved one is going to hell and needs prayer".

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 131 (view)

Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists? Posted: 9/15/2008 7:53:43 PM
Scorpio-- You say your objection is "mathematical logic," but it's not really logic of any sort. Your argument is an analogy, so I don't see where you are getting that from. Your argument essentially compares God, an omnipotent being, to a casino, obviously not an omnipotent entity. Simply because the only way for the casino to "never lose a penny" while maintaining the free will of the consumers would be to set up an environment that is conducive for certain types of freely willed behavior, all the while never knowing for sure that it wouldn't lose money in the future, doesn't mean God would have to do the same thing. Obviously he wouldn't, as he is much more powerful than a casino (infinitely more powerful, in fact). If a world with both free will and no evil is logically possible, then God can bring it about, by definition! There is nothing wrong with this logic at all. What you are trying to do is restrict God's omnipotence by making comparisons to obviously nonomnipotent entities like casinos, and that's where you are making your mistake. It doesn't matter that we can't really express HOW exactly God would create a world where everyone just happens to do good of their own free will. All that matters is that, by the strict logic of his omnipotence, he CAN do this if he is truly omnipotent. Likewise, I wouldn't be able to tell you HOW God could turn a monkey into a banana, but this doesn't mean God couldn't--he could because turning a monkey into a banana is a logical possibility that is not contradictory...and nevermind if we can't explain how a casino would do this!

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 129 (view)

Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists? Posted: 9/15/2008 7:36:12 PM
Ameerra, What you are proposing is not a transcendant God, but a God that does not surpass our senses and knowledge at all. The God you say exists is capable of interacting in the world, as you admit, which would mean the God is knowable through its effects on knowable reality. You've also said that you can know God subjectively, and that is another reason I think it is wrong for you to claim your God is transcendant. Your God is knowable, and therefore it can be investigated with science, and you cannot say, "Science can't touch the question of God" if you also admit that we can have evidence and observations of God and his effects on the world. So on one hand you are trying to say God is knowable in various ways, but on the other hand you are trying to say that addressing the question of God scientifically is to ask "stupid questions". Obviously you can't have it both ways, which is my point. You say, in regards to my example of a delusional purple elephant: Once again, your example is not at all analogous. You are comparing God, the creator of life and the universe to a Purple Elephant who in your analogy has done nothing, accomplished nothing and is just there! I don't see how this objection is relevant, but I can easily amend the example to encompass this objection. Suppose the man claims that there is an invisible purple elphant in the room with you, that it can only be experienced subjectively and by those who believe in it, and that this elephant does things and accomplishes things--namely, it is the reason your radio works, as it helps guide the radio waves to the receiver, and the elephant has also created all radios. So, now that I've added accomplishments to the elephants tasks, does this make it something you would believe in? Why not? It is just as justifiable in terms of the evidence as belief in God. It is observable but someone has to WANT to see it. This is a major problem, though, as you know, because it basically makes the knowledge indistinguishable from a delusion. Not only that, but it sets you up for a well-known cognitive flaw known as confirmation bias, where you only "see" evidence for something because you expect to see it. (Incidentally, this is why the sciences are so insistent on using blinding in studies, because knowing what's what can give you preconceptions that shape your interpretation.) And given that this observation is purely subjective and can't be experienced by others, it is clear such an epistemic standard is highly dubious. WRONG!!!! You can experience it, too; we all can. I didn't say that believers don't "experience" God. I'm sure they do. They have experiences in just the same way someone having a hallucination has an experience. What I said is that they don't have an experience that is capable of being analyzed objectively. The supposed "outward" cause of the experiences is entirely inward and subjective, in which case there is no reason to think the thing actually exists. Whereas with other experiences we can objectively analyze it outwardly with our senses. As I said earlier, this is part of the reason belief in God is difficult to distinguish from a hallucination or delusion. You'd rather believe that millions of people are delusional and cannot think straight, even though they present themselves as intelligent, rational, free thinking human beings! You'd even rather reduce them to persons suffering from mental illness! I did not say that theists are all suffering from a mental illness. What I said is that the evidentiary support for belief in God is equivalent to the type of evidence that could be offered for a delusion or hallucination (things we would be quick to recognize as false) because of the subjective, untestable character of the belief and the fact that it is quite likely a product of cognitive distortions like confirmation bias (which is given away by your insistence that you have to WANT to believe it in order to see the evidence). Why is that a problem? Well, for anything else, you don't have to WANT to believe it to see the evidence. If you think that black swans don't exist, and I take you to Australia and a black swan starts flying toward your face, I don't have to insist that you have to WANT to see it to see the black swan. You will see it regardless of whether you want to or not. That's the type of evidence that is far superior and less likely a product of confirmation bias. So if one million people suffer from the same "delusion" then what, you dismiss all of them? The number of people who believe in something is not a justification for the belief, nor is that evidence. Millions of people can and have been wrong before. Otherwise you'd have to think that the world was once flat and was the center of the universe, like millions of people believed thousands of years ago. I believe in a God who answers prayers, performs miracles and change lives. I know it is true because God has answered my prayers, performed miracles in my life and changed my life. What I have experienced in my life I do not consider to be "flimsy" evidence. While I do not know what experiences you have had, I suspect they are flimsy if only because they are anecdotal and haven't really been studied with an eye toward testing and checking out all possible explanations. I also think that your confirmation bias has been at work, as you've admitted you have to want to believe to see the evidence, which will make you likely to notice all those times your prayers have been answered but find yourself forgetting all the times they haven't been answered, and so on. Your experiences may be veridical and they may not be, but it is important to realize that we are fallible human beings, subject to biases, cognitive distortions, and all sorts of problems that make our experiences open to question. The reason this sort of evidence is "flimsy" is because the methods of science controls for these variables and accounts for our fallibility.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 102 (view)

Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists? Posted: 9/14/2008 9:10:18 PM
Ameerra said: You are assuming that my knowledge of God is based on logic -- it is not. What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that the concept of God is illogical and self-contradictory? If so, what you seem to have said is self-refuting, as illogical things simply do not exist, because they are impossible. This is why you can't be both 5 feet tall and 11 feet tall at the same time and in the same respect. This is why an object can't be both a square and a circle at the same time. However, I suspect you don't really mean that belief in God is illogical, but are trying to imply that God is somehow transcendant in a weird use of that word. If God were truly transcendant, he would be unknowable in every way. You could not have experience of God, whether subjective or objective. I think the problem is borne out by what other people seem to be saying about "love". At least two people have said that the concept of "love" is analogous to the concept of God, with the assumption that both are transcendant and can't be proved empirically. But that's completely wrong! The subjective sensation of love obviously entails various physical behaviors and effects that we can readily observe. We know that someone who is torturing someon else obviously does not love the person he is torturing through his actions. We know that the feeling is associated with certain neurochemicals and regions of the brain, which gives us yet another way to understand it. The same principles apply to God. Like love, you conceive of God as something "subjective" that is best known with an "inner" sensation--but that means it can be studied! This means that God is not something completely transcendant, but a being that directly interacts with human beings in some manner to make himself known. Most also conceive of God as being capable of helping people, creating the universe, doing miracles, and so on, which are other physical observations we can make to determine whether he exists. The problem, of course, is that if the subjective feelings can be explained away and the other effects can be shown to be untrue or unfounded, then belief in God is not supported by any evidence and belief is epistemically unwarranted. Now, much of what you said is problematic, because it embodies many error-laden, untestable epistemic standards. For instance, the proof that convinces you is purely subjective--your experience of God can't be experienced by others in the way that we could all objectively analyze. Another problem is that you openly admit that you have to be predisposed to believe in it to actually see the evidence, which obviously sets the stage for cognitive dissonance and seeing patterns and evidence where there really isn't any. Combined, these two characteristics are highly problematic. Let me use an example: Suppose someone tells you there is a purple elephant in your room, but that only he can sense it, and it can only be sensed by those who truly believe in it. The person further claims that he has a very personal relationship with this purple elephant. You would likely not find this convincing. In fact, you'd likely think the person is schizophrenic. One aspect of delusions is that they cannot be objectively confirmed by others, and your justifications for God fit to that description adequately. So how can you be sure your experiences of God are veridical or true? How can you be sure they are not based on errors in reason, confirmation bias, or any number of cognitive distortions, especially if you cannot verify any of this objectively? So my question is this: why would you believe in God on such flimsy evidence but not an average schizophrenic's delusions, which are epistemically justified in a similar manner? How would you say belief in God is different?

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 17 (view)

A twist on Zenos infinity paradox Posted: 9/14/2008 9:36:14 AM
So you concede that the problem lacks a defintive answer or are you saying the answer is infinity? The trend would lead to infinity unless proven otherwise. Well, what I'm getting at is we can arrive at a mathematical answer (infinity) and a sort of applied maths answer, which accounts for the fact that reality is not infinitely divisible and it would not be physically possible for a rabbit to hop smaller than some mininum distance. Umm... Just because reality is infinitely divisible, doesn't mean we can't move in it... Ah, my example is merely meant to show that there are obvious disproofs to your example and to Zeno's example---and that simply consists of the fact that in reality the rabbit will eventually reach the hole, and the arrow will eventually hit the target. It just goes to show that you can't assume everything that follows from the math is necessarily applicable to reality.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 75 (view)

Religious Fanatic Posted: 9/14/2008 9:17:03 AM
Not sure if you got through to him either (doesn't appear that way), but it is nice to know that another atheist grasped what I was getting at... Yeah, I get what you're saying. I think that TheLimey would have to say "I don't know" to better convey what he is talking about, because linguistically speaking saying "I believe not-x" and "I don't believe x" are pretty much equivalent in meaning. If what is meant is an admission of a total lack of belief, it would be better to say simply that one does not know. Oh, and nice to see you around these parts.. minus the insults you occasionally resort to, I have always enjoyed how a debate with you motivates me to dig deeper into the scientific side of things :) Shhh! People will get the impression that we actually like each other. That would just be too weird for me. Now say something about how much you hate me in the next post, and then I will call you illogical and such, like old times.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 81 (view)

Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists? Posted: 9/14/2008 9:00:08 AM
Ameerra said: When one requests "empirical, scientific proof" of God, and declares that all other proof is not good enough, or not proof at all, they are requiring that God be subjected to their "rules" based on what they believe and their perception. I am not requiring God be subject to my "rules", but rather fleshing out the entailments of positing a God that can interact with the world in various ways and is therefore capable of being known. I can demand empirical evidence in this case because such a God would produce such evidence, as it is capable of interacting with the physical observable world. This is why many of the purported proofs of God rely on supposed knowledge of God and reality. The teleological argument tries to argue from design to God, which entails that God can interact with and shape the complexity we observe. Your own arguments assume that God can be known to you personally, which is another example of a God that is not truly transcendant. The problem I see with your reasoning is that you are contradicting yourself. For instance, you say: I KNOW that God is real, and you may reject my reasoning, my thinking, my evidence, my proof, my rationale, my understanding and that's fine with me because as I said, I KNOW it, it's not for you to accept. But earlier you claimed: ...this conclusion is arrived at using the logic we've created to make sense of the world. As I've said, I believe because of the way our brain works we CANNOT UNDERSTAND!!!! Obviously, they both can't be true. If God is transcendant, unable to be understood, and therefore unknowable as you assert in the latter quote, then you obviously can't know or experience God. But if your former quote is true, and you CAN experience God and know God in various ways, then you can't assert that God transcends our understanding and our logic. The problem is that you are trying to have it both ways. You are committed to asserting that God is unknowable if you wish to maintain your thesis that science cannot touch God, but at the same time you are committed to maintaining just the opposite, that God is knowable, if you wish to support your thesis that you have good reason to suppose God exists. One will obviously have to go. If you hold on to the belief that God is unknowable, then my objection stands that this entails that stating God exists is meaningless, as you wouldn't even know what you are asserting to exist. If you hold on to the belief that God is knowable and you have personal, subjective evidence of his existence, then my objection is that this means God is scientifically testable and we can assess the evidence as reasonable or unreasonable, like any other claim (and unfortunately it would come up as unreasonable). Before we get into the evidence, though, I figured we should clear this up. Do you think God is unknowable, or do you think that you know God in some way? It doesn't really make sense to assert that God is both unknowable and also that you know something about God.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 80 (view)

Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists? Posted: 9/14/2008 8:38:46 AM
Scorpiomover-- Your objection to my argument basically amounts to the contention that God cannot possibly bring about a world where humans all choose to do good of their own free will, because you seem to think that would deprive them of free will. I don't think your argument stands up to logical scrutiny, though it is certainly an intuitive conclusion most are drawn to. However, just looking at the logic, the conclusion is obviously true. 1. God can bring about anything that is logically possible. (This is a pretty non-disputable premise, as omnipotence is usually defined in this manner by theologians, and it isn't clear that the capacity to do the impossible makes any sense, because it leads to absurdities involved in questions like "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?" But if God's omnipotence only includes the logically possible, such objections are easily avoided.) 2. A world with free will and no evil is logically possible. (This is also indisputable. You can claim that it is highly unlikely, and it certainly is, but nevertheless it is still logically possible. One could also say that turning an elephant into a banana is likely physically impossible or highly unlikely, but that does not mean it is logically impossible and that God cannot bring about such a thing.) 3. Therefore God can bring about a world with free will and no evil. (This follows from the premises quite nicely. The premises in themselves cannot be disputed. What you'd have to do is try to dispute the idea of God "bringing about" a specific set of actions that nevertheless still retain their freedom. Even though it seems intuitively impossible, clearly it is not for an omnipotent being, if you follow the logic.) Your rejoinder that we cannot think of what WE would or could do, but must consider things from God's perspective, would seem to apply to your own argument! Can we mere mortal, impotent beings bring about a state of affairs where people retain free will and still do what we want? Of course not. We would have no choice but to FORCE people to do good against their wills. But this does not apply to a being that is omnipotent, even though it seems an intuitive conclusion for beings like ourselves.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 68 (view)

Religious Fanatic Posted: 9/13/2008 4:30:14 PM
Sassy said: I am not sure why people are missing my point on this... a belief regardless of whether that belief contains a deity or not is STILL a belief. TheLimey said: No I don't. I stated quite clearly more than once that I DO NOT BELIEVE there is a god. At no point did I state that "I believe there is no god". Sassy and I have a long-running feud and we disagree on pretty much everything, so naturally I am quite surprised to find myself actually agreeing with her, even though I think the case can be made a bit better. TheLimey, I don't think it makes much sense to try to make a distinction between "I do not believe in God" and "I believe there is no God." Granted, if we try to map out language as if it were logical, it would seem to imply your point. Saying "not x" and "no belief in x" appears, as a matter of strict logic, to imply a difference. The problem, as I see it, is that language doesn't function that way. For instance, Limey, suppose someone said the following: I do not believe the universe is without a God. Would you argue that such a person is professing that they DO NOT have a belief? That seems to be an untenable position to hold, and I think you'd rightly call it a semantic trick if a theist tried to argue that they didn't "believe" in God by phrasing it that way. Would you really think there is a difference between saying, "I believe in God" and "I do not believe there is not a God"? Both are basically expressing a belief in God. With that said, I am perfectly fine with saying either. I do not believe there is a God. I believe there is no God. The evidence coheres best with this explanation, and that's that.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 117 (view)

Are Scientists too Selfish? Posted: 9/13/2008 4:04:16 PM
We_Design_Our_lives-- Brian Cox of CERN (who are finally activating the Large Hadron Collider!) answered this question better than I could in the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shGI-kpnMgY At 1:30 and 3:45, Brian Cox simply lays out the argument that we should focus only on things that we see as "practical" or "more important". Anyone who is even remotely familiar with history should realize that many of the practical advances in communications, medicine, and other areas of technology have sprung from work that was originally seen as "impractical". When we first set out to study electricity, magnetism, and radio waves, for instance, no one at the time could have predicted the many benefits that would arise from this sort of study. How do you know that determining whether species are endangered or questions in physics won't prove immensely useful in the future? To use your examples, maybe in the future we find that the endangered beetle produces a chemical that fights off a particular bacteria or fungus that is plaguing our hospitals. Maybe those who figure out a way to make pole vaulters go 3" higher are later able to apply this research to creating a new turbine engine that is more efficient at producing energy, thus reducing emissions and global warming. The fact is, you can't predict which areas of science will ultimately come up with the next big thing to any degree of accuracy. But problems will result if we try to limit research and put our eggs all in one basket, so to speak.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 8 (view)

A twist on Zenos infinity paradox Posted: 9/13/2008 3:52:44 PM
"As far as I know, calculus hasn't figured it out yet... Saying there's a definitive answer hardly qualifies as an answer." Calculus has indeed figured this out. There's a reason engineers and many other professionals dealing with real-life problems like these can use mathematics to construct things. Many problems that seem to lack a definite answer can be solved by simply seeing where the answers are trending toward. As you know, Zeno originally formulated his paradox using many examples. One was the example of an arrow moving through the air. If reality is infinitely divisible, then Zeno's paradox would seem to be true, and the arrow could never reach the target. However, the arrow obviously DOES reach the target. And that just goes to show where Zeno went wrong. He placed mathematics above reality, and assumed what follows in math has to apply to reality. That's simply wrong, though. The fact that any number can be halved doesn't mean that any THING in reality can be halved. In just the same manner, even though we can construct three-dimensional, four-dimensional, infinite-dimensional, and zero-dimensional geometries, it doesn't follow that reality is also four-, infinite-, or zero-dimensional. So if you want me to show you that reality is not infinitely divisible, all I'd have to do is shoot an arrow at your head. Of course, that probably wouldn't be the nicest way to demonstrate such an obvious fact, so I suppose I'll lighten up and just throw a pie. Heh.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 25 (view)

basic question about creationism logic Posted: 9/13/2008 3:38:00 PM
First off, the issue you are pointing out has nothing to do with creationism. Creationism is simply the belief that God created each species and that evolution did not occur. As for the historicity of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels, most reasonable scholars would conclude that only the first (Mark) could feasibly count as evidence toward Jesus's historicity. There are many reasons why this should be so. The obvious reason is because Mark was the earliest written, while the others are written many more decades after the supposed death of Jesus. Another reason is because it is obvious that the later gospels draw heavily on and borrow from the Markian account. That is, they are not eyewitness accounts, but retellings of Mark's account (which itself is not an eyewitness account). Another obvious problem is the simple fact that the different gospels do not agree in the story of Jesus's life in many respects, some leave certain important things out (Mark , the earliest, is the sparsest) and some just have blatant contradictions (like the two differing genealogies for Jesus's ties to David). And when you factor in the contradictions of the stories with actual historical evidence (a well known example is the problem of the census, for which there is no record), the problems stemming from sheer improbability (virgin births, miracles, etc.), and the obvious issues that show many examples in these stories are simply retold versions of Old Testament stories (which is known because they incorporate mistranslations, as in Jesus riding into town astride two donkeys at once, or the story of the virgin birth, wherein the only conceivable way to interpret it as "virgin" would be to read it from the Greek and not the original)---this all just goes to show that there is little to no reason to regard the gospels as historical in any way. Rather, they appear to be allegorical retellings or allusions to various Old Testament passages, and were only later appropriated as "historial" literature.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 3 (view)

A twist on Zenos infinity paradox Posted: 9/13/2008 1:17:18 PM
I am not familiar enough with the mathematics to give a precise answer as to how many hops will be taken, but in my mind this is no paradox, and there is indeed a precise answer that can be arrived at using calculus, with the understanding that Zeno's assumption that things are infinitely divisible is wrong. Reality need not conform to our mathematics.

saintgasoline

Joined: 8/3/2007

Msg: 69 (view)

Can Anyone Prove Scientifically That The Being Called God Exists? Posted: 9/13/2008 1:03:39 PM
Ameerra-- You've hit on what I think is one of the best criticisms for belief in a transcendant God. For instance, you said the following in discussion with someone else: "It is an unreasonable question because we would never be able to fully comprehend 'God' with our limited minds, our biases, our limited view of things and our highly influenced ways of thinking." I agree that it is unreasonable to ask questions about a being defined as "transcendant" in the sense that it is conceptually unthinkable by humans or unknowable either directly or indirectly. However, it also follows that not only the question of God is unreasonable, but so is the ANSWER of God, and ultimately any belief in such an entity. For, if God is defined in such a transcendant manner, what are you asserting to exist when you say God exists? You couldn't possibly know. You, in fact, would not be asserting anything to exist at all. Another issue I have is when you say the following: "Then you limit the proof to science, because that is the only type of proof our limited minds at this time have decided is acceptable and valid for certainty. As we all evolve in consciousness we will move beyond that and embrace other forms of certainty and proof and expand our understanding." The obvious rebuttal is that you cannot know that we will be able to "evolve our consciousness" as you put it to reach higher epistemic states. What is your basis for thinking this will happen? Isn't this simply an argument from ignorance? For instance, if I told you something like the following: Given copious amounts of empirical research, observations, examinations of chemistry and physiology, we know that eating hemlock will poison you. And then you say, "Oh, that's just what we know by science, but what if we evolve beyond that and realize that hemlock is actually good for certain people, namely those named Ameerra", I doubt anyone would be convinced by your argument. The problem, you see, is that we ARE limited and fallible beings. We DON'T know everything. We have to accept that and work with the knowledge that we have. It will not do to assert without evidence that some future knowledge, currently unknown to us, will validate your position. You do not know that and cannot know that. We limit our knowledge to the use of science because that is the only epistemic framework that works consistently and has the capacity to revise and change the errors we are likely to make, to fill in our ignorance, and so on. It is, put simply, our only access to knowledge of reality. Everything else is mere unknowable dogmatism, it seems to me.

Show ALL Forums