NationStates Jolt Archive

On the contrary... it seems you have some kind of 'fear' of Heisenberg... since you never address how the Uncertainty Principle is supposed to 'fit' with your world where science can know everything.

Where do you get the idea it stops us knowing eveything - is is part of knowing.

The supernatural never becomes natural.... it is just 'natural' things that we didn't yet understand. And... just perhaps.... some supernatural things that will always remain 'supernatural'. And, the possibility of THOSE things, is outside the scope of science to comment.

Talk about rubbish!!! You do realize that at one time almost everthing was supernatural. Gradually science explained things and took them out of the supernatural and into the natural. That has been a major role of science and it pushes that role further every year.

Second, there is nowhere where the laws of universe do not apply.


Outside of the universe, perhaps?

Also - hitting the other extreme.... one could argue that at the very heart of the universe... at the quantum level... the laws if the universe become... different.


Third, there is not infinate expance that science cannot explore.


It's a bold assertion. Now, let's see you prove it.


So yes, science has bounds, but not the sort you seem to think it has. Certainly science has already excluded god from most of his old domains.


No - science has not FOUND 'god'. That doesn't mean 'god' isn't there.


We know he is not involved in the creation of the universe, its evolution or the evolution of life on earth. Religions have already been forced to make major changes in their creed because science has exposed their fairy stories.


Not true, again.

We have a mechanism that doesn't NEED 'god', for the creation of the universe. That is not the same as KNOWING 'he' was not involved.

We have a mechanism that doesn't NEED 'god', for the evolution of the universe. That is not the same as KNOWING 'he' was not involved.

We have a mechanism that doesn't NEED 'god', for the evolution of life. That is not the same as KNOWING 'he' was not involved.

You argue science as though it were a faith, my friend.


Are you claiming that will go on for ever?


No more illogical an assumption, than the idea that we could one day know EVERYTHING.


Wrong. I've stated it several times. My field of expertize lies in Physics, with particular expertize in cosmology. Apart from lecturing in the past (Cosmology, Astronomy, Human evolution and Manned spaceflight) I've done a lot of editing/proofing of both books and magazine articles on science subjects - making sure things do make sense to the reader.


Such an 'expert'..? One wonders why you avoid Heisenberg so thoroughly, then?


Lets get things straight, I get paid to understand science. It is not, nor has it ever been my full time job though at times it has taken up a large proportion of my time. I understand fully how science works, I attend seminars and symposiums several times a year - I have to if I have the job of editing the transcripts for publication. As part of that I do spend a reasonable amount of time with groups of scientist and in one-to-one sessions. Do I understand science - you can bet your bottom dollar I do.


On the contrary... what it is beginning to look like is that you are the metaphorical night-watchman, patrolling the metaphorical factory at night, convinced you are the metaphorical Chairman of the company....

I'm sorry, my friend... but if you understood 'science'... you'd not be able to overlook the fact that the FIRST thing you need for a theory, is an observation.... so there can NEVER be a 'god' theory, either to prove OR disprove.

Where do you get the idea it stops us knowing eveything - is is part of knowing.


Surely, the whole point of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, is that it shows us how we can never know everything?


Talk about rubbish!!! You do realize that at one time almost everthing was supernatural. Gradually science explained things and took them out of the supernatural and into the natural. That has been a major role of science and it pushes that role further every year.

Me? Me talk about rubbish? Perhaps you need to re-examine what you have just said?

"You do realize that at one time almost everthing was supernatural"... no - it wasn't. Much was considered supernatural, perhaps, but, at core, it was really just misunderstood, yes?

And, how does the 'assumed supernatural' become known to be natural? Through learning about things that were previously not known... through breaking the barriers of what was considered science.

Does that mean there are NO things that are legitimately 'supernatural'? No - of course not... and it would be illogical to claim that.

Also - of course - what if we discover that 'god' is 'natural'... and yet, outside the rules of our science... for example, if we found evidence that supported 'god' as a sentient being, but one that existed somehow 'outside' of the rules of our perceived universe?

A lie is a false witness testamonial, the opposite of a truthful witness testmonial. It is "not true" in that it does not represent a true testamonial, and while the existence of the lie can be objectively true, this does not indicate an objectivity of opinion.
I dont see what objectivity of opinion has to do with it.:confused:

The existence of the lie is an absolute: it either is or it isn't; and the existence of the lie is not the opinion expressed. The lie-thing is different from the content-of-the-lie-thing.
The pretty much sums up what I said, although with a few additions.

The "existence of objective reality" does not negate or deny the existence of conceptual things.
Of course it doesnt.

You are limiting the definition of existence to things that are real --and that doesn't apply, even in our English language.
No I'm not. It seems to me that you are limiting objective reality to only those objects that are physically tangable.

Things can and do "exist in the mind".
That being the case they can and do exist in objective reality.

The tool of the mind is imagination, and things that exist there are not real.
I disagree. Whatever imagination is, it seems to exist, and I dont see any reason to assume it's products dont exist. If something exists, then it is real.

The idea concieved is not real until it is brought out in paper, or in word, actualized.
I disagree.

The imagining there is not real, but stands in contrast to reality.
I disagree, it is a constituent part of reality, not a seperate entity.

The imaginings, the thoughts (the content thereof) are not "a part of reality". If I imagine a purple elephant, that does not mean there is a real purple elephant in my head.
Of course it doesnt. If I write a the words and musical notations for a song on a piece of paper, it does not make the paper 'music' but it is as real as music. The imagining is an imagining, not elephant. It's a real imagining, not a real elephant.

For concepts that are "objectively absolute", the absoluteness does not refer to reality, it refers to the truth of a thing: yes or no. Is is truthful for everyone involved? then it is objective.
Everyone involved is subjective, so their opinion is subjective (although objectively if it exists it exists). Everyone single person in the world might believe a premise to be true, they would not be lying if they said so, even if in absolute truth they were wrong. The absolute truth describes objective reality as it is (if indeed it exists, which I happen to believe it does) rather than as it's constituents might subjectively believe it to be.

The reality of any opinion is that it is genuinely an opinion (that is, the truth).
The reality of an opinion is it's existence as a constituent of reality.

I believe we are in agreeance. Subjective things can be real in that they are truthful.
I dont think we have to an agreement stage. Whether or not an opinion held matches the absolute truth of objective reality does not render it real. It is real by virtue of existing.

Subjective things have a conceptual existence. When an architect imagines a building before drawing it in detail, it exists conceptually before being actalized. That concept is entirely unreal.
If it exists then it is part of reality and is real.

The individual is alone because it is an individual within reality. This is the subjective perspective.
It's not discrete from reality.

So you deny that there are unreal things?
Unreal things cannot exist, because anything that exists is real.

The formation of the unreal things takes place in the imagination of the mind. The brain is real, the mind is not. They are two distinct things, one real and one unreal.
The mind either exists and is real or it doesnt exist.

The subjective perspective is that seen from the individual, group or thing looking outward; the objective perspective is abstracted apart from the individual, group or thing.
I dont know that there is such a thing as an objective perceptive.

Whether the objective opinion is garnered from testamony of others or from an imagined objective observer, it is abstracted from the subjective, and therefore exclusive of it.
I dont know that there is an entity capable of having an objective opinion.

We cannot escape the subjective perspective; but we can and do abstract an objective perspective that does not include the subjective.
I dont think that is possible for human beings. We have no way of knowing, thinking or being, that is not subjective.

The lie is not both untrue and true. It cannot be, and still be asbolute. It is either true or it is not.
Its existence is true, while its content is not, but those are two different things. [/QUOTE]
Aha.

The existence of the lie is not the content of the lie. The "constituent of absolute truth" refers to its existence, not its content.
Is that not what I said?:confused:

The same goes for the opinion: opinions exist and cannot be denied,
So they are real...

but the content of those opinions is often denied, as is evidenced by the threads on this forum. They are two different things, one real and one unreal.
No they are both real. My cats are two different things, that doesnt necessitate that one be real and the other be unreal.

As I said earlier, I am using the philosopher's definition of existence, where the concept of existence is simply "it is". An imagined thing "is" --it is an imagined thing. The alternative is that it has no properties whatsoever, and if it did we could not talk about it as it would be nothingness.
That is to say an imagined thing is real.

This is the definition of existence that is supported in our language. We talk about imagined things as things that are. We talk about them "existing only in the mind". This is existence, different from physical existence but still in existence.
If something exists it is real. The only time it is not a mistake or a lie to say something that exists is not real is if we qualify what it is we are saying it is not a real instance of ie 'that is not real gold' means not that it doesnt exist, but that whatever the existing thing is, it is not really gold.

Outside of the universe, perhaps?

There is no "outside".

Also - hitting the other extreme.... one could argue that at the very heart of the universe... at the quantum level... the laws if the universe become... different.

The laws of the universe are the same where ever you are.

It's a bold assertion. Now, let's see you prove it.

I don't need to.

No - science has not FOUND 'god'. That doesn't mean 'god' isn't there.

If, after disproving so many of the properties of the biblical god, after finding zero evidence for his existence (or the need for his existance) and having converted so much of the supernatural to the natural, people can still beleive in fairy stories then I feel sorry for them.

Not true, again.

We have a mechanism that doesn't NEED 'god', for the creation of the universe. That is not the same as KNOWING 'he' was not involved.

We have a mechanism that doesn't NEED 'god', for the evolution of the universe. That is not the same as KNOWING 'he' was not involved.

We have a mechanism that doesn't NEED 'god', for the evolution of life. That is not the same as KNOWING 'he' was not involved.

You argue science as though it were a faith, my friend.

I let science speak with the facts. An so far the facts leave no room for a god.

No more illogical an assumption, than the idea that we could one day know EVERYTHING.

It is illogical to believe that we will not, in time, have the answers.

Such an 'expert'..? One wonders why you avoid Heisenberg so thoroughly, then?

I don't.

On the contrary... what it is beginning to look like is that you are the metaphorical night-watchman, patrolling the metaphorical factory at night, convinced you are the metaphorical Chairman of the company....

I'll treat that with the total contempt if deserves.

I'm sorry, my friend... but if you understood 'science'... you'd not be able to overlook the fact that the FIRST thing you need for a theory, is an observation.... so there can NEVER be a 'god' theory, either to prove OR disprove.

What a stupid idea. A lot of science starts as a "what if" and only later develops into a full blown theory.

In addition, as god is supernatural, and as a major role of science is to push back the boundry of the supernatural, and as there was a time when god was considered part of the natural world, science has never ignored him.

Surely, the whole point of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, is that it shows us how we can never know everything?

Not at all.

Me? Me talk about rubbish?

Yes. You.

Perhaps you need to re-examine what you have just said?

"You do realize that at one time almost everthing was supernatural"... no - it wasn't. Much was considered supernatural, perhaps, but, at core, it was really just misunderstood, yes?

Yes it was. You cannot argue with the religions of the past that attributed supernatural properties to almost everything.

And, how does the 'assumed supernatural' become known to be natural? Through learning about things that were previously not known... through breaking the barriers of what was considered science.

Exactly.

Does that mean there are NO things that are legitimately 'supernatural'? No - of course not... and it would be illogical to claim that.

There are things which are currently labelled supernatural which may, in time, become part of the natural word. That is part of the role of science.

Also - of course - what if we discover that 'god' is 'natural'... and yet, outside the rules of our science... for example, if we found evidence that supported 'god' as a sentient being, but one that existed somehow 'outside' of the rules of our perceived universe?

There is not "outside" in either of those cases. For god to exist he must be within our universe and within the rules of science. To be anything else he is supernatural.

God is the invention of man and exists only in the imagination of the ill-informed.

Cheap philosophy...
Why worry for the next step when "you" US socialists are talking (what else can you do?).

Next step is of concern for your kids, you let to them a great heritage of stupidity and intolerance, That's fine. Humanity has believed too long on his capacity to be smart (another great error).
Time for humility should be back for a very long time.
The God "MONEY" will be declared Ante-Christ with Mohammad and some others cons.
Christ will be forgotten for a new concept.

Pray our "balls" to give us nice and obedient kids, Amen.
Pray our "balls" to give us courage to kick out smart asses like g w b.
And always remember to press that delicate "red button" when the time arrives.

Amen, pray for you, as we've done for us. :gundge:

I mean, maybe the Great Forest Spirit CAUSES the predictable and measurable mechanism?

Yes, I said that. The most science can say is that there is no space in our knowledge of the grass growing that requires the Great Forest Spirit. Therefore, we can say that while the Great Forest Spirit might have created the mechanism that the grass grows by, he doesn't actually intercede every time it has to; the mechanism seems to function unaided.

Unless something really obtuse and stupid is happening. =^_^=

Actually, if you turn off your 'science brain' for a moment, you can see that religion can EASILY generate a 'satisfactory answer'.... God is ineffable... if God did it in five days, five days is the RIGHT amount of time.... it's that simple.

But that's not an answer at all, it's just circular logic. 'Creation took five days because creation takes five days.' It doesn't tell us anything about why it should, specifically, take five days instead of four seconds or the commercial break during an episode of Star Trek.

Such an answer as 'it just does' isn't enough for any inquiring mind.

Yes it was. You cannot argue with the religions of the past that attributed supernatural properties to almost everything.

There are things which are currently labelled supernatural which may, in time, become part of the natural word. That is part of the role of science.
Attributing or labelling supernatural properties is not the same thing as having supernatural properties. You are changing your argument now. Which is it? Does the supernatural have supernatural properties, or is it attributed supernatural properties?

*snip*
Perhaps its a matter of the language we choose, but one moment it seems to me you distinguish between the thing and its existence, or between the content of an idea and the idea, and the next eliminate that distinction between them. I think we are basically in disagreeance, so I'm going to drop it, if that's okay with you.

Hi guys i dunno wheather anyone has stated this yet but why cant the schools teach both the creationist theory as well as the eveloutionist theory side by side allowing the students to see the merits snd benifits of each theory and allowing the students to make up their own opinions.

Because the Creationist "theory" and evolutionary theory are not the same kind of theories. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. It is as close to truth as science can currently get (and will be modified if evidence that does not mesh with it is found). Creationism is religion - theology. In a theology class, a comparitive religions class, a philosophy class, it might be appropriate. In a science class, the only way it could be appropriately used is as an example of what not to do in science.

If these text books do point out genuine concerns and show serious problems with the theory of Evolution they should be allowed to pose their ideas and should be recognised seriously.

No one has pointed out any serious problems with Evolutionary theory. They have pointed out problems that don't exist (ie. have already been addressed), problems in personal understanding (ie. the person pointing out the problem simply didn't understand the theory to begin with), and "My religion doesn't like this, so it must not be true," problems. None of these are issues that should be seriously considered by science, although we should worry about the extreme numbers of people who do not understand the theory.

But at the moment american high school pupils are being fed a one sided, atheistic view of the many sided argument.

Hardly. Science is not atheistic. It makes no comments as to whether or not God exists. Evolutionary theory could be correct in situation in which a deity or deities exist or in a situation where they do not.

Hi guys i dunno wheather anyone has stated this yet but why cant the schools teach both the creationist theory as well as the eveloutionist theory side by side allowing the students to see the merits snd benifits of each theory and allowing the students to make up their own opinions.
1. Creationism is not a theory; it is an emotive ejaculation and mythology.
2. Why not teach flat-earth-ism alongside spheroid-earth-ism?
3. Why not teach astrology alongside psychology?


If these text books do point out genuine concerns and show serious problems with the theory of Evolution they should be allowed to pose their ideas and should be recognised seriously.
The only "concerns" they point out is the lack of the term "goddidit".

Only whackjob fundies take ID even remotely seriously.


But at the moment american high school pupils are being fed a one sided, atheistic view of the many sided argument.
Just like they're being fed a one-sided, atheistic view of the Earth being a sphere and lightning being caused by a charge differential, right?


The creationist argument does show serious problems with evolution
No, it does not. The creationist argument is a terrified response to evolution not including the magic word "goddidit".

Hint: secular != atheistic. Please learn the difference. You keep using "atheistic" when you mean "secular".

There is no "outside".

Prove it.

The laws of the universe are the same where ever you are.

A bold assertion that has been made previously and proven to be wrong. For example, micro and macro forces. The laws of the universe certainly change based on scale. So since evidence disputes your claim would you care to support your claim?

Let's see if I can guess your reply:

I don't need to.

Yes, yes, you do. Otherwise you're just a person who treats science as faith. And you don't mean you don't need to. You mean YOU CAN'T.

If, after disproving so many of the properties of the biblical god, after finding zero evidence for his existence (or the need for his existance) and having converted so much of the supernatural to the natural, people can still beleive in fairy stories then I feel sorry for them.

Fairy stories like science WILL know everything. Your fairy stories that even your FAITH itself disagrees with. An interesting and contradictory belief you have there.

I let science speak with the facts. An so far the facts leave no room for a god.

They do no such thing. Science doesn't even deal in facts, it deals in theories. They deal with the evidence that is available but avoid the use of the word fact since science as a practice accepts that they don't always or even often have all of the evidence. Only in your little world where science is completely misunderstood does it do what you claim. Your FAITH aside it doesn't address God in any fashion.

It is illogical to believe that we will not, in time, have the answers.

No, in fact, logic dictates that you are wrong. As you have continually admitted there are certain types of answer that science can in no way address.

As far as what science is capable of explain within it's limitations. Let's say I place you in an infinite room filled with sand that is constantly shifting and I ask you to sift through that sand and find all of the pearls in that sand. At first finding pearls would be easy because they are numerous and all over the place. But eventually you will have found so many pearls that you would have increasing difficulty finding the remaining pearls. Now while you might eventually find so many pearls that you'd tempted to call it all because you are so close in number to what you percieve to be all, but reaching ALL is unlikely and knowing that you've reached is more unlikely particularly if you are never told how many pearls ALL is. Knowledge within the bounds of science is asymptotic in this way and unlike pearls there are not unitary increases so it is illogical to assume will ever reach the asymptote based what we know of the universe.

More importantly, how can anyone make an argument that knowledge is finite in the universe without an incredible leap of faith. Maybe within science you are okay with leaps of faith, but I tend to make my assertions based on observation especially within the boundaries of science.. You should try it. Some call making assertions based on evidence science. We call those people scientists. Some people make assertion based on no evidence and call it science. We don't call them anything, we simply dismiss them as illogical.

What a stupid idea. A lot of science starts as a "what if" and only later develops into a full blown theory.

More proof you don't understand science in any fashion. The what if is and has to be based on either direct or indirect observation. It has to observe a gap in explanation for observed phenomena and it fills it or attempts to. "What if" is not just a random question. You sound like ID'ers. No coincidence, there, since they are also trying to inject faith into science.

In addition, as god is supernatural, and as a major role of science is to push back the boundry of the supernatural, and as there was a time when god was considered part of the natural world, science has never ignored him.

False. The only role of science is to explain the natural. Science does not attack or address the supernatural in anyway. You are mixing supernatural with unexplained. They are not the same in any fashion. Particularly not in the way we are using supernatural. Your ignorance of the term doesn't support your arguments, particularly since this has been pointed out to you several times.

Let me see if I can guess you're reply:
"You're stupid"

When a man's argument is weak he often resorts to such silliness. The conditional is obviously met by you so let's just wait for the silliness, shall we?

Attributing or labelling supernatural properties is not the same thing as having supernatural properties. You are changing your argument now. Which is it? Does the supernatural have supernatural properties, or is it attributed supernatural properties?

The supernatural is an invention of man, used to explain the world to him. Science has converted most of what was considered supernatural into the explaind(natural) world we see today.

For god to exist he must be within our universe and within the rules of science.

What evidence do you base this assertion on? Mr. Scientist, you would be laughed out of any publishing office if you tried to insert that little gem into any publication.

Oh, by the way, did I mention I'm a medical expert. I mean I have no actual training in medicine or anything, but I did spend several years writing and editting continuing education courses for doctors. I must be a doctor. Lame.

What evidence do you base this assertion on? Mr. Scientist, you would be laughed out of any publishing office if you tried to insert that little gem into any publication.

Oh, by the way, did I mention I'm a medical expert. I mean I have no actual training in medicine or anything, but I did spend several years writing and editting continuing education courses for doctors. I must be a doctor. Lame.
I think you took the wind out of his sails! :p
Hell, I'm a web designer who works closely with all kinds of clientelle from different fields. Who knew I was qualified as a professional in a virtual buffet of career options?!

Today, I'm going to be a Forex financial advisor. This should be fun!

I think you took the wind out of his sails! :p
Hell, I'm a web designer who works closely with all kinds of clientelle from different fields. Who knew I was qualified as a professional in a virtual buffet of career options?!

Today, I'm going to be a Forex financial advisor. This should be fun!

Yes, exactly. Apparently, I've been a plumber, an electrician, a real estate agent, a doctor, a lawyer, a porn star (don't ask), a playmate (also, don't ask), a photographer (okay, that one is true), etc., etc., etc.

Sorry, my friend... but I'm starting to believe you to be a 'troll'. It's maybe the way you come accross, but your flat refusal to actually ever answer any of the points made, coupled with your rude demeanour...

Well... perhaps you reall have worked in science... but I'm seeing none of it - and you certainly are not making a realistic attempt to deal with anything in a scientific fashion.

I will have to do it regretfully, because I have been enjoying most of the debate, but if you can't even deal rationally with simple points - like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle... or why you believe it 'illogical' to suppose we will never know EVERYTHING... then I'll just have to stop responding to your posts.

There is no "outside".


Oh really? You can prove that, can you?

I'd be interested to see your reasoning... since science has been unable to prove or disprove the presence of intersecting parallel dimension, or other forms of 'extra-spacial' territory.


The laws of the universe are the same where ever you are.


See - this is the kind of comment that makes me believe you are a 'troll'. My first semester at university, we covered a wealth of manners in which Quantum interactions don't correspond to their macrocosmic relatives.


I don't need to.


Then it is pure rhetoric.

An assumption with no evidence is just words.


If, after disproving so many of the properties of the biblical god, after finding zero evidence for his existence (or the need for his existance) and having converted so much of the supernatural to the natural, people can still beleive in fairy stories then I feel sorry for them.


Feel sorry as you wish... I am an Atheist, and yet I can see not a single 'property' of 'god' that might have been disproved. Sure - I can see logical reasons why some of the facilities of YWHW might not seem workable... but I can PROVE nothing.

Show a SINGLE property of the Biblical 'god' that has been disproved?

By the way - you might actually be confusing the Bible as an absolutely literal account (which, I do not accept - and neither do most Christians) - with the 'reality' of what 'god' is.


I let science speak with the facts. An so far the facts leave no room for a god.


You claim association with science - and then you say ridiculous things like that... Science speaks NO facts about 'god'... about his 'reality' or otherwise.


It is illogical to believe that we will not, in time, have the answers.


Explain why? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle CLEARLY shows that we can never know ALL the answers.

Stop keep brandishing hollow rhetoric, and actually back up some of what you say.


I'll treat that with the total contempt if deserves.


Sorry if you find it contemptuous my friend... but it IS the truth.

You make big claims, and you have yet to back ANY of them.

And, I'm sorry - but the internet is anonymous... if you want to be believed as a scientist, you need more than a badge.

And... at the moment... you've made a few big statements of faith, and done nothing to support them. Please, I beg of you, give us something to work with.


What a stupid idea. A lot of science starts as a "what if" and only later develops into a full blown theory.


No - it really doesn't.

Unless you are accepting Intelligent Design and Astrology as 'science' now.

Sure - you CAN speculate on scientific principles, but, unless you are following the Scientific Method, you are not 'doing' science.


In addition, as god is supernatural, and as a major role of science is to push back the boundry of the supernatural, and as there was a time when god was considered part of the natural world, science has never ignored him.

No. The ONLY role of science, is to attempt to explain the observed.

If you think science has any other role, then you are no scientist.

Let's have some fun!

The problem with creationists/IDers is that they offer no evidence.

Third, there is not infinate expance that science cannot explore.
It's a bold assertion. Now, let's see you prove it.
I don't need to.

You could say that man can attach meaning to things, but they can't have an innate (inborn/natural) meaning.
And what evidence do you base that assumption on?
No need for evidence, it isn't an assumption. Read what was written as it is self explanatory.

Hmmm... looks like Creationists/ID'ers have a lot in common with you. By the way, it's INFINITE and EXPANSE. You'd think you do better being someone who has "done a lot of editing/proofing of both books and magazine articles on science subjects".

Let's display a few more of your unsupportable assertions for which you have no and there is no evidence:

For god to exist he must be within our universe and within the rules of science.

There is no "outside".
(refers to no outside of the universe)

The laws of the universe are the same where ever you are.
This is not only unsupportable, it has been shown to be false in testing. This doesn't suggest that the laws of nature are arbitrary, random or inconsistent, only that there are laws that apply on certain scales that do no apply on other scales. Your statement is proven false by your god, Science.

In addition, as god is supernatural, and as a major role of science is to push back the boundry of the supernatural, and as there was a time when god was considered part of the natural world, science has never ignored him.
Again, patently false. Science doesn't push back the supernatural, it explores the natural. That is the only role of science and anyone claiming otherwise is either ignorant of most basic tenets of science or being intentionally obtuse.

I let science speak with the facts. An so far the facts leave no room for a god.
No need to comment on this one.

Second, there is nowhere where the laws of universe do not apply.

Science answers questions, why do you claim it cannot (in time) answer all questions?

While science cannot, as yet, answer all questions, it has already laid enough of the foundations for us to know that one day it will have all the answers.

There is no room left for a god, all the places for him to hide are gone.

there is no god.

You could say that man can attach meaning to things, but they can't have an innate (inborn/natural) meaning.



I suppose that's sufficient. Let's explore some more inconsistencies (sorry, Dem, I'm going to borrow from you for this part).

Science does not recognize the concept of meaning as you want to use it.

Science can't answer questions about value.
science can't answer questions of morality
science can't help us with questions about the supernatural.

Toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.

While science cannot, as yet, answer all questions, it has already laid enough of the foundations for us to know that one day it will have all the answers.

Hmmm... now which is it? It can't answer certain things or it has no limitations?

Let's see some more inconsistencies.


Toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.

I'm sorry, my friend... but if you understood 'science'... you'd not be able to overlook the fact that the FIRST thing you need for a theory, is an observation.... so there can NEVER be a 'god' theory, either to prove OR disprove.
What a stupid idea. A lot of science starts as a "what if" and only later develops into a full blown theory.

In addition, as god is supernatural, and as a major role of science is to push back the boundry of the supernatural, and as there was a time when god was considered part of the natural world, science has never ignored him.

Hehe. That's great. Someone should remember their own claims.

How about some more?

You really can't be THAT stupid - can you?

Careful, your stupidity is showing.

Well one thing is clear, either you don't understand the limitations of science or you don't read the english language very well.

I think you have a reading comprehension problem. It can be addressed by rereading what I've posted in the past.

I have refrained from being rude and insulting.

So have I.

I know I would appreciate it, if you would pay the same courtesy to your opposition.

I do, as you will have noticed?

Haha. Even on basic principles you can't be consistent.

And before you point out that I've also been rude. I have fully admitted I have.

To be fair, I wasn't exactly being complimentary. I'd actually prefer it if he's gonna be snarky that it be wittier.

*snips*
*Does a cartwheel in his office and lands in a little cheerleader stance*
Give me an G
G
Give me an N
N
Give me an I
I
What's that spell?
Gneeee?
What's that spell?
We don't know!

Prove it.

Easy. Look up the definition of universe.

A bold assertion that has been made previously and proven to be wrong. For example, micro and macro forces. The laws of the universe certainly change based on scale. So since evidence disputes your claim would you care to support your claim?

Let's see if I can guess your reply:[/quote]

Well we will make a start (because it would take a couple of months to post all the data I could rely on to back up the statement. Now remember, the statement I made was The laws of the universe are the same where ever you are..

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Several general properties of physical laws have been identified (see Davies (1992) and Feynman (1965) as noted, although each of the characterizations is not necessarily original to them). Physical laws are:

* true. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
* universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies)
* simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
* absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies)
* eternal. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below), they appear to be unchanged since the beginning of the universe. It is thus presumed that they will remain unchanged in the future. (Davies)
* omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them. (Davies)
* "omniscient" (loosely speaking). The behavior of everything in the universe is automatically and immediately "known" to the laws. (Davies)
* generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman)
* often examples of symmetry. (Feynman)
* typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)

Often, those who understand the mathematics and concepts well enough to understand the essence of the physical laws also feel that they possess an inherent intellectual beauty. Many scientists state that they use intuition as a guide in developing hypotheses, since there seems to be a connection between beauty and truth.

Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is strictly empirical. It is a summary observation of things as they are. A theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory attempts to deal with why or how it happens.

Yes, yes, you do. Otherwise you're just a person who treats science as faith. And you don't mean you don't need to. You mean YOU CAN'T.

Fairy stories like science WILL know everything. Your fairy stories that even your FAITH itself disagrees with. An interesting and contradictory belief you have there.

I don't work with fairy stories, it is better to work with scientific facts.

They do no such thing. Science doesn't even deal in facts,

Hohohohohohahahahah!!!! Thanks for one of the very biggest laughs I've had in years. "Science doesn't even deal in facts".

it deals in theories. They deal with the evidence that is available but avoid the use of the word fact since science as a practice accepts that they don't always or even often have all of the evidence.

Sorry, can't resist it "Science doesn't even deal in facts". Did you really say that :)

Only in your little world where science is completely misunderstood does it do what you claim. Your FAITH aside it doesn't address God in any fashion.

You know, I'm going to have to print out this post of yours and frame it.

No, in fact, logic dictates that you are wrong. As you have continually admitted there are certain types of answer that science can in no way address.

Logic dictates nothing of the sort.

As far as what science is capable of explain within it's limitations. Let's say I place you in an infinite room filled with sand that is constantly shifting and I ask you to sift through that sand and find all of the pearls in that sand. At first finding pearls would be easy because they are numerous and all over the place. But eventually you will have found so many pearls that you would have increasing difficulty finding the remaining pearls. Now while you might eventually find so many pearls that you'd tempted to call it all because you are so close in number to what you percieve to be all, but reaching ALL is unlikely and knowing that you've reached is more unlikely particularly if you are never told how many pearls ALL is. Knowledge within the bounds of science is asymptotic in this way and unlike pearls there are not unitary increases so it is illogical to assume will ever reach the asymptote based what we know of the universe.

Science is not about finding a particular material object. In this case it would not be scientific to even look for the pearls. What science can do is to answer the questions "What is a pearl", "What is sand" or even "what is the likely distribution pattern of pearls within the sand given the conditions".

We have already laid the foundations, it is on those very strong foundations that the other answers will be build - it is only a matter of time. How long depends, in part, on how often science has to deal with people like you that claim answers are unknowable.

More importantly, how can anyone make an argument that knowledge is finite in the universe without an incredible leap of faith.

Ah! I see where you may be going wrong.

Look at it like this. When you teach a child to add up, do you teach him the answer to every possible sum? No. You teach them the rules by which addition works and as a result they have the answers. Do you teach a doctor the solution to every single case they will ever come across? No. You teach them above all to think and deduce based on the the science of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease. Yet another example would be a programmer, you don't teach them every program they will ever need to write - you teach them the rules.

Maybe within science you are okay with leaps of faith, but I tend to make my assertions based on observation especially within the boundaries of science.. You should try it. Some call making assertions based on evidence science. We call those people scientists. Some people make assertion based on no evidence and call it science. We don't call them anything, we simply dismiss them as illogical.

Not all science starts with an observation. Quite often science starts with an idea.

More proof you don't understand science in any fashion. The what if is and has to be based on either direct or indirect observation. It has to observe a gap in explanation for observed phenomena and it fills it or attempts to. "What if" is not just a random question. You sound like ID'ers. No coincidence, there, since they are also trying to inject faith into science.

The "what if" is often just plucked out of thin air. You want to try a typical brain-storming session at a science symposium

False. The only role of science is to explain the natural. Science does not attack or address the supernatural in anyway. You are mixing supernatural with unexplained. They are not the same in any fashion. Particularly not in the way we are using supernatural. Your ignorance of the term doesn't support your arguments, particularly since this has been pointed out to you several times.

Reading comprehension lessons are available at most adult literacy centres. I think you need to sign up.

To early man the supernatural explained everything. His world was made up of spirits, gods and devils. So the supernatural is really "that which is unexplained by science". Therefore, QED, science turns the supernatural (unexplained) into the natural (explained by science).

Let me see if I can guess you're reply:
"You're stupid"

Well you do keep posting stupid comments. Sorry, gorra do it again. "Science doesn't even deal in facts".

Sorry to keep poking fun at you over that - but it really does take a lot to believe someone actually posted that comment.

When a man's argument is weak he often resorts to such silliness.

I've noticed, and I think it is time you stopped doing it.

Easy. Look up the definition of universe.

The scientific definition? You're a physicist, certainly you do know that physicists explore the idea of their possibly being more than what we call the 'universe'. There is no evidence other mathematical and logical analysis, but this still shows that the possibility hasn't been excluded. I'm certain you're aware of this with your massive experience in physics.

* universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies)

Though I don't accept wikipedia as a scientific source because it's open-source, even your source agrees with me. It says that it appears to be true but stays away from the assertion that it is an absolute like you did. You know why? Because there is no way to make that assertion. It would be unscientific to do so, which was the point I was making. Thank you for supporting my point. I like it when people accept they were wrong and save me the time of proving it.

I don't work with fairy stories, it is better to work with scientific facts.

Again, science doesn't deal in facts, it deals in observations. Science accepts that all things can and will be questioned and have to be. It accepts nothing as a 'fact', per se. 'Fact' carries with it the connotation of being objectively true and science as a practice accepts that all 'facts' are based on observed phenomena or children of observed phenomena and thus can be refuted or changed based on new observed phenomena. To dispute this is to turn science on its ear. Even your own source, talks about scientific skepticism and how necessary it is.

Hohohohohohahahahah!!!! Thanks for one of the very biggest laughs I've had in years. "Science doesn't even deal in facts".

Oh, look, you'll turn it on its ear anyway. You crack me up. You resort to schoolyard tactics rather than addressing points and you wonder why you've been dismissed as a rational agent of the scientific community. There's room over there with the ID'ers. Just let them know that you think science deals with supernatural and they'll be happy to have you.

Logic dictates nothing of the sort.

Oh, look, he's dropping arguments again. Hey, if you have no way to logically support your point then it's best to ignore the evidence against you. You're great at it. You're as good as ID'ers even.

Science is not about finding a particular material object. In this case it would not be scientific to even look for the pearls. What science can do is to answer the questions "What is a pearl", "What is sand" or even "what is the likely distribution pattern of pearls within the sand given the conditions".

And yet he drops another point. Someone doesn't understand the concept of analogy. How unfortunate.

We have already laid the foundations, it is on those very strong foundations that the other answers will be build - it is only a matter of time. How long depends, in part, on how often science has to deal with people like you that claim answers are unknowable.

You've claimed that some answers are unknowable. You just keep forgetting you made the claim.

Ah! I see where you may be going wrong.

Look at it like this. When you teach a child to add up, do you teach him the answer to every possible sum? No. You teach them the rules by which addition works and as a result they have the answers. Do you teach a doctor the solution to every single case they will ever come across? No. You teach them above all to think and deduce based on the the science of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease. Yet another example would be a programmer, you don't teach them every program they will ever need to write - you teach them the rules.

Yep and all of those disciplines accept their limitations just as science does. The child accepts that s/he cannot count to infinity and that infinity is an concept rather than a number. The doctor accepts that s/he cannot save everyone. The scientist accepts that science cannot discover everything and that human knowledge in any particular subject and thus all subjects is most likely graphed on an asymptotic curve.

You keep supporting my statements. It's okay though. My statements are a lot easier to support.

Not all science starts with an observation. Quite often science starts with an idea.

Bad science starts with an idea based on no observations. Another word for that is philosophy. Good science is a hypothesis based on either directly or indirectly observed phenomena. It's not just pulled out of the air. To believe otherwise is to believe EXACTLY what id'ers believe. We'll start basic -

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

See how 'observation' is the first part of the method. In your words, if you can't recognize this then I feel sorry for you.

The "what if" is often just plucked out of thin air. You want to try a typical brain-storming session at a science symposium

Actually, I have. All "what if's" are either directly or indirectly derived from observation. It never takes the form of "what if human beings evolved from clouds?" because there is no observation that hypothesis would explain. Any "what if's" that are not related to observation are accepted as a discussion of philosophy.

I dare you to walk into one of those sessions and make your 'oh so scientific' claim of "THERE IS NO GOD AND SCIENCE HAS PROVED IT". Then I suggest you cover your ears because the cacophony of laughter might just break your eardrums.

Reading comprehension lessons are available at most adult literacy centres. I think you need to sign up.

Well, at least, you're consistent on this note. How does one spell infinite again? Your spelling is much like your understanding of the scientific method, there's the right way and there's Brenchley's way.

To early man the supernatural explained everything. His world was made up of spirits, gods and devils. So the supernatural is really "that which is unexplained by science". Therefore, QED, science turns the supernatural (unexplained) into the natural (explained by science).

You are mixing. There are two types of supernatural. That which explains observation and are an attempt to describe the natural world, e.g. spiders where created when a weaver angered the gods, and that which makes no attempt to describe the natural world but deals strictly with things that cannot be observed, e.g. what happens after death. We have been clear as to what we mean when we reference supernatural and the only way you can dispute our points is by changing them. It's a logical fallacy called a strawman. Try addressing the actual points... if you can.

Well you do keep posting stupid comments. Sorry, gorra do it again.

Again, you contradict yourself. But at least, your schoolyard tactics reveal your understanding of the subject. And to that I say thank you for saving others the effort of evaluating your understanding of the scientific method. It's much better when in big bold letters you shout that you don't get it.

Sorry to keep poking fun at you over that - but it really does take a lot to believe someone actually posted that comment.

You're a man of faith. It shouldn't be too difficult.

I've noticed, and I think it is time you stopped doing it.
Shall I quote the number of times you've suggested I have no reading comprehension to avoid a point or called me stupid for the same reason. It's called dropping arguments and if my argument was as unsupported as yours I would be doing so as well.

Not at all.


Can you really NOT defend your point?

Is this the extent of what you are going to give?


There are things which are currently labelled supernatural which may, in time, become part of the natural word. That is part of the role of science.


No. It isn't. You have created a Strawman, my friend. You have invented a role for science. That doesn't make it so.


There is not "outside" in either of those cases. For god to exist he must be within our universe and within the rules of science.


Absolute poppycock. For God to exist IN OUR UNIVERSE, he must be within our universe... perhaps even 'within the rules of science'... although not NECESSARILY the rules of science AS WE KNOW THEM.

You have an assumption that is insupportable... not even logical.

WHY must 'god' exist in our universe? What if 'he' were governed by the same laws as a body in stasis? He'd be a non-event point-mass, with a quantum probability of zero... wouldn't he?

And yet... wouldn't he 'exist'?


To be anything else he is supernatural.


Finally, a light comes on....


God is the invention of man and exists only in the imagination of the ill-informed.

You know... I kind of agree with you... on the imagination thing, at least.

However, I lack the hubris to claim it as fact, when it cannot EVER be proved, either way.

Yes, I said that. The most science can say is that there is no space in our knowledge of the grass growing that requires the Great Forest Spirit. Therefore, we can say that while the Great Forest Spirit might have created the mechanism that the grass grows by, he doesn't actually intercede every time it has to; the mechanism seems to function unaided.

Unless something really obtuse and stupid is happening. =^_^=


No - what we can say is that he PROBABLY doesn't intercede every time. We don't know FOR CERTAIN that the apparent mechanism (which SEEMS logical and functional) can work AT ALL, without direct intervention, do we?

We have no way to remove 'the Forest Spirit' from the equation, so we cannot check the variables.

Which is - of course - why science cannot answer questions about 'god'.


But that's not an answer at all, it's just circular logic. 'Creation took five days because creation takes five days.'


No - that isn't what I said... Creation took five days because 'God' decreed it should be so... because that is the 'right' amount of time.

I don't know... maybe it takes 5 days for "Instant, Add-Water, Planet Mix" to set... I did not say "it took five days because it took five days".

Perhaps we just cannot comprehend the logic behind the decision?


It doesn't tell us anything about why it should, specifically, take five days instead of four seconds or the commercial break during an episode of Star Trek.

Such an answer as 'it just does' isn't enough for any inquiring mind.

Wrong, my friend... it isn't enough for the scientific mind, perhaps... but that is because science doesn't like to take things on faith.

Religion, on the other hand, is pretty much all ABOUT taking on faith.

*Does a cartwheel in his office and lands in a little cheerleader stance*
Give me an G
G
Give me an N
N
Give me an I
I
What's that spell?
Gneeee?
What's that spell?
We don't know!

And it was ALL worth it, for Jocabia's two-minute Cheer fest. :D

Easy. Look up the definition of universe.


And how is that YOU 'proving' anything?

Show your sources, my friend... defend you definitions.


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

* typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)


Why do you KEEP using Wikipedia? You KNOW it is 'open-source', right?

You KNOW that ANYONE can post in Wikipedia? You REALISE that the very definition you present, might have NOTHING to resemble a peer-reviewed response?

One wonders why someone with ALL the 'scientific experience' you claim... continues to use as inconsistent a source as Wikipedia?

By the way, of course - even in the part you posted, it CLEARLY says that you are wrong... look at the part I put in bold.


Hohohohohohahahahah!!!! Thanks for one of the very biggest laughs I've had in years. "Science doesn't even deal in facts".


Well, it doesn't really, does it? A fact is something that can be proved.

Science deals in evidence, and in theories.

If you are looking for 'facts', you are in the wrong field.

Let's examine it - show me ONE scientific 'fact'.


Logic dictates nothing of the sort.


Don't just say it... prove it.

Honestly, if all you are going to do is 'preach', where is the difference between your 'science' and that of the ID exponent?

Look at it like this. When you teach a child to add up, do you teach him the answer to every possible sum? No. You teach them the rules by which addition works and as a result they have the answers.


However, would you claim that that child will, one day, add together ALL numbers?

Would it even be logical to think that?


Not all science starts with an observation. Quite often science starts with an idea.


The scientific method does not.


The "what if" is often just plucked out of thin air. You want to try a typical brain-storming session at a science symposium


Just as a point of amusement... the 'plucked out of thin air' thing... many people believe that 'inspiration' of this kind, is the direct evidence of God... placing 'ideas' in our minds... which might explain why such thoughts seem to come from 'out of thin air'.

Can you prove it wrong?


Reading comprehension lessons are available at most adult literacy centres. I think you need to sign up.


Oh - a pointless *flame*. I AM surprised.

Well you do keep posting stupid comments. Sorry, gorra do it again.


Another *flame*...

Yay, Jocabia and Grave_n!

Thanx for great responses to the Brench...

people in my office must be wondering what I'm chuckling about---heh,heh,heh!

;) :D :)

Yay, Jocabia and Grave_n!

Thanx for great responses to the Brench...

people in my office must be wondering what I'm chuckling about---heh,heh,heh!

;) :D :)

Okay... I admit it... we were only doing it to cheer you up... :D

Okay... I admit it... we were only doing it to cheer you up... :D

Actually this last post cheered me up. I'm so tired today, but this made me laugh. (Incidentally, it took me seventeen tries to type this post correctly).

Okay... I admit it... we were only doing it to cheer you up... :D

OK---fine!

Back to work...

[demented cackle] they do it all for me! me! me! [demented cackle]

Perhaps its a matter of the language we choose, but one moment it seems to me you distinguish between the thing and its existence, or between the content of an idea and the idea, and the next eliminate that distinction between them.
What is an idea other than it's content? A thing is it's existence.

It's simply a matter of following things through to their logical conclusion and remembering that categorical distinctions made by humans may not having any existence independent of humans. For instance you distinguish between mind and brain. Did such a distinction exist prior to humans conceptualising it? Probably not. You distinguish between 'interior' and 'exterior' but these are simply categorical distinctions between the parts of a whole.

To emphasise this point consider the idea of objective reality independent of subjectivity. This is of course a nonsense so long as even one subjector exists because reality isnt independent of the subjector, the subjector is a part of reality. That means that subjectivity is part of reality not a seperate thing to reality. Consider the subjective decision of a jury that person X is guility in a case where person X is not guilty. The subjective opinion of the jury is real and existent, it plays a part in the real punishment of the offender. That their subjective opinion may not correct, doesnt make it non-existent, it definately exists, it definately is real, by coming into being it becomes a constituent part of reality.

We dont know what the absolute truth of objective reality is, consider that every single minute in any one country alone the happenstances goes well beyond the ability of any human to comprehend. To simply know the reality of a single minute even in a small city is beyond our comprehension. That's why we are subjective, we simply are not equipped to comprehend reality as it actually is. To suggest that the only thing that allows us to attempt a flawed and incomplete facsimilie of reality isnt real and existent, is to suggest we have no perception or that we comprehend reality. Neither of these is true. So subjectivity does exist, it is real, it is our means of relating within reality and a constituent part of reality, not a seperate entity to reality.

I think we are basically in agreeance, so I'm going to drop it, if that's okay with you.
I'm dont know that we are in agreeance, but you're certainly under no onus to continue a conversation if you it no longer interests you.;)

No - what we can say is that he PROBABLY doesn't intercede every time. We don't know FOR CERTAIN that the apparent mechanism (which SEEMS logical and functional) can work AT ALL, without direct intervention, do we?

Well, we also don't know for certain that using allcaps a lot doesn't cause global warming, but I don't see you trying to save the planet on that front. :P

I never argued that science can give an absolute answer, but it can give a usable one; it can answer questions about a god or gods by determining their related actions to be unlikely within a reasonable set of boundaries. These answers, speaking realistically, are at least as satisfactory as religion's 'It just does' empty finalities. So, for instance, we can determine that because we can explain the sun's operation with nuclear fusion, it doesn't have to be the Star Goat's Anger At Brenchley given physical form. Yes, it might still be, but we have a perfectly workable explaination right there that doesn't seem to need the Star Goat. If that's borne out by other studies of related things later, we can say with more and more certainty [though never total, obviously] that the Star Goat probably isn't involved. So we have an answer to a question about God, just not an absolutely certain one.

As a random note, you can't prove you exist independantly of my computer, since I've never met you and I know my computer can generate text. That does not, however, mean it's reasonable to suggest you're an advanced AI on my hard drive that's deluded itself into believing it's human.

One can't know anything for absolute certain, not even religion; you have to assume your religion doesn't change when you're not observing it, for example. You have to assume you're not actually God yourself, too.

We have no way to remove 'the Forest Spirit' from the equation, so we cannot check the variables.

But we can note that, if all we see isn't an elaborate trick, there doesn't seem to be a variable involving him. If all we see is an elaborate trick, then we might as well just ignore the trickster and hope there's a nice punchline at the end and the universe isn't another goddamn mother-in-law-joke. We have no way to determine if there is really grass, either, and therefore we cannot truly say there is an equation; but using such a standard of proof for any form of inquiry into the way the world works is just perverse.

The absolute proof argument inevitably results in a trip to solipsism, which is just philosophical wankery.

No - that isn't what I said... Creation took five days because 'God' decreed it should be so... because that is the 'right' amount of time.

Exactly. Creation took five days because creation takes five days. You can't explain something by just restating the premise again; it's like saying 'It took me an hour to drive down to the store because it takes an hour to drive to the store.' It's an answer, but you haven't passed on any information as to why. Was there traffic? Is the store far away? Did your car break down?

Religion, on the other hand, is pretty much all ABOUT taking on faith.

And faith is something the inquiring mind has difficulty with. Ever listen to a child's constant demands of 'why?' after every attempt to explain something to them? Faith proposes final answers, but unless it also provides explainations for those answers, it will always seem hollow to a whole lot of people. Science proposes no absolute conclusions [except the version Brechley seems to have discovered], but religion proposes only conclusions.

What is an idea other than it's content? A thing is it's existence.

It's simply a matter of following things through to their logical conclusion and remembering that categorical distinctions made by humans may not having any existence independent of humans. For instance you distinguish between mind and brain. Did such a distinction exist prior to humans conceptualising it? Probably not. You distinguish between 'interior' and 'exterior' but these are simply categorical distinctions between the parts of a whole.

To emphasise this point consider the idea of objective reality independent of subjectivity. This is of course a nonsense so long as even one subjector exists because reality isnt independent of the subjector, the subjector is a part of reality. That means that subjectivity is part of reality not a seperate thing to reality. Consider the subjective decision of a jury that person X is guility in a case where person X is not guilty. The subjective opinion of the jury is real and existent, it plays a part in the real punishment of the offender. That their subjective opinion may not correct, doesnt make it non-existent, it definately exists, it definately is real, by coming into being it becomes a constituent part of reality.

We dont know what the absolute truth of objective reality is, consider that every single minute in any one country alone the happenstances goes well beyond the ability of any human to comprehend. To simply know the reality of a single minute even in a small city is beyond our comprehension. That's why we are subjective, we simply are not equipped to comprehend reality as it actually is. To suggest that the only thing that allows us to attempt a flawed and incomplete facsimilie of reality isnt real and existent, is to suggest we have no perception or that we comprehend reality. Neither of these is true. So subjectivity does exist, it is real, it is our means of relating within reality and a constituent part of reality, not a seperate entity to reality.


I'm dont know that we are in agreeance, but you're certainly under no onus to continue a conversation if you it no longer interests you.;)
Alright, disagreeance then. Re the idea and its content, we can speak of the idea as an objective thing, such as discussing 'the idea of a pink unicorn', but the content of that idea, the pink unicorn, is not real as it has no physical existence. As I said, perhaps its a matter of our respective use of language. The subjective opinion of the jury is real only is as much as it is actualized.

It's not that it no longer interests me, just that I don't have the heart for it right now. My apologies.

Well, we also don't know for certain that using allcaps a lot doesn't cause global warming, but I don't see you trying to save the planet on that front. :P


Harsh!

Maybe you noticed... when I'm on the forum, I tend to type a lot... I'm not some casual spammer, and I usually give a pretty decent length response.

That means, I haven't really got time for all those little /B flags and the like... so I usually do my emphasis the easiest way I know...

I'm sure you understand. :)


I never argued that science can give an absolute answer, but it can give a usable one; it can answer questions about a god or gods by determining their related actions to be unlikely within a reasonable set of boundaries. These answers, speaking realistically, are at least as satisfactory as religion's 'It just does' empty finalities. So, for instance, we can determine that because we can explain the sun's operation with nuclear fusion, it doesn't have to be the Star Goat's Anger At Brenchley given physical form. Yes, it might still be, but we have a perfectly workable explaination right there that doesn't seem to need the Star Goat. If that's borne out by other studies of related things later, we can say with more and more certainty [though never total, obviously] that the Star Goat probably isn't involved. So we have an answer to a question about God, just not an absolutely certain one.


But, the probabilities you talk about... the degree of certainty... it ISN'T certain, is it?

I mean... if nobody ever saw where rain came from, they might suspect that clouds were big floaty things full of it. Their mechanism would be perfectly logical... and to add anything to it would be inelegant, and unnecessary.

Then - with further information, garnered from a previously unknown science (like... flight) we might find out that clouds ARE water, and there is a whole stage BEHIND the rain, that we couldn't previously recognise, and didn't really need in our 'theory'.

Bear in mind, I am an Atheist.... but I can't rule out the rule of God.


But we can note that, if all we see isn't an elaborate trick, there doesn't seem to be a variable involving him. If all we see is an elaborate trick, then we might as well just ignore the trickster and hope there's a nice punchline at the end and the universe isn't another goddamn mother-in-law-joke. We have no way to determine if there is really grass, either, and therefore we cannot truly say there is an equation; but using such a standard of proof for any form of inquiry into the way the world works is just perverse.

The absolute proof argument inevitably results in a trip to solipsism, which is just philosophical wankery.


But, it is the simple fact that we CANNOT isolate the 'trickster', that means we can never give a meaningful answer, with science, to the question.


Exactly. Creation took five days because creation takes five days. You can't explain something by just restating the premise again; it's like saying 'It took me an hour to drive down to the store because it takes an hour to drive to the store.' It's an answer, but you haven't passed on any information as to why. Was there traffic? Is the store far away? Did your car break down?


No - still not getting it. If 'god' exists, and has this brilliant mind, beyond human conception, 'he' probably knows all the stages required to build a functional planet, and 'he' is probably a good guess at what a good duration is for that process. Thus - if 'he' decides to make the earth-material on one day, 'he' probably has a good reason.

Hell, maybe 'he' just LIKES taking a week to make a world.

The thing is - if he is all like ineffable and that... we can't 'eff' him... we can't hope to understand the mechanisms of 'his' thoughts.


And faith is something the inquiring mind has difficulty with. Ever listen to a child's constant demands of 'why?' after every attempt to explain something to them? Faith proposes final answers, but unless it also provides explainations for those answers, it will always seem hollow to a whole lot of people.

Indeed - the 'faith' answers seem 'hollow' to me, also.... but I've had to come to terms with the fact that, JUST because an idea sounds illogical, confused, silly, 'hollow', unsatisfying, annoying, or just plain wrong... that doesn't mean that idea is WRONG.


Science proposes no absolute conclusions [except the version Brechley seems to have discovered], but religion proposes only conclusions.

And THAT is exactly why religion works for some. If you want answers, religion's the thing. Which is probably why many scientists are religious, also... those of us in the world of science are used to having more questions than answers. :)

Can you really NOT defend your point?

Is this the extent of what you are going to give?



No. It isn't. You have created a Strawman, my friend. You have invented a role for science. That doesn't make it so.

Our knowledge of the world is continuously increasing. Some phenomena, once assumed supernatural, can today be explained by scientific theories, while others can now be dismissed as myths. Volcanoes were once considered deities and natural calamities such as earthquakes the actions of gods. people sacrificed animals or even other people to please their gods. Even today there are a large number of people who still see them as an "act of god" and yet science tells us what they are and how they happen.

If our current understanding is the gauge of the supernatural, its realm is ever decreasing and very subjective.

Try taking an historical look at the medical field for example. At one time most people put disease down to supernatural causes. Science proved them wrong. Independant source: J. Keir Howard of the Diocese of Wellington Institute of Theology, New Zealand, notes that: Until there was any proper understanding of the causative factors in disease and the actual disease processes themselves, there was a tendency to see sickness as a result of divine visitations and punishment for wrongdoing. (Oxford Companion to the Bible (1992)

Now lets take something which today lies in the realm of the supernatural - Ghosts. There are a lot of people who believe they are the manifestations of dead people. Other people look for different explanations. Sciencests do investigate but for the moment the jury is out. One day science may convert ghosts from the supernatural to the natural - because that is one of the roles of science.

So much for a straw man.

Absolute poppycock. For God to exist IN OUR UNIVERSE, he must be within our universe... perhaps even 'within the rules of science'... although not NECESSARILY the rules of science AS WE KNOW THEM.

You have an assumption that is insupportable... not even logical.

WHY must 'god' exist in our universe? What if 'he' were governed by the same laws as a body in stasis? He'd be a non-event point-mass, with a quantum probability of zero... wouldn't he?

And yet... wouldn't he 'exist'?

No, by that definition he would not exist.

Our knowledge of the world is continuously increasing. Some phenomena, once assumed supernatural, can today be explained by scientific theories, while others can now be dismissed as myths. Volcanoes were once considered deities and natural calamities such as earthquakes the actions of gods. people sacrificed animals or even other people to please their gods. Even today there are a large number of people who still see them as an "act of god" and yet science tells us what they are and how they happen.

If our current understanding is the gauge of the supernatural, its realm is ever decreasing and very subjective.

Try taking an historical look at the medical field for example. At one time most people put disease down to supernatural causes. Science proved them wrong. Independant source: J. Keir Howard of the Diocese of Wellington Institute of Theology, New Zealand, notes that: Until there was any proper understanding of the causative factors in disease and the actual disease processes themselves, there was a tendency to see sickness as a result of divine visitations and punishment for wrongdoing. (Oxford Companion to the Bible (1992)


Funny, isn't it... that the treatments used for the 'supernatural' ailment, and the treatments used for the 'natural' ailment, are so often the same?

Knocking holes in the head to let out evil spirit... now we drill the skull to release pressure.

Chewing sacred herbs to ease the pain... or swallowing aspirin.

You are still missing the point though, my friend... although at least THIS time you provided a source. (Of course, for SOME reason you provided a theologist as evidence for the progress of science...?)

The point is - we can isolate a vector. We can isolate the pathogen. We can isolate every mechanism of transmission and infection.

We STILL cannot prove that the 'supernatural' is NOT involved.


Now lets take something which today lies in the realm of the supernatural - Ghosts. There are a lot of people who believe they are the manifestations of dead people. Other people look for different explanations. Sciencests do investigate but for the moment the jury is out. One day science may convert ghosts from the supernatural to the natural - because that is one of the roles of science.

So much for a straw man.


What you said was: "There are things which are currently labelled supernatural which may, in time, become part of the natural word. That is part of the role of science".

And now... you have come up with another story which you say justifies the same strawman reasoning.

However, that is NOT a 'role' of science.

It is, at best, a side-effect of science.

(And, of course... as has been pointed out to you a number of times... science doesn't MAKE the 'supernatural' into the natural... it merely moves explanations of those things from one category to the other).


No, by that definition he would not exist.

Explain? A non-event point mass is STILL a point-mass, no? It is just non-causative.

An infinite god has an infinite ability to deceive. It does not matter how deeply we probe if there is truly a god then he could be interfering with all our experiments with out us knowing. There is no way to tell. There is no way to tell a universe that was created in a big bang 15 billion years ago and one created by god last Tuesday that he decided to make look 15 billion years old.

Therefore, what we do is observe test and say we are confident that x=y. But we can never say for 100% sure that this is because of a purely natural process or that god did it. We can never say for sure that if x=y in a million experiments that on the million and one experiment that x=z might not turn up. We can only give answers to a certain probability never the ‘TRUTH’ or a known ‘FACT’, science just does not work that way.

But, the probabilities you talk about... the degree of certainty... it ISN'T certain, is it?

Um...I keep saying it's not. It's an answer that can be used, tested, worked on, built on, knocked down, shored up, attacked, spat on and kicked and hit with shit, but it's still an answer. I think you're treating 'answer' as 'answer absolutely and unequivically,' which isn't how I'm using it. 'Um, well maybe/ probably yes' is still an answer.

In your example of clouds, yes, it's reasonable to presuppose they're make of rain because rain comes out of them, much as it's reasonable to presuppose the Earth is at least in part made of magma because that comes out of it. But we do need more in our theory than that, because we can see rain is heavier than air and falls, but clouds don't fall out of the sky and splooosh. So something else must be going on.

But, it is the simple fact that we CANNOT isolate the 'trickster', that means we can never give a meaningful answer, with science, to the question.

You missed the point. If it's a trick, we might as well ignore the trickster entirely and try to figure out what the trick is all about, ne?

Um...I keep saying it's not. It's an answer that can be used, tested, worked on, built on, knocked down, shored up, attacked, spat on and kicked and hit with shit, but it's still an answer. I think you're treating 'answer' as 'answer absolutely and unequivically,' which isn't how I'm using it. 'Um, well maybe/ probably yes' is still an answer.


Okay - then I'm misunderstanding what you are saying:

it can answer questions about a god or gods by determining their related actions to be unlikely within a reasonable set of boundaries.


No - it really can't. It can only provide mechanisms that function with or without interference. That says nothing for the actual degree to which a thing is 'likely' or 'unlikely'. Remember - this 'interference' MUST, by it's very nature, be outside of our scope to measure.

These answers, speaking realistically, are at least as satisfactory as religion's 'It just does' empty finalities


Not at all... because the religious 'it just does' is tailored to it's audience. The truly scientific curiousity is not going to be satisfied... they are not as 'satisfactory'... because the defined audience demands something different.


In your example of clouds, yes, it's reasonable to presuppose they're make of rain because rain comes out of them, much as it's reasonable to presuppose the Earth is at least in part made of magma because that comes out of it. But we do need more in our theory than that, because we can see rain is heavier than air and falls, but clouds don't fall out of the sky and splooosh. So something else must be going on.


And yet, ships float, despite being made of metal...?

So - logically, our clouds are made of some heavier material, but they are filled with something of vey low density. (Oh... and rain-making equipment).


You missed the point. If it's a trick, we might as well ignore the trickster entirely and try to figure out what the trick is all about, ne?

But we CAN'T figure out what the trick is all about, can we? We can't even perceive the trick... much less, the trickster.

I thought that was the point we were talking... the ability to prove or disprove the trickster?

No - it really can't. It can only provide mechanisms that function with or without interference. That says nothing for the actual degree to which a thing is 'likely' or 'unlikely'. Remember - this 'interference' MUST, by it's very nature, be outside of our scope to measure.

If you can show that something operates by a mechanism with no specific interference, the most logical course of thought is that it probably does operate without interference. You can bolt on made-up requirements, but it's still improbable; if you can't demonstrate the existence of an item anywhere, it's fair to surmise that it's probably not anywhere until you do see it somewhere. If you rely on invisible items, your theory is, given our knowledge of matters, unlikely.

You would not, for example, trust that I have left you a billion dollars at the bottom of an invisible pit of alligators three doors down from your house. It might be there, but it's pretty damn unlikely.

So - logically, our clouds are made of some heavier material, but they are filled with something of vey low density. (Oh... and rain-making equipment).

That's a possible hypothesis, but it's rendered unnecessary by proper observation of the behaviour of water vapour. All the clouds except the ones planes have flown through could be cloaked Vogon battleships, but it's not likely that we happen to have only ever flown planes through 'real' clouds.

I thought that was the point we were talking... the ability to prove or disprove the trickster?

Well, if you demonstrate there is no apparent requirement for the trickster, you'd be on a fair basis to presuppose there doesn't really need to be one. That's a long way from proving he isn't there, fersure, but 'he doesn't need to be there for the mechanism to function' is still an answer. Pulling out Occam's Chainsaw would then let us note that the theory without extra terms is also the most rational, giving it rawr.

If you can show that something operates by a mechanism with no specific interference, the most logical course of thought is that it probably does operate without interference. You can bolt on made-up requirements, but it's still improbable; if you can't demonstrate the existence of an item anywhere, it's fair to surmise that it's probably not anywhere until you do see it somewhere. If you rely on invisible items, your theory is, given our knowledge of matters, unlikely.

You would not, for example, trust that I have left you a billion dollars at the bottom of an invisible pit of alligators three doors down from your house. It might be there, but it's pretty damn unlikely.


Again, we hit a point of confusion: You say "the most logical course of thought is that it probably does operate without interference"... and I'm inclined to agree... after all, why borrow trouble?

However, you then say "You can bolt on made-up requirements, but it's still improbable"... and I have to disagree. Although our logical model makes it seem that a thing may be true, it does nothing to ACTUALLY affect the probability.

Also - of course - we wouldn't be bolting on requirements... if there IS a guiding force hiding beneath it all, it's not bolted on, it's already there... we just haven't seen it.


That's a possible hypothesis, but it's rendered unnecessary by proper observation of the behaviour of water vapour. All the clouds except the ones planes have flown through could be cloaked Vogon battleships, but it's not likely that we happen to have only ever flown planes through 'real' clouds.


Kudos for the Vogon mention. The 'Classic' Vogon, one hopes... not these recent pretenders to the throne.

The parallel I was looking for sets us predating flight... kind of an allegory, if you will, to the limits of our science today.

Thus, we could watch steam apparently just disperse into the sky. We could watch clouds clouding around. We could watch clouds drop rain and then cloud off.

Before we got to see the cloud, up close and personal, they COULD have been rain-making machines.


Well, if you demonstrate there is no apparent requirement for the trickster, you'd be on a fair basis to presuppose there doesn't really need to be one. That's a long way from proving he isn't there, fersure, but 'he doesn't need to be there for the mechanism to function' is still an answer. Pulling out Occam's Cahinsaw would then let us note that the theory without extra terms is also the most rational, giving it rawr.

I agree with the latter part... Occam has been doing some impressive whittling.

However, any 'trickster' there might (or might not) be... would have little need for our approval, or recognition of his (her) 'requirement'.

If there IS a 'god', he isn't there because we need him (her).

However, you then say "You can bolt on made-up requirements, but it's still improbable"... and I have to disagree. Although our logical model makes it seem that a thing may be true, it does nothing to ACTUALLY affect the probability.

Ah, this seem to be the sticking point. You're talking about the absolute probability of the event really being there; I'm talking about the likelihood of it being there given our current knowledge. We can say 'Given the evidence to hand, this looks unlikely' and that's a fair answer. We can be wrong, and we can later modify our thoughts about the probability of the event in light of new evidence.

If I say it's unlikely you'll flip ten heads on a coin in a row and you do, and then I find out you had a double-headed coin, my original evaluation wasn't wrong so much as based on a faulty premise [that the coin had one side which wasn't heads].

Ah, this seem to be the sticking point. You're talking about the absolute probability of the event really being there; I'm talking about the likelihood of it being there given our current knowledge. We can say 'Given the evidence to hand, this looks unlikely' and that's a fair answer. We can be wrong, and we can later modify our thoughts about the probability of the event in light of new evidence.

If I say it's unlikely you'll flip ten heads on a coin in a row and you do, and then I find out you had a double-headed coin, my original evaluation wasn't wrong so much as based on a faulty premise [that the coin had one side which wasn't heads].

Ah... gotcha. :)

We are not really disagreeing, then, perhaps... we both think the 10-flips are unlikely... the difference is, I'm saying we can't rule out a double-headed coin... and you're saying it doesn't look like a double-headed coin...?

Funny, isn't it... that the treatments used for the 'supernatural' ailment, and the treatments used for the 'natural' ailment, are so often the same?

Knocking holes in the head to let out evil spirit... now we drill the skull to release pressure.

Chewing sacred herbs to ease the pain... or swallowing aspirin.

That may, by chance, be the case in a few areas. But when illness was in the realms of the supernatural the most common treatment was something akin exorcism.

You are still missing the point though, my friend... although at least THIS time you provided a source. (Of course, for SOME reason you provided a theologist as evidence for the progress of science...?)

The point is - we can isolate a vector. We can isolate the pathogen. We can isolate every mechanism of transmission and infection.

We STILL cannot prove that the 'supernatural' is NOT involved.[/quote]

We have done. We have taken the supernatural out of illness. Nobody in their right mind would now claim a supernatural involvement in illness or the treatment thereof.

What you said was: "There are things which are currently labelled supernatural which may, in time, become part of the natural word. That is part of the role of science".

Yes. It is. It is a decreasing role simply because there is now so little left in the realm of the supernatural, but it has been a role of science from the outset.

And now... you have come up with another story which you say justifies the same strawman reasoning.

However, that is NOT a 'role' of science.

It is, at best, a side-effect of science.

No. I has been a major role of science.

(And, of course... as has been pointed out to you a number of times... science doesn't MAKE the 'supernatural' into the natural... it merely moves explanations of those things from one category to the other).

Exactly, it converts the supernatural into the natural. Glad you got it at last.

Explain? A non-event point mass is STILL a point-mass, no? It is just non-causative.

As we were talking of god and not Dave Lister, no.

Ah... gotcha. :)

We are not really disagreeing, then, perhaps... we both think the 10-flips are unlikely... the difference is, I'm saying we can't rule out a double-headed coin... and you're saying it doesn't look like a double-headed coin...?

Yes, basically approaching from opposite directions, I think. We can't rule it out, but that doesn't mean we can't say, based on our current knowledge, that things seem either more or less likely to be true. So, for example, an explaination that depends entirely on things we can see will seem more likely than one which proposes things we can never see. Because, well, we've never seen them.

That may, by chance, be the case in a few areas. But when illness was in the realms of the supernatural the most common treatment was something akin exorcism.


Not really by chance... by investigation. So, to be honest, the primitive method of skull-breaking, is actually 'better science' than your argument we can know everything...


We have done. We have taken the supernatural out of illness. Nobody in their right mind would now claim a supernatural involvement in illness or the treatment thereof.


So, now you are a psychiatrist, too?

We have done no such thing... we have elegant mechanisms that funcvtion in APPARENT isolation, but we can't test them in the presence OR absence of 'god'... so we can prove NOTHING about how involved the 'supernatural' is.


Yes. It is. It is a decreasing role simply because there is now so little left in the realm of the supernatural, but it has been a role of science from the outset.


No, it's not.

If you are going to make these ridiculous assertions, I want evidence (peer-reviewed evidence... not some open-source) to support them.


No. I has been a major role of science.


It, perhaps... unless you are Ali G....

Anyway - again, show me peer-reviewed evidence to support your rhetoric.


Exactly, it converts the supernatural into the natural. Glad you got it at last.


Changing the name of a thing makes it no more, or less, natural.


As we were talking of god and not Dave Lister, no.

Shame that, for all your claimed experience, you don't recognise the validity of a scientific concept, unless you see it advertised as such...

Well, we also don't know for certain that using allcaps a lot doesn't cause global warming, but I don't see you trying to save the planet on that front. :P

I never argued that science can give an absolute answer, but it can give a usable one; it can answer questions about a god or gods by determining their related actions to be unlikely within a reasonable set of boundaries. These answers, speaking realistically, are at least as satisfactory as religion's 'It just does' empty finalities. So, for instance, we can determine that because we can explain the sun's operation with nuclear fusion, it doesn't have to be the Star Goat's Anger At Brenchley given physical form. Yes, it might still be, but we have a perfectly workable explaination right there that doesn't seem to need the Star Goat. If that's borne out by other studies of related things later, we can say with more and more certainty [though never total, obviously] that the Star Goat probably isn't involved. So we have an answer to a question about God, just not an absolutely certain one.

As a random note, you can't prove you exist independantly of my computer, since I've never met you and I know my computer can generate text. That does not, however, mean it's reasonable to suggest you're an advanced AI on my hard drive that's deluded itself into believing it's human.

I decided to address this mostly because you made me choke on my pop tart (given the things I'm always choking on when talking to you guys, one should rationally reach the conclusion that I'm a 300-pound pasty geek constantly nourished on a diet of pop tarts and Wild Cherry Pepsi).

I think you are hitting on the point that we have all agreed to (save the ID'ers and Brenchley) that science offers us rational ways to deal with our world but not absolute answers. Unless I'm really drunk, I have yet to try to hold onto the ground because I'm worried about going flying off into space. However, I'm well aware that my judgements of gravity our based on observed evidence regarding how it has behaved in the past and not absolute knowledge on how it will behave in the future.

I have to disagree with your point on the goat. We can say that God, or the Goat, probably doesn't interact with the sun in observable ways, at least it has never been emperically observed. We cannot make any predictions about that which can't be observed. In other words, scientific conclusions draw nothing about God's unobserved interactions with the world. You seem to suggest otherwise, but it's simply not true. Any conclusion about that which cannot be observed directly or indirectly requires faith.

Harsh!

Maybe you noticed... when I'm on the forum, I tend to type a lot... I'm not some casual spammer, and I usually give a pretty decent length response.

That means, I haven't really got time for all those little /B flags and the like... so I usually do my emphasis the easiest way I know...

I'm sure you understand. :)

A fellow caps for emphasis poster. I am of the same mindset. This is about as short as my posts get.

*snip*

As difficult as it is for me to simply chalk things up to lost causes, I must do so here. The problem with people who believe faith amounts to emperical proof is that no amount of evidence will ever convince them because they will always hold up their 'emperical' evidence as disproving your actually emperical evidence. That's all he's doing here. He refusing to accept that his argument is not based on science and there is no changing his FAITH.

I know some disagree with my faith in 'the sky fairy' as he puts it, but at least I accept that my belief does not enter the realm of science. It's amazing that it never occurs to him that everyone here with even a moderate grasp on science regardless of their belief in God/gods, or lack thereof, finds his approach to science to be on the same level as ID.

As such, I've leave him to his faith. However, I encourage you to keep posting because this thread is funnier than the Simpsons. Between your Ali G comment and GMC's comment on ALL CAPS saving the environment, I can barely breathe and my whole office is wondering what the freak in the corner office is giggling about.

Not really by chance... by investigation. So, to be honest, the primitive method of skull-breaking, is actually 'better science' than your argument we can know everything...

Of course it wasn't because it was being done for supernatural reasons - not scientific reasons.

So, now you are a psychiatrist, too?

I made a statement that I think a vary large percentage of people would agree with.

We have done no such thing... we have elegant mechanisms that funcvtion in APPARENT isolation, but we can't test them in the presence OR absence of 'god'... so we can prove NOTHING about how involved the 'supernatural' is.

If you are honestly suggesting that the supernatural (including god) could possibly be involved in illness then I give up on you.

No, it's not.

If you are going to make these ridiculous assertions, I want evidence (peer-reviewed evidence... not some open-source) to support them.

Ah! So you don't like the sourse just because if disagrees with you.

It, perhaps... unless you are Ali G....

Simple typo.

Anyway - again, show me peer-reviewed evidence to support your rhetoric.

I've already given plenty of links. You disagree with them then it is up to you to find another expert witness.

Changing the name of a thing makes it no more, or less, natural.

Changing it classification from supernatural to natural is a major change. A change science has made many times in the past.

Shame that, for all your claimed experience, you don't recognise the validity of a scientific concept, unless you see it advertised as such...

Shame you raised something a concept that didn't work.

Your wording was "What if 'he' were governed by the same laws as a body in stasis? He'd be a non-event point-mass, with a quantum probability of zero... wouldn't he? And yet... wouldn't he 'exist'?"

The answer to that is, given your definition he would not exist.

I have to disagree with your point on the goat. We can say that God, or the Goat, probably doesn't interact with the sun in observable ways, at least it has never been emperically observed. We cannot make any predictions about that which can't be observed.

However, we can say that from our perspective, given what we are aware of in the world, explanations involving objects that have never been shown to exist are less likely to be true than explanations that involve only objects we can see. If you reach into a bag of skittles you'd obviously think it more probable you'd draw a red one than the INVISIBLE BLASPHEMOUS BIO-ORGANIC ONE THAT THIRSTS FOR SOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUULS because you've never encountered that one before. If you then pull out the Cthulhu Skittle, you'll have to alter your analysis. Very quickly.

If you are honestly suggesting that the supernatural (including god) could possibly be involved in illness then I give up on you.

Can you demonstrate beyond any doubt whatsoever that pathogen molecules are not held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery?

You are using the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance; you cannot make a statement that something must be false simply because it hasn't been proven true.

I've already given plenty of links. You disagree with them then it is up to you to find another expert witness.

Wikipedia is an 'expert witness?' And appeal to authority.

However, we can say that from our perspective, given what we are aware of in the world, explanations involving objects that have never been shown to exist are less likely to be true than explanations that involve only objects we can see. If you reach into a bag of skittles you'd obviously think it more probable you'd draw a red one than the INVISIBLE BLASPHEMOUS BIO-ORGANIC ONE THAT THIRSTS FOR SOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUULS because you've never encountered that one before. If you then pull out the Cthulhu Skittle, you'll have to alter your analysis. Very quickly.

I base my predictions on rational assumptions and I tend to keep those assumptions simple. I don't make probability assumptions (in terms of science) on unobservable objects because it is unnecessarily complex. In other words, your claim of the probability of God fails the Occam's Battleaxe test.

I'll let you have the last word on this one, but I think we've exhausted the subject and are just trying to amuse each other.

Can you demonstrate beyond any doubt whatsoever that pathogen molecules are not held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery?

Fortunately, I have learned not to drink or eat right before reading some people's posts and I'm not sick. Now when I say "Sean Connery is making me sick" people won't know if I'm under the weather or I just saw Entrapment.

Wikipedia is an 'expert witness?'

Hey, this is the same guy who said editting books makes him a scientist.

Some phenomena, once assumed supernatural, can today be explained by scientific theories, while others can now be dismissed as myths.

"Assumed supernatural" != "supernatural"

If our current understanding is the gauge of the supernatural, its realm is ever decreasing and very subjective.

And that is the problem, my dear. Our current understanding does not determine what is and is not supernatural. It only determines what some label supernatural.

Now lets take something which today lies in the realm of the supernatural - Ghosts.

We cannot state that ghosts lie in the supernatural. They lie in the currently unexplained. Some have labeled them supernatural. But we cannot assume that they are outside the workings of the universe without some evidence to back that up.

So much for a straw man.

Actually, it is still a strawman, as the fact that you are using a completely different definition of "supernatural" from everyone else in the discussion makes it one.

"Assumed supernatural" != "supernatural"

And that is the problem, my dear. Our current understanding does not determine what is and is not supernatural. It only determines what some label supernatural.

We cannot state that ghosts lie in the supernatural. They lie in the currently unexplained. Some have labeled them supernatural. But we cannot assume that they are outside the workings of the universe without some evidence to back that up.

Actually, it is still a strawman, as the fact that you are using a completely different definition of "supernatural" from everyone else in the discussion makes it one.

Unless he's actually trying to argue that it was supernatural and our study actually turned it into a natural phenomena. "Uh-oh, scientists are looking, quick virus get over here! You, demon, hide until they go away!"

Drugs..

I decided to address this mostly because you made me choke on my pop tart (given the things I'm always choking on when talking to you guys, one should rationally reach the conclusion that I'm a 300-pound pasty geek constantly nourished on a diet of pop tarts and Wild Cherry Pepsi).


Great.

You owe me a monitor.

This one has pumpkin-spice coffee all over it.... :)


I have to disagree with your point on the goat. We can say that God, or the Goat, probably doesn't interact with the sun in observable ways, at least it has never been emperically observed. We cannot make any predictions about that which can't be observed. In other words, scientific conclusions draw nothing about God's unobserved interactions with the world. You seem to suggest otherwise, but it's simply not true. Any conclusion about that which cannot be observed directly or indirectly requires faith.

Exactly... this is the point I'm trying to make (largely by hitting my fists on the keyboard, it seems... you summed it up so much more concisely).

As difficult as it is for me to simply chalk things up to lost causes, I must do so here. The problem with people who believe faith amounts to emperical proof is that no amount of evidence will ever convince them because they will always hold up their 'emperical' evidence as disproving your actually emperical evidence. That's all he's doing here. He refusing to accept that his argument is not based on science and there is no changing his FAITH.

I know some disagree with my faith in 'the sky fairy' as he puts it, but at least I accept that my belief does not enter the realm of science. It's amazing that it never occurs to him that everyone here with even a moderate grasp on science regardless of their belief in God/gods, or lack thereof, finds his approach to science to be on the same level as ID.


You know where I stand on the issue... you know I'm a convince godless-heathen, and also something of a scientist.

To me, it is illogical to believe in 'god'... because I have no 'evidence'... nothing I can accept.

To Brenchely, one assumes, the same situation applies.

The difference is: I lack the hubris to assume that evidence MUST be lacking, just because I can't see it.

Not that I really expect I'd find it or anything... but I lack BELIEF in the lack of 'god'.


As such, I've leave him to his faith. However, I encourage you to keep posting because this thread is funnier than the Simpsons. Between your Ali G comment and GMC's comment on ALL CAPS saving the environment, I can barely breathe and my whole office is wondering what the freak in the corner office is giggling about.

And, for this, it is all worth it.

I'll be here all week.

Try the steak.

Can you demonstrate beyond any doubt whatsoever that pathogen molecules are not held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery?


I'm intrigued... tell me more about this 'Sean Connery' theory.... :D

If you reach into a bag of skittles you'd obviously think it more probable you'd draw a red one than the INVISIBLE BLASPHEMOUS BIO-ORGANIC ONE THAT THIRSTS FOR SOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUULS because you've never encountered that one before. If you then pull out the Cthulhu Skittle, you'll have to alter your analysis. Very quickly.


I want a Cthulhu Skittle!

Are they limited edition?

Of course it wasn't because it was being done for supernatural reasons - not scientific reasons.


Interesting... so - if you accidentally poor alcohol on a wound, and it kills all the infectious material, it is not a 'scientific' process of disinfection, because you didn't do it for a scientific reason?

Also - actually... things like trepanning WERE done for a scientific reason... in fact, they adhered to the Scientific Method far more rigourously than your 'argument' has.

Problem: Person has pain in head (assumption - flawed - it must be demons).

Observation: People with holes knocked in their skulls get less of these head pains.

Hypothesis: (Flawed - it must let the devils out).

Experiment: Knock a hole in someones head when they get the pain. Lo and behold, the pain is reduced.

Conclusion, and comparison: The trepanning (or trephining) process makes the patient feel better. Assumption - knocking holes in heads DOES release something. (Classically, this was demons or spirits... modern science deals with released pressure).

So - you see, the old practise of smashing in skulls to let the demons out DID follow the scientific method.


I made a statement that I think a vary large percentage of people would agree with.


That makes it right?

Logical fallacy, my friend.


If you are honestly suggesting that the supernatural (including god) could possibly be involved in illness then I give up on you.


Alright, put your pompoms down... I'm suggesting nothing of the sort... but I AM saying we can't rule it out absolutely.


Ah! So you don't like the sourse just because if disagrees with you.


No - I don't like the source because it is a flawed source... ANYONE can post in Wikipedia... they don't need to be qualified, experienced, or even know anything about the subject.

Plus, it is NOT peer-reviewed (you CAN'T peer-review an open-source, I suspect).


Simple typo.


I appreciate that.


I've already given plenty of links. You disagree with them then it is up to you to find another expert witness.


Actually, no. You have made the statement, and I have questioned your assertion. Thus, the onus is on YOU to provide proof.

Otherwise, your statement can be disregarded as holow rhetoric. It has NO value without support.


Changing it classification from supernatural to natural is a major change. A change science has made many times in the past.


Classification is just the name for a thing... it has NO effect on the 'nature' of the thing.


Shame you raised something a concept that didn't work.

Your wording was "What if 'he' were governed by the same laws as a body in stasis? He'd be a non-event point-mass, with a quantum probability of zero... wouldn't he? And yet... wouldn't he 'exist'?"

The answer to that is, given your definition he would not exist.

Yes he would... he would STILL be a mass, he would still 'exist'... he would just be 'suspended from causality.

And, three million years later, he'd have a huge Library fine on that book he'd kept...

You know where I stand on the issue... you know I'm a convince godless-heathen, and also something of a scientist.

To me, it is illogical to believe in 'god'... because I have no 'evidence'... nothing I can accept.

To Brenchely, one assumes, the same situation applies.

The difference is: I lack the hubris to assume that evidence MUST be lacking, just because I can't see it.

Not that I really expect I'd find it or anything... but I lack BELIEF in the lack of 'god'.



And, for this, it is all worth it.

I'll be here all week.

Try the steak.

Oh, no, we're quoting Shrek now?

Can you demonstrate beyond any doubt whatsoever that pathogen molecules are not held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery?

Yes, science has done that.

You are using the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance; you cannot make a statement that something must be false simply because it hasn't been proven true.

But it has been proven true.

Wikipedia is an 'expert witness?' And appeal to authority.

I believe Wikipedia is a very reliable on-line source, nothing is perfect of course but I find it has less bias than some printed material.

Apparently bias is defined as peer-reviewed scientific information for the purpose of this thread. I wasn't aware of it till I was informed this from the context of certain posts.

Yes, science has done that.

I asked you to do it, not science. Science is not another word for 'go away, I don't have an answer to that argument.'

But it has been proven true.

No it hasn't. Science generates hypotheses and theories to explain events, but the concept of absolute proof or disproof is fundamentally unscientific. Or have you forgotten 'is possible to falsify' is one of the tests of a scientific theory?

I believe Wikipedia is a very reliable on-line source, nothing is perfect of course but I find it has less bias than some printed material.

It is most certainly not an authoritive source on matters of science, though.

I asked you to do it, not science. Science is not another word for 'go away, I don't have an answer to that argument.'

Your question was " Can you demonstrate beyond any doubt whatsoever that pathogen molecules are not held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery?" To which my reply was "Yes, science has done that."

No it hasn't. Science generates hypotheses and theories to explain events, but the concept of absolute proof or disproof is fundamentally unscientific. Or have you forgotten 'is possible to falsify' is one of the tests of a scientific theory?

I think that one of the basic requirements of science is common sense. Science has proved - beyond doubt - that illness has natural causes not supernatural.

It is most certainly not an authoritive source on matters of science, though.

It is as good as any encyclopedia, in fact in many ways better because so many experts do work to ensure the validity of the content.

Your question was "Can you demonstrate beyond any doubt whatsoever that pathogen molecules are not held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery?" To which my reply was "Yes, science has done that."

"Can you demonstrate beyond any doubt whatsoever that pathogen molecules are not held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery?"

For someone who constantly berates people's reading comprehension skills, your own leave quite a bit to be desired. Saying 'science has done it' is not you demonstrating anything, other than your inability to present evidence. I am not talking to some sort of enormous shard of crystallised science, I am talking to you.

I think that one of the basic requirements of science is common sense. Science has proved - beyond doubt - that illness has natural causes not supernatural.

But scientific theories must be possible to falsify, or they are not scientific. This means it is impossible to prove anything beyond all doubt, so your claim is utter nonsense and as unscientific as creationism itself is.

It is as good as any encyclopedia, in fact in many ways better because so many experts do work to ensure the validity of the content.

How does that make it an authoritative source on science? You're very good at evading people's actual questions.

"Can you demonstrate beyond any doubt whatsoever that pathogen molecules are not held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery?"

Yes! Science has done so.

For someone who constantly berates people's reading comprehension skills, your own leave quite a bit to be desired. Saying 'science has done it' is not you demonstrating anything, other than your inability to present evidence. I am not talking to some sort of enormous shard of crystallised science, I am talking to you.

Yes. And MY proof is that SCIENCE has proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that pathogen molecules are not held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery?

But scientific theories must be possible to falsify, or they are not scientific. This means it is impossible to prove anything beyond all doubt, so your claim is utter nonsense and as unscientific as creationism itself is.

It is not unscientific to reject the idea that pathogen molecules are held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery. The unscientific part is actually suggesting pathogen molecules could be held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery

Yes! Science has done so.

That's restating your premise. Don't you know what 'demonstrate' means?

Yes. And MY proof is that SCIENCE has proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that pathogen molecules are not held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery?

Which it has not, because science does not deal with absolutes. Nothing is ever proven beyond any doubt. Even the cornerstones of science like the laws of thermodynamics are capable of being disproven.

Congratulations, you have no proof.

It is not unscientific to reject the idea that pathogen molecules are held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery.

It is not unscientific to state it is unlikely or it is not the best theory, but to dismiss it out of hand and state that it is 'disproven beyond any doubt' is unscientific.

Yes. And MY proof is that SCIENCE has proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that pathogen molecules are not held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery?


What experiments have shown that molecules are not held together by tiny angels? (or Sean Connery) Cite your sources please. I can say say science has proven that women are more inteligent than men, and yell it all I want, but that does not make it true.


It is not unscientific to reject the idea that pathogen molecules are held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery. The unscientific part is actually suggesting pathogen molecules could be held together by tiny invisible angels, or Sean Connery

It is not unscientific to suggest this, it is unscientific to advance it as a theory when there is no way to disprove it. Until we have a way to disprove the assertion, it goes in the "irrevelant to science" pile, like the idea that the Universe is an electron of a much larger universe.

That's restating your premise. Don't you know what 'demonstrate' means?



Which it has not, because science does not deal with absolutes. Nothing is ever proven beyond any doubt. Even the cornerstones of science like the laws of thermodynamics are capable of being disproven.

Congratulations, you have no proof.



It is not unscientific to state it is unlikely or it is not the best theory, but to dismiss it out of hand and state that it is 'disproven beyond any doubt' is unscientific.


If you really believe that then there is little point in me trying to argue against your stupidity.

However, I doubt you really believe it.

If you really believe that then there is little point in me trying to argue against your stupidity.

However, I doubt you really believe it.

I really believe you've just been forumbanned for three days.

Oh, no, we're quoting Shrek now?

It's a scientifically valid text. :)

These answers, speaking realistically, are at least as satisfactory as religion's 'It just does' empty finalities. So, for instance, we can determine that because we can explain the sun's operation with nuclear fusion, it doesn't have to be the Star Goat's Anger At Brenchley given physical form.
The "Anger in physical form" explanation --which would actually be an explanation where the former is not --is not an example of the "It just does" acceptance of circumstance. At least the latter explanation attempts to address the phenomenon in symbolism; the former holds none. It misses, but it attempts. I don't know what secular school is promoting this "Ugh! Grunt! Caveman see lighting, god is angry!" Hollywood idiocy version of mythology, but this does not represent any decent mythological theory. It also paints our ancestors as ignoramuses, and anyone believing that should be ashamed of themselves.

Which it has not, because science does not deal with absolutes. Nothing is ever proven beyond any doubt. Even the cornerstones of science like the laws of thermodynamics are capable of being disproven.

Congratulations, you have no proof.



What you're discussing isn't in the scope of scientific inquiry. This, the discussion of absolute proofs and certainity of the laws of the universe, is more of a philosophical discussion rather than a scientific one. It is very important to realize that science is a branch of philosophy of that strictly deals with empirical evidence. Science has very little interest in the supernatural because the existence of a supernatural entity cannot be proven.

I don't object to the discussion of Intelligent Design in public schools as long as it isn't in a science course. Science is not the field in which we can appreciably discuss whether "angels" or other spiritual creatures hold together molecules and thus doesn't belong in the science classroom.

- D.H

[but] this does not represent any decent mythological theory.

It wasn't supposed to. It was a joke.

It wasn't supposed to. It was a joke.
I'll say....

I really believe you've just been forumbanned for three days.
You banned him for 3 days for that?

Way to be power-mad.

(And if you do the same to me for this, that just proves my point all the more.)

You banned him for 3 days for that?

That and his conduct throughout this thread. Calling people stupid and insulting their reading skills instead of addressing their arguments isn't acceptable conduct.

That and his conduct throughout this thread. Calling people stupid and insulting their reading skills instead of addressing their arguments isn't acceptable conduct.
Nor, in my eyes, is banning someone for 3 days for it.

Honestly, some of your arguments verged on serious strawmen (or at least equivocations) wrt "knowledge" and "fact", respectively. Asking how he knew that molecules weren't held together by fairies or Sean Connery....in the first place, Connery is just too old to hold every molecule together. He'd have to run really quickly, and that would just be too much for his old body. That would be a very serious kind of magic if he could, though.

We've figured out molecular bonds/valence energies to the point where considering anything else makes no sense. Could we be wrong? It's a possibility. How probable is it that we could be? So finitely improbable that it's not worth considering. So why not just act as if it's a "fact"?

We've figured out molecular bonds/valence energies to the point where considering anything else makes no sense. Could we be wrong? It's a possibility. How probable is it that we could be? So finitely improbable that it's not worth considering. So why not just act as if it's a "fact"?

That does not equate to 'proven beyond any doubt whatsoever,' which was the essence of Brenchley's argument. He was arguing that because science has absolutely disproven that disease transmission occurs in a given way, there is no room for supernatural causes, but science doesn't deal in absolute proofs under any circumstances.

Science may have shown that in the realm of things we can actually analyse it's very unlikely a supernatural cause exists, but that's miles from showing that a supernatural cause cannot exist under any circumstances. We don't know Sean Connery isn't actually an amazingly powerful wizard who holds all molecules together with his high Mysticality. It's very unlikely, but it's not impossible.

Ah, we say, appeal to ignorance! Well, not exactly. My argument isn't that we can't be sure it doesn't exist, therefore it does, it's that we can't be sure it doesn't exist, so we can't make an absolute claim that it doesn't. Brenchley's 'yes, science has proven that' claim is therefore incorrect; science has shown natural mechanisms that seem to function without external support for disease transmission, but that doesn't mean with certainty that's actually what they are, only that that's what they appear to be. And as I pointed out, disproof of a scientific theory must be possible, or it isn't a scientific theory.

Since Brenchley bases his subsequent 'God has nowhere to hide' claims on science producing absolute answers when it doesn't, the argument is therefore flawed.

That does not equate to 'proven beyond any doubt whatsoever,'
In a way, it does. In the words of Stephen Gould: "... 'fact' does not mean 'absolute certainty.' The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

Meaning, of course, that we have no reason to doubt such things (whatever it is that's been so confirmed), so there should be no doubt. Doubt must arise contextually, and when experiments confirm things over and over, the probability of error goes down and down until, for all practical purposes, it no longer exists or matters. It's still there, but we've no reason to give it any mind. Thus, in essence, we have no doubt whatsoever.


which was the essence of Brenchley's argument. He was arguing that because science has absolutely disproven that disease transmission occurs in a given way, there is no room for supernatural causes, but science doesn't deal in absolute proofs under any circumstances.
Well, we can perhaps colloquially say that something is disproven if you demonstrate that something else is the factor. And, given that the supernatural is a begged question, we need not even consider it.


Science may have shown that in the realm of things we can actually analyse it's very unlikely a supernatural cause exists, but that's miles from showing that a supernatural cause cannot exist under any circumstances.
All we need to do is look at the claim of "supernatural" and see if it's ontologically possible. It isn't.


We don't know Sean Connery isn't actually an amazingly powerful wizard who holds all molecules together with his high Mysticality. It's very unlikely, but it's not impossible.
It would of course not be Sean Connery (since he got his head chopped off), but Christopher Lambert who holds all molecules together. After all, there can be only one.


Ah, we say, appeal to ignorance! Well, not exactly. My argument isn't that we can't be sure it doesn't exist, therefore it does, it's that we can't be sure it doesn't exist, so we can't make an absolute claim that it doesn't. Brenchley's 'yes, science has proven that' claim is therefore incorrect; science has shown natural mechanisms that seem to function without external support for disease transmission, but that doesn't mean with certainty that's actually what they are, only that that's what they appear to be. And as I pointed out, disproof of a scientific theory must be possible, or it isn't a scientific theory.
Again, if we can show what something is, the other "possibilities" essentially go away. It's like the probability of an electron being at any one place in the electron cloud has a distribution, but when you observe it, all other possibilities go to 0.


Since Brenchley bases his subsequent 'God has nowhere to hide' claims on science producing absolute answers when it doesn't, the argument is therefore flawed.
It's really like the apocryphal Laplacian notion of "I have no need of that hypothesis". And since we have no need for it, why even have something as a possibility?

In a way, it does. In the words of Stephen Gould: "... 'fact' does not mean 'absolute certainty.'

But Brenchley did not use the word 'fact,' he declared it an absolute certainty. Red Herring.

Thus, in essence, we have no doubt whatsoever.

No, there is always a tiny grain of doubt in even the greatest proof we can provide. We can never make an absolute conclusion, only a very, very good one. 'In essence' we can have no doubt, but the fact is there's always a tiny chance that the next time an apple falls from a tree it will stop halfway and hover. We can't declare an absolute without analysing everything.

Brenchley is arguing an absolute, perpetual truth, somthing your quote specifically states science should not do.

Well, we can perhaps colloquially say that something is disproven if you demonstrate that something else is the factor. And, given that the supernatural is a begged question, we need not even consider it.

Not if the two things are not mutually exclusive, or it is impossible to determine one is not the cause of the other. If you prove an object is black you can easily say it isn't white, but it's rather harder, without dismantling the object, to say it contains nothing white. It's certainly not valid to say it contains nothing white because it is black.

There is also the argument that you're just colourblind, or would realise it was white if only you believed in the Colour Of Mysterious Objects.

All we need to do is look at the claim of "supernatural" and see if it's ontologically possible. It isn't.

Does that mean it's totally impossible, or just very unlikely?

It would of course not be Sean Connery (since he got his head chopped off), but Christopher Lambert who holds all molecules together. After all, there can be only one.

Wouldn't that mean it was Dave Thomas?

You banned him for 3 days for that?

Way to be power-mad.

(And if you do the same to me for this, that just proves my point all the more.)

Let me just suggest that you filter back through my posts, over the last few dozen pages.

You'll see a number of occasions on which I pointed out to 'Brenchley' that he was WAY over the line on flaming... and suggested to him that it was only a matter of time before someone Moderated him.

And, in the end, someone did. He only got a three-day forum-ban, anyway.

On the question of the "days" in Genesis, I came across this (http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/christianity/God-TheUnknowable.html) non-literal, symbolic interpretation of the "day":
The esoteric doctrine, then, teaches, like Buddhism and Brahmanism, and even the persecuted Kabala, that the one infinite and unknown Essence exists from all eternity, and in regular and harmonious successions is either passive or active. In the poetical phraseology of Manu these conditions are called the "day" and the "night" of Brahma. The latter is either "awake" or "asleep."
So the "day" would be the period when god was active, when force was required to create; and the "night" the period when he "rested" (stopped). And on the last day he stopped for good.

Well, to be fair, the KJV says 'evening and morning' rather than 'day and night' [make you wonder what God gets up to at night, doesn't it?]. Further, in context it is pretty fair to assume it's talking about periods of time in relation to light rather than whether God is switched on or off. Whether these periods were twelve hours long, on the other hand, is not clear.

Geneis 1:4-5 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

But Brenchley did not use the word 'fact,' he declared it an absolute certainty. Red Herring.
No, it isn't. Sorry. You need to learn how to ident a fallacy a little bit better.

Facts are what is the case. It is a fact that I am male. There is no possibility that I am not male, given the evidence.


No, there is always a tiny grain of doubt in even the greatest proof we can provide.
And if it's tiny enough, it doesn't matter.


We can never make an absolute conclusion, only a very, very good one. 'In essence' we can have no doubt, but the fact is there's always a tiny chance that the next time an apple falls from a tree it will stop halfway and hover.
And the chance of that happening is so remote that it's not worth thinking about. That's the point, and that's what I think you're not getting. Brenchley is just shorthanding the idea that certain things are so ludicrous to give any thought to for a possibility that we can effectively say that such possibilities don't exist/won't obtain.


Brenchley is arguing an absolute, perpetual truth, somthing your quote specifically states science should not do.
We can absolutely say that existence exists.



Not if the two things are not mutually exclusive, or it is impossible to determine one is not the cause of the other.
But that's not applicable in this case.



Does that mean it's totally impossible, or just very unlikely?
It's ontologically meaningless.


Wouldn't that mean it was Dave Thomas?
The Wendy's guy?

Let me just suggest that you filter back through my posts, over the last few dozen pages.
I did.


You'll see a number of occasions on which I pointed out to 'Brenchley' that he was WAY over the line on flaming... and suggested to him that it was only a matter of time before someone Moderated him.
I personally think that far too many people here are overly sensitive, and would last about 5 seconds in Usenet before running away in tears.

Well, to be fair, the KJV says 'evening and morning' rather than 'day and night' [make you wonder what God gets up to at night, doesn't it?]. Further, in context it is pretty fair to assume it's talking about periods of time in relation to light rather than whether God is switched on or off. Whether these periods were twelve hours long, on the other hand, is not clear.

Geneis 1:4-5 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
The Hebrew reads with "yom", which is a 24-hour period/day. I think it's quite clear from that.

I personally think that far too many people here are overly sensitive, and would last about 5 seconds in Usenet before running away in tears.
It's not about "sensitivity" in the case, it's about the Forum rules. Grave was correct in that Brenchley broke the rules; regardless of how Grave "felt" about Brenchley's behavior, it was against the guidelines we are all obligated to follow if we want to participate here.

Personally, I think a lot of the rules here are more strict than I would choose for myself. But that doesn't change the fact that I agree to follow those rules when I come into these boards.

It's not about "sensitivity" in the case, it's about the Forum rules.
Rules have different interpretations. And it seems that some people have an interpretation that if you call an idea or a person "stupid", that's just flaming and deserving of banning. I call that being overly sensitive. There's no such thing as the right to not have hurt feelings, no matter what someone interprets the "rules" as being.

Has anyone seen this? (Thought maybe something was needed to get back on some sort of track...)

A school board member who voted to include "intelligent design" in a high-school biology curriculum testified Friday that she never independently researched the concept and relied on the opinions of two fellow board members to make her decision.
...
"The only people in the school district with a scientific background were opposed to intelligent design ... and you ignored them?" he asked.

"Yes," Geesey said.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9853328/

Would you expect someone who supports ID in any way to have done anything resembling research?

Would you expect someone who supports ID in any way to have done anything resembling research?
Of course not! The facts are biased against Jesus!

Would you expect someone who supports ID in any way to have done anything resembling research?
Poor, poor soul. Rational arguments are not needed on NS. Just heated words.

Of course not! The facts are biased against Jesus!
Everytime a monkey evolves, Jesus cries.

Facts are what is the case. It is a fact that I am male. There is no possibility that I am not male, given the evidence.

I have no evidence whatsoever you are male. Your evidence from my perspective is totally subjective [you're an anonymous internet handle] and a very bad choice of example. Further, you have no way to demonstrate, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that you are male. Send a photo of yourself? You're a butch woman. Send a photo of your knob? It's someone else's. Send *yourself*? It's an actor.

There is always a tiny possibily you are a woman who has deluded herself into thinking she was a man, much like there is always a tiny possibility you are a tea cozy or a piece of toast. 'Facts' in the scientific sense refer to very firmly established concepts, but even your source states they are not absolutes. Brenchley claimed there were absolutes and that science could demonstrate things beyond any doubt whatsoever, so your attempt to redefine what he said as a debate on 'scientific fact' is, indeed, a Red Herring.

And if it's tiny enough, it doesn't matter.

That doesn't mean it isn't there, just that it isn't likely to be.

And the chance of that happening is so remote that it's not worth thinking about. That's the point, and that's what I think you're not getting. Brenchley is just shorthanding the idea that certain things are so ludicrous to give any thought to for a possibility that we can effectively say that such possibilities don't exist/won't obtain.

No, he is claiming science gives absolute answers. Science does not, and basing a subsequent conclusion ['there is no God'] on the idea it does is therefore invalid. You can't show that the Supreme Cause of the universe wasn't a God of some sort. You can use Occam's Razor to show it's not a rational or useful theory and isn't the best theory, but that doesn't, in the grand scheme of things, make it false.

One can say 'this theory is so unlikely it's not worth considering,' but that doesn't mean it doesn't have that single, miniscule chance of actually being correct. The correct shorthand would be 'science determines this to be minutely unlikely,' not 'science has proven this untrue beyond any doubt whatsoever.'

We can absolutely say that existence exists.

Can we? Can you prove beyond any doubt at all that you exist?

But that's not applicable in this case.

Why? Both God and a natural mechanism are capable of existing, so proving one does not demonstrate the absence of the other.

The Wendy's guy?

Yes (http://www.verylowsodium.com/fanimutation/exuberance.php). A Winner is you.

Rules have different interpretations. And it seems that some people have an interpretation that if you call an idea or a person "stupid", that's just flaming and deserving of banning.

That's not why he was banned. He was banned because he calls people stupid constantly and instead of actually answering them, the classic ad hominem fallacy. Had he included insults rarely and as part of proper rebuttals, he'd probably have got off with a warning and no ban.

I have no evidence whatsoever you are male.
That's irrelevant to the fact that there IS evidence, such as the fact that I have a Y-chromosome. With that, the probability that I am female is at 0%.


There is always a tiny possibily you are a woman who has deluded herself into thinking she was a man,
Not when there's that pesky Y-chromosome thing. Sorta precludes any possibility of being female.


much like there is always a tiny possibility you are a tea cozy or a piece of toast.
Reminds me of a line from the 1950s "The Thing From Another World"

"An intelligent carrot? The mind boggles."


'Facts' in the scientific sense refer to very firmly established concepts,
And in the sense of that which is the case. For instance, speciation has been observed in the field. It is a fact. It's not just a firmly established concept; it is what the case happens to be.


but even your source states they are not absolutes. Brenchley claimed there were absolutes and that science could demonstrate things beyond any doubt whatsoever, so your attempt to redefine what he said as a debate on 'scientific fact' is, indeed, a Red Herring.
No, it most certainly is not.



That doesn't mean it isn't there, just that it isn't likely to be.
And we can treat it as if it doesn't exist, since the possibility is so tiny (think of placing a decimal point at the beginning of the Encyclopedia Britannica, then filling every page of every volume after that with 0s until you get to the last page, and place a single 1 at the end) that, for all intents and purposes, there isn't any.



No, he is claiming science gives absolute answers. Science does not,
Oh, the methods used can. For instance, when we observe an electron, there is a 100% chance that it is where it is, and a 0% chance that it is where it isn't.


and basing a subsequent conclusion ['there is no God'] on the idea it does is therefore invalid. You can't show that the Supreme Cause of the universe wasn't a God of some sort. You can use Occam's Razor to show it's not a rational or useful theory, but that doesn't, in the grand scheme of things, make it false.
You can also use the science called logic (it's one of the apriori sciences) to demonstrate that a "creator of the universe" entails contradictions.



Can we? Can you prove beyond any doubt at all that you exist?
Do you really want to travel the mental masturbatory without ejaculation dead-end of solipsism? I'm going to surmise not.



Why? Both God and a natural mechanism are capable of existing,
Is god capable of existing? That has yet to be demonstrated.




Yes (http://www.verylowsodium.com/fanimutation/exuberance.php). A Winner is you.
Well, it can't be Dave because he wasn't in the movie, y'see. Christopher took the Prize, so it must be him, since There Can Be Only One.


That's not why he was banned. He was banned because he calls people stupid constantly and instead of actually answering them, the classic ad hominem fallacy.
No, that's not the ad hom fallacy. It's an ad hom, but not a fallacy. Far too many people think that a general insult is the fallacy, and that isn't the case whatsoever.

Fallacy: You're stupid, therefore you believe X.
Not a fallacy: You believe X, therefore you're stupid.

See the difference?

Poor, poor soul. Rational arguments are not needed on NS. Just heated words.
Would it trouble you much to answer my question? Thanks.

That's irrelevant to the fact that there IS evidence, such as the fact that I have a Y-chromosome. With that, the probability that I am female is at 0%.

Can you prove you have a Y chromosome? Have you ever seen it? :P

And in the sense of that which is the case. For instance, speciation has been observed in the field. It is a fact. It's not just a firmly established concept; it is what the case happens to be.

But that's the thing, it's not an absolute fact, it's a scientific fact. It could be everything occurs randomly and that speciation being predictable is dumb luck. It's a stupid hypothesis, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a chance of being true.

And we can treat it as if it doesn't exist, since the possibility is so tiny (think of placing a decimal point at the beginning of the Encyclopedia Britannica, then filling every page of every volume after that with 0s until you get to the last page, and place a single 1 at the end) that, for all intents and purposes, there isn't any.

For all intents and purposes except claiming it is absolutely and irrevocably beyond any possibility at all. Even the tiniest fraction of a chance is still a chance.

You can also use the science called logic (it's one of the apriori sciences) to demonstrate that a "creator of the universe" entails contradictions.

But we cannot demonstrate the universe operates according to logical principles; indeed, stating that because something is illogical it is certainly untrue is actually a logical fallacy itself, argument ad logicam.

Do you really want to travel the mental masturbatory without ejaculation dead-end of solipsism? I'm going to surmise not.

No, but anyone who claims absolute proof is bound to end up there, because a demand to prove an absolute just means you can't prove anything.

Is god capable of existing? That has yet to be demonstrated.

But is God incapable of existing? It's asking to prove a negative, which is a burden of proof fallacy, but Brenchley has claimed we can prove that negative absolutely.

Well, it can't be Dave because he wasn't in the movie, y'see. Christopher took the Prize, so it must be him, since There Can Be Only One.

You just need to believe in the power of Sean Connery, my son. I've drawn a diagram of how he rose from the grave which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he lived on!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/Believe.jpg

Fallacy: You're stupid, therefore you believe X.
Not a fallacy: You believe X, therefore you're stupid.

See the difference?

Yes. And many of Brenchley's points fall into the earlier definition, which is more correctly 'you are stupid, therefore you are wrong.'

That's irrelevant to the fact that there IS evidence, such as the fact that I have a Y-chromosome. With that, the probability that I am female is at 0%.

Please look up chimeras, Turner's Syndrome, and Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS). You will know that having a Y chromosome does not automatically make you male.

Of course, one must ask, have you been genetically tested to determine this? Or do you assume that you must have a Y chromosome?

Oh, the methods used can. For instance, when we observe an electron, there is a 100% chance that it is where it is, and a 0% chance that it is where it isn't.

We don't have any methods of observation with that kind of certainty. It certainly "is where it is," but that doesn't mean it is where we think it is, or where we observe it to be.

Is god capable of existing? That has yet to be demonstrated.

And, conversely, it has yet to be demonstrated that god is not capable of existing. Go figure.

Please look up chimeras, Turner's Syndrome, and Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS). You will know that having a Y chromosome does not automatically make you male.
It does in this case.


Of course, one must ask, have you been genetically tested to determine this?
Yes.


We don't have any methods of observation with that kind of certainty.
Tell that to Brian Greene (The Fabric of the Cosmos, pp.200-1, paperback).


It certainly "is where it is," but that doesn't mean it is where we think it is, or where we observe it to be.
If it's not where we observe it to be (neglecting for the moment the infinitesimally small fraction of a second the light has to travel to our eyes, since it's so tiny that it makes no ends), then it isn't where it is, and thus A = ~A, this entailing a contradiction when we describe it. But contradictions cannot be.



And, conversely, it has yet to be demonstrated that god is not capable of existing. Go figure.
Oh, I'd say that statement is as wrong as saying that's it's not been demonstrated that square circles cannot exist.

Can you prove you have a Y chromosome? Have you ever seen it? :P
AAMOF--yes.


But that's the thing, it's not an absolute fact, it's a scientific fact. It could be everything occurs randomly and that speciation being predictable is dumb luck. It's a stupid hypothesis, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a chance of being true.
With testability and repeatability, the chance of it not being true decreases to insignificance, so that it really is a "fact".


For all intents and purposes except claiming it is absolutely and irrevocably beyond any possibility at all. Even the tiniest fraction of a chance is still a chance.
But does the chance matter? And, in this case, since it doesn't matter, there's no need to even deal with it. It's like a reverse-case of treating pulleys as frictionless and string as massless.



But we cannot demonstrate the universe operates according to logical principles; indeed, stating that because something is illogical it is certainly untrue is actually a logical fallacy itself, argument ad logicam.
Um, no, it's not.

A person makes a claim, such as a square circle exists.
I counter with the fact that such a proposition entails a contradiction. Hence, the proposition is illogical. Hence, it cannot be true.
The person counters with "You're just using argumentum ad logicam".
The counter, is, of course, a load of bull.

Now then, someone makes the claim of something creating the universe.
This entails an existence apart from the ontological ground, i.e. the universe.
This means the basis for existence and causality was caused.
This entails a contradiction.
See where I'm going with this?


No, but anyone who claims absolute proof is bound to end up there, because a demand to prove an absolute just means you can't prove anything.
Depends on if you're using it as a shorthand notation or not.



But is God incapable of existing?
Based on the various definitions which involve usage of the supernatural, existence apart from the universe...yes.


It's asking to prove a negative, which is a burden of proof fallacy,
Not really. I can demonstrate that no largest prime number exists. Hell, Euclid did it over 2,000 years ago.


You just need to believe in the power of Sean Connery, my son. I've drawn a diagram of how he rose from the grave which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he lived on!
While he did rise in the second movie, he did die again. And it's Christopher who lived on...to make that not-really-good-either 3rd movie.

Would you expect someone who supports ID in any way to have done anything resembling research?
No.

That's irrelevant to the fact that there IS evidence, such as the fact that I have a Y-chromosome. With that, the probability that I am female is at 0%.



Not when there's that pesky Y-chromosome thing. Sorta precludes any possibility of being female.



Reminds me of a line from the 1950s "The Thing From Another World"

"An intelligent carrot? The mind boggles."



And in the sense of that which is the case. For instance, speciation has been observed in the field. It is a fact. It's not just a firmly established concept; it is what the case happens to be.



No, it most certainly is not.




And we can treat it as if it doesn't exist, since the possibility is so tiny (think of placing a decimal point at the beginning of the Encyclopedia Britannica, then filling every page of every volume after that with 0s until you get to the last page, and place a single 1 at the end) that, for all intents and purposes, there isn't any.




Oh, the methods used can. For instance, when we observe an electron, there is a 100% chance that it is where it is, and a 0% chance that it is where it isn't.



You can also use the science called logic (it's one of the apriori sciences) to demonstrate that a "creator of the universe" entails contradictions.




Do you really want to travel the mental masturbatory without ejaculation dead-end of solipsism? I'm going to surmise not.




Is god capable of existing? That has yet to be demonstrated.





Well, it can't be Dave because he wasn't in the movie, y'see. Christopher took the Prize, so it must be him, since There Can Be Only One.



No, that's not the ad hom fallacy. It's an ad hom, but not a fallacy. Far too many people think that a general insult is the fallacy, and that isn't the case whatsoever.

Fallacy: You're stupid, therefore you believe X.
Not a fallacy: You believe X, therefore you're stupid.

See the difference?

HAHAHAHAH!!! That's great. This was the best one yet. Not only to reject the most basic premise of science, that all things are disputable, but you try to claim you can use your violation of science to assign probability.

Can you show me the probability calculation of God? The fact that God is not necessary in certain mechanisms does not make it improbable that he exists or is involved. The only thing science says about God is that it is an unnecessary complication of theories when it is not falsifiable. The fact that God is not permitted in theories is actually evidence that science cannot falsifiy Him.

HAHAHAHAH!!! That's great. This was the best one yet. Not only to reject the most basic premise of science, that all things are disputable, but you try to claim you can use your violation of science to assign probability.
And where, precisely, did I do that?


Can you show me the probability calculation of God?
It's the same as the probability calculation of a square circle.

Once you understand why square circles cannot exist, you understand why god cannot exist. It's quite simple.

It's the same as the probability calculation of a square circle.

Once you understand why square circles cannot exist, you understand why god cannot exist. It's quite simple.
That depends entirely on the definition of "god."

For instance, some people define "god" as "that warm fuzzy feeling you get when a baby laughs." Granted, their definition is insipid as all hell, but in that context "god" certainly does exist.

That depends entirely on the definition of "god."

For instance, some people define "god" as "that warm fuzzy feeling you get when a baby laughs." Granted, their definition is insipid as all hell, but in that context "god" certainly does exist.
I believe that God is my co-pilot. That being said, I'm going to the back to screw the stewardess. Enjoy the rest of your flight.

That depends entirely on the definition of "god."

For instance, some people define "god" as "that warm fuzzy feeling you get when a baby laughs." Granted, their definition is insipid as all hell, but in that context "god" certainly does exist.
No, the feeling exists. They just choose to muddy things by calling it "god".

No, the feeling exists. They just choose to muddy things by calling it "god".
But that's my point: "god" is a word that people define in various ways. It's a useless word because it can mean anything you want it to mean. Much like "love."

No, the feeling exists. They just choose to muddy things by calling it "god".
No, it's called 'symbolic identification'.

No, it's called 'symbolic identification'.
No, it's called "muddied thinking".

And where, precisely, did I do that?

When you defend someone who claims science creates absolutes you reject that all hypotheses MUST be falsifiable and cannot be considered indisputable.

It's the same as the probability calculation of a square circle.

Really? Prove it. If God does exist, what's the probability? How does one calculate probability of existence? The very premise is hilarious.

Once you understand why square circles cannot exist, you understand why god cannot exist. It's quite simple.

A circle and a square are mutually exclusive. What is God mutually exclusive of?

Muddled thinking is pretending two things are the same so you don't have to address one of them. Kind of like a square circle and God. Actually, muddled thinking would be if you actually buy that crap. If you pretending, it would just be a really weak argument.

It does in this case.

No, it doesn't. You can't say, "In one particular case, having a Y chromosome is all you need to know to say something is male." As there are cases in which a human being has a Y chromosome, but is not male, then simply having a Y chromosome does not make you male. There are other things involved.

Tell that to Brian Greene (The Fabric of the Cosmos, pp.200-1, paperback).

If he claims that we can measure something with 100% certainty, he is either an idiot or a liar. All measurements carry uncertainty with them.

If it's not where we observe it to be (neglecting for the moment the infinitesimally small fraction of a second the light has to travel to our eyes, since it's so tiny that it makes no ends), then it isn't where it is, and thus A = ~A, this entailing a contradiction when we describe it. But contradictions cannot be.

There is no contradiction. If something is somewhere other than where we observe it to be, it is still where it is. It simply isn't where we think it is. If I think you are over my shoulder, but you are actually in Seattle, you are still where you are - in Seattle.

Again, all measurements carry uncertainty with them. Thus, where we observe something to be is not necessarily where it actually exists. Of course, it is still where it is.

Oh, I'd say that statement is as wrong as saying that's it's not been demonstrated that square circles cannot exist.

Yes, you've said that before, but you haven't showed in any way how god, by definition, cannot exist.

When you defend someone who claims science creates absolutes you reject that all hypotheses MUST be falsifiable and cannot be considered indisputable.
No, I do not.


Really? Prove it.
What's the probability that a square circle can exist? 0%. It's a self-contradictory thing. Similarly....


A circle and a square are mutually exclusive. What is God mutually exclusive of?
Its properties and claimed things its done, like create the universe, which would create the proposition of existence prior to existence, which cannot happen.

If you don't understand that, feel free to inquire further.

No, it doesn't.
It doesn't apply in my particular case?

*laughs*


If he claims that we can measure something with 100% certainty, he is either an idiot or a liar.
Quantum physicists say that, actually. When we measure an electron, we know where it is, as opposed to it being, say, somewhere around Betelgeuse.


There is no contradiction.
I proved there would be. Thanks for not understanding basic logic.


Yes, you've said that before, but you haven't showed in any way how god, by definition, cannot exist.
I have, actually.

No, I do not.



What's the probability that a square circle can exist? 0%. It's a self-contradictory thing. Similarly....



Its properties and claimed things its done, like create the universe, which would create the proposition of existence prior to existence, which cannot happen.

If you don't understand that, feel free to inquire further.

Yes, the problem is that the Universe is a concept that we limited and then claimed that God must be limited similarly. The contradiction is created by us. When we discuss the universe we limit it to natural phenomena and God is not limited by the concept. If we don't place that limit there can be no origin of the universe because at least as an abstract something always existed.

I'll show you a comparable limitation of our understanding:
What happened before time existed? There was no before. Before is a time-based concept. So does that make it absolutely necessary that time didn't come from something, that it wasn't caused? No, but it's not a concept we can adequately describe.

Imagine describing color in a world where everyone has only experienced black and white. Our limitation to black and white doesn't mean that color can't exist. Our limitation of the universe and our own limitation within time does not bind all things to that limitation. This doesn't mean that things exist outside of our ability to prove them or to diagram them, but it certainly means we can't automatically dismiss them simply because we wish to believe that all things are as limited as we are.

More importantly, we can both go round and round in abstract concepts but in the end we will be expressing opinions. So long as you don't claim your opinion negates the existence of something you have no evidence on which to base your concept of, we won't have a problem. However, you started out telling GMC that you were only saying that God was improbable (very, very improbable) and now you're claiming that his probability is 0% or is in other words disproven. By extraction, one finds that you claim that God is a falsifiable concept and thus can be addressed by a scientific hypothesis. And you reject something that has certainly reached the point of scientific concensus, that God is not addressed by science and won't be.

Let's look at a couple of contradictions -

In the words of Stephen Gould: "... 'fact' does not mean 'absolute certainty.' The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."


In other words proofs in mathematics and logic can conclude 100% or 0%, but it is unscientific to ever reach 0% or 100% as the probability of something.

Not only to reject the most basic premise of science, that all things are disputable, but you try to claim you can use your violation of science to assign probability.
And where, precisely, did I do that?

You seem to act like you've never claimed something describing our universe is indisputable and then in the same breath:

Once you understand why square circles cannot exist, you understand why god cannot exist.

Not "is not likely to exist", but "CANNOT exist". But maybe you meant improbable. Let's see.

What's the probability that a square circle can exist? 0%. It's a self-contradictory thing. Similarly....

Specifically states there is 0% chance of God existing. Blatantly unscientific. I won't even get into the logical error.

Its properties and claimed things its done, like create the universe, which would create the proposition of existence prior to existence, which cannot happen.

Again, you define both the concept of the universe (as including everything) and God (as being outside the universe) and then claim that he can't exist because you made him logically contradictory (I guess I will get into the logical error). Not only is this a logical fallacy, but it's unscientific.

Yes, the problem is that the Universe is a concept that we limited and then claimed that God must be limited similarly.
Then god is simply gimblebabble. Thank you for admitting it can't exist.

Let's look at a couple of contradictions -
If only you could prove that they are....




In other words proofs in mathematics and logic can conclude 100% or 0%, but it is unscientific to ever reach 0% or 100% as the probability of something.



You seem to act like you've never claimed something describing our universe is indisputable and then in the same breath:
I haven't.



Not "is not likely to exist", but "CANNOT exist". But maybe you meant improbable. Let's see.
Nope.

Also, are you telling me that squares and circles have a real ontology? Some Platonic Form? Is that what you're telling me? If you are, you need to go back to school.


Specifically states there is 0% chance of God existing.
Just like there's a 0% chance of a square circle existing. Blatantly scientific.

Math IS a science, y'know.


Again, you define both the concept of the universe (as including everything) and God (as being outside the universe) and then claim that he can't exist because you made him logically contradictory
I don't define it that way; the theists do.

So--did you have a point? Or did you just want to show how little you know?

If only you could prove that they are....





I haven't.




Nope.

Also, are you telling me that squares and circles have a real ontology? Some Platonic Form? Is that what you're telling me? If you are, you need to go back to school.



Just like there's a 0% chance of a square circle existing. Blatantly scientific.

Math IS a science, y'know.



I don't define it that way; the theists do.

So--did you have a point? Or did you just want to show how little you know?
Ha. That's great. You should read your quote again.

EDIT: Oh, and this homogenous group you call "the theists" include me and I assure you my concept of God is not impossible logically or scientifically.

Ha. That's great. You should read your quote again.
I did.


Oh, and this homogenous group you call "the theists" include me and I assure you my concept of God is not impossible logically or scientifically.
Then what is your definition? Something that exists already? Why call it god when it already has a name?

It doesn't apply in my particular case?

It doesn't apply in any case. Simply having a Y chromosome does not make you male. You may be male, but, since there are females with Y chromosomes, it is obviously not simply a matter of having one.

Quantum physicists say that, actually. When we measure an electron, we know where it is, as opposed to it being, say, somewhere around Betelgeuse.

No, we know where it is within some error. *Every* measurement entails error.

I proved there would be. Thanks for not understanding basic logic.

Your statement was, "If it isn't where we think it is, then it isn't where it is." If you think that statement follows logic, you've got another thing coming.

I have, actually.

No, you haven't. You have placed an arbitrary limitation on words that are not inherent in the definitions of the words and tried to call it logic.

I did.

Then what is your definition? Something that exists already? Why call it god when it already has a name?

Mostly it would depend on how one defines the universe. If the universe is limited to observable phenomena bound by time, space and the laws of physics (assuming either our current definition or some definition is correct) then it is completely possible for God to have created the universe and for it not to be contradictory. If you define the universe as everything that exists, then God created part of the universe, specifically everything that is not him. The only way for you to put together the logic you did you must define it specifically in order to make him logically impossible, which you did. Create a survey and let's see how many theists are including God when they say He created the universe (assuming they are of the theists that define God as the creator of the universe).

Now if you're not talking about him creating himself, but the contradictory idea of something existing before the beginning of time, well, because our perception of absolute reality is limited doesn't exactly limit or assign probability to that reality, now does it?

Most specifically, no matter how humans define God, if He exists he exists and if he doesn't he doesn't and it is impossible to assign probability to that. At most it can be shown that some humans are not being logical in how they define God. If you think that's a revelation or can't be applied to nearly every major concept well, you're not really dealing in the real world.

It doesn't apply in any case.
Yes, it does.


Simply having a Y chromosome does not make you male.
It does in my case.


No, we know where it is within some error.
Then I have a roomfull of physicists who would like a word with you.


Your statement was, "If it isn't where we think it is, then it isn't where it is." If you think that statement follows logic, you've got another thing coming.
If you think it doesn't follow logic, then you've got another thing coming.


No, you haven't.
Yes, I have.


You have placed an arbitrary limitation on words that are not inherent in the definitions of the words and tried to call it logic.
So you say, but haven't shown. So show it.

Pulled from the evil fox news site.

So again this is not about forcing christianity in school right?

The lawsuit will probably fail but if history repeats they will try again and again and again and again.....

Maybe it's the coming Dark Ages for the US?

------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167235,00.html

California Religious Schools Sue University Over Creationism
Saturday, August 27, 2005

LOS ANGELES — A group representing California religious schools has filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints.

The Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 schools, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday claiming UC admissions officials have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution. Other rejected courses include "Christianity's Influence in American History."

According to the lawsuit, the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta was told its courses were rejected because they use textbooks printed by two Christian publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books.

Wendell E. Bird, a lawyer for the association, said the policy violates the rights of students and religious schools.

"A threat to one religion is a threat to all," he said.

UC spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina said she could not comment, because the university had not been served with the lawsuit. Still, she said the university has a right to set course requirements.

"These requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed," Poorsina.

Dark ages? Are you serious? That's a little over melodramatic, isn't it? Not applicable at all. The parents who have children in religious schools have done so for a reason, they like their children there and like what is taught there and it is wholly their right to do so. If the university is denying admission to their college for that reason, well, it is their right as well. There are other universities that would not reject their applications on that basis. They should try one of them. I have to wonder what the parents of the children were thinking when they thought that entering their child in a secular university after years and years of Christian home schooling and the like was a good idea. I wouldn't even WANT my child there in Berserkely, California. That would probably undo everything you'd ever tried to teach them.

Mostly it would depend on how one defines the universe. If the universe is limited to observable phenomena bound by time, space and the laws of physics (assuming either our current definition or some definition is correct) then it is completely possible for God to have created the universe and for it not to be contradictory.
No, it isn't.


If you define the universe as everything that exists, then God created part of the universe, specifically everything that is not him. The only way for you to put together the logic you did you must define it specifically in order to make him logically impossible, which you did.
No, I did not.


Create a survey and let's see how many theists are including God when they say He created the universe (assuming they are of the theists that define God as the creator of the universe).
Most of them.


Now if you're not talking about him creating himself, but the contradictory idea of something existing before the beginning of time, well, because our perception of absolute reality is limited doesn't exactly limit or assign probability to that reality, now does it?
Argument from ignorance fallacy.


Most specifically, no matter how humans define God, if He exists he exists and if he doesn't he doesn't and it is impossible to assign probability to that.
Most specifically, no matter how humans define square circle, if it exists, and if it doesn't is doesn't, and it is impossible to assign a probability to that.

Still stupid that way. Why don't you try again.

No, it isn't.



No, I did not.



Most of them.



Argument from ignorance fallacy.



Most specifically, no matter how humans define square circle, if it exists, and if it doesn't is doesn't, and it is impossible to assign a probability to that.

Still stupid that way. Why don't you try again.

Wow, all those words and you managed not to say anything other than "I see that I made up my argument and pretend people think something they don't so I'll just avoid making any argument any more and just say, 'nuh-uh'." You did a great job at that, too.

Let's find out what people think. I'll start the thread. Personally I've heard anyone make that particular claim nor found it in any scripture. Now I'm not saying you're just creating an imaginary group of people who believe something no one actually believes... um, wait, yeah, I'm saying you're doing that.

Wow, all those words and you managed not to say anything other than "I see that I made up my argument and pretend people think something they don't so I'll just avoid making any argument any more and just say, 'nuh-uh'."
Except I didn't say that. Nice lie.

So--got anything valid? Or did you just want to lie about me?

And personally, every theist I know says that god created the universe and isn't part of it. Looks like you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, it does.

It does in my case.

No, it doesn't. Simply having a Y chromosome does not make you male, or it would make every human being who has one male. There are other factors involved. For instance, chances are that all of your cells have a Y chromosome, not just some of them - it is definitely (if you are naturally male) found within the cells of your reproductive system. The androgen receptor in your body is obviously functioning (or at least was as you developed). These are two separate things that had to happen, in addition to simply having a Y chromosome, in order to make you male.

Then I have a roomfull of physicists who would like a word with you.

Show me a single physicist who claims to make measurements without any error in them and I'll show you someone who didn't pass basic science.

If you think it doesn't follow logic, then you've got another thing coming.

The BAAWA school of logic: "If I look at something and I think it is on the sidewalk, but it is actually in the road, then it isn't in the road."

Let's see if I'm confused. We'll just quote you -

Again, you define both the concept of the universe (as including everything) and God (as being outside the universe) and then claim that he can't exist because you made him logically contradictory
I don't define it that way; the theists do.

So did I miss what everything is? Theists like many people consider the universe to be everything natural, and the supernatural to be beyond the universe, thus the universe isn't everything. That's why in my poll everyone is say God didn't create God. When theists say God created the universe they are talking about everything natural and everything supernatural excluding Himself. You try to make it sound like it's otherwise. I love that you try to claim you didn't say certain things when it's all here in black and white.

It's good that your admitting your strawman finally.

Then I have a roomfull of physicists who would like a word with you.

Can I have their names and numbers? I'd like to have a word with them as well. I'd be interested to meet these phantom physicists who don't believe that physics has a level of error. Maybe they're all in the room with these 'theists' that believe something that I've never heard any theist ever say in my life, unless you're a theist.

No, it doesn't.
I think I know me better than you do. I'll take my word about me over your word about me any day. Thanks.


Show me a single physicist who claims to make measurements without any error in them and I'll show you someone who didn't pass basic science.
I gave you the reference.

Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, pp.200-201, paperback

That is, as outlined in Chapter 4 and seen repeatedly in the experiments above, the standard formulation of quantum mechanics describes the unfolding of phenomena using two distinct stages. In stage one the probability wave--or, in the more precise language of the field, the wavefunction--of an object such an an electron evolves according to the equation discovered by Schröedinger. This equation ensures that the shape of the wavefunction changes smoothly and gradually, much as a water wave changes shape as it travels from one side of a lake to the other.*

(footnote brought up)
*Quantum mechanics, rightly, has a reputation as being anything but smooth and gradual; rather, as we will see explicitly in later chapters, it reveals a turbulent and jittery microcosmos. The origin of this jitteriness is the probabalistic nature of the wavefunction--even though things can be one wayat one moment, there is a probablity that they will be significantly different the moment later--not an ever-present jittery quality of the wavefunction itself.

In the standard description of the second stage, we make contact with observable reality by measuring the electron's position, and when we do so, the shape of its wavefunction sharply and abruptly changes. The electron's wavefunction is unlike more familiar examples like water waves and sound waves: when we measure the electron's position, its wavefunction spikes or, as illustrated in figure 4.7, it collapses, dropping to the value 0 everywhere the particle is not found and surging to 100 percent probability at the single location where the particle is found by the measurement.

So--what exactly was it you were saying, hmmmm?



The BAAWA school of logic: "If I look at something and I think it is on the sidewalk, but it is actually in the road, then it isn't in the road."
No, that's what's called a "strawman". You should try to not use them; they kill your argument dead.

Got anything that isn't wrong?

So did I miss what everything is? Theists like many people consider the universe to be everything natural, and the supernatural to be beyond the universe, thus the universe isn't everything.
Theists are wrong. Theists beg the question of the supernatural.

I never used a strawman. Tough if you think I did.

Can I have their names and numbers?
Read my post above. I quote Brian Greene directly.

Now then--care to dispute Mr. Greene?

I think I know me better than you do. I'll take my word about me over your word about me any day. Thanks.



I gave you the reference.

Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, pp.200-201, paperback


So--what exactly was it you were saying, hmmmm?




No, that's what's called a "strawman". You should try to not use them; they kill your argument dead.

Got anything that isn't wrong?
Scientists understand that all scientific statements have "all available evidence suggests' as a preface. They don't include it because they know that anyone who understands science, the target audience of these papers, can understand the inherent error in EVERY statement. Nothing is 100% when it is reliant on human understanding. That's why ALL hypotheses must, MUST, be falsifiable. They must written so they can be experimented against and they accept that ALL theories are fallible. But they don't put these in their papers, because they expect you to understand the scientific method BEFORE you read the paper.

Read my post above. I quote Brian Greene directly.

Now then--care to dispute Mr. Greene?

Now can I have their names and numbers? I assume that since they understand science they will agree with the scientific method, but since you disagree and you have this room full of scientists, I'd like to ask them if they think anything in science is infallible.

Scientists understand that all scientific statements have "all available evidence suggests' as a preface.
That's nice. Care to address what Mr. Greene wrote?

Now can I have their names and numbers?
Care to address what Mr. Greene wrote?

That's nice. Care to address what Mr. Greene wrote?

I did. He said that all available evidence suggests that the item is there, this doesn't suggest there is no possibility for error, just that available evidence doesn't show there to be an error. You mix the two. I promise you that Mr. Greene doesn't believe any physics including his is infallible.

I did.
No, you didn't.


He said that all available evidence suggests that the item is there, this doesn't suggest there is no possibility for error, just that available evidence doesn't show there to be an error.
He said that the waveform collapses and that the probability of the electron being where it is observed is 100%.

So address it.

I will not relent until you address it. So you'd best address it or ignore me. One or the other.

Theists are wrong. Theists beg the question of the supernatural.

I never used a strawman. Tough if you think I did.

So theists are wrong about what they believe? Huh. That's interesting. I wonder if I don't know what I believe.

So theists are wrong about what they believe?
They are wrong about the veracity. Nice attempt at a strawman.

Could I trouble you to be honest, just once?

I think I know me better than you do. I'll take my word about me over your word about me any day. Thanks.

You are being intentionally obtuse. I didn't say that you weren't male. I said that simply having a Y chromosome is not enough to make you male, as it is obvious from biology that a human being can have a Y chromosome, and not be male.

I gave you the reference.

Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, pp.200-201, paperback

So--what exactly was it you were saying, hmmmm?

Just from what you have given me, it seems that he is talking about a mathematical equation returning probabilities - not commenting on the accuracy of a measurement. And since that equation is based upon measurements that have error in them to begin with....

Of course, I would have to read more of it to be certain on what he was saying. Taking a few pages out of an entire book is a bit like taking a word out of sentence.

No, that's what's called a "strawman". You should try to not use them; they kill your argument dead.

Not in the least. It is exactly what you said. According to you, if something is not where we observe it to be, it is not where it is. Therefore, if I observe something to be on the sidewalk, but it is actually on the road, then it is not on the road."

Got anything that isn't wrong?

Yeah, everything I've said to you thus far. Got any arguments that aren't, "I ALREADY SAID THAT THEREFORE IT IS TRUE!"?

You are being intentionally obtuse.
No, I'm not. I made it clear that I was talking about me, and you kept trying to say that it was about something other than that. I kept having to drag you back to what I was talking about.



Just from what you have given me, it seems that he is talking about a mathematical equation returning probabilities - not commenting on the accuracy of a measurement.
Really?

it collapses, dropping to the value 0 everywhere the particle is not found and surging to 100 percent probability at the single location where the particle is found by the measurement.

So even though he specifically states something regarding the measurement, he's not talking about the measurement? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Of course, I would have to read more of it to be certain on what he was saying. Taking a few pages out of an entire book is a bit like taking a word out of sentence.
*sniff sniff*

Smells like sour grapes to me.


Not in the least. It is exactly what you said.
No, it is not.


According to you, if something is not where we observe it to be, it is not where it is.
Right. Therefore, you would have a contradiction.


Therefore, if I observe something to be on the sidewalk, but it is actually on the road, then it is not on the road.
But you can't observe something on the sidewalk that is actually on the road (at least, not without some hologram, and we're leaving that aside for the moment). So I accurately described the law of noncontradiction, and you strawmanned it! Brilliant! What will you do for an encore--say that I deny the law of identity?



Yeah, everything I've said to you thus far.
Che'yeah--got anything that isn't "I said it, therefore it's true"?

No, you didn't.



He said that the waveform collapses and that the probability of the electron being where it is observed is 100%.

So address it.

I will not relent until you address it. So you'd best address it or ignore me. One or the other.

Once again we witness the online version of sticking our fingers in our ears and going LALALALA. I can't say it louder than I have. As Dem said he is addressing observations mathematically but accepts that a small amount of error is an UNAVOIDABLE part of science as we are limited by our faculties. Nothing you quoted suggests otherwise and given that he is a scientist, that he adheres to and concedes to the veracity of the scientific method is a foregone conclusion unless evidence surfaces otherwise.

Now ask me again in a couple of posts to address it again.

But you can't observe something on the sidewalk that is actually on the road (at least, not without some hologram, and we're leaving that aside for the moment). So I accurately described the law of noncontradiction, and you strawmanned it! Brilliant! What will you do for an encore--say that I deny the law of identity?

HA! Are you seriously suggesting that human being are so infallible that nothing we have observed and recorded to be one way with a large degree of certainty, e.g. something on the sidewalk, has NEVER turned out to be another way, e.g. in the road? Because she's specifically saying that we are fallible and that there are instances in our history that evidence the fallibility of our limited observations and you're suggesting she's wrong. The problem would be that all evidence agrees with her, my friend.

No, I'm not. I made it clear that I was talking about me,

And, talking about you, you said, "My proof that I am male is that I have a Y chromosome." I have shown that this is not ample evidence to determine whether or not you are male, as there are women with Y chromosomes. Thus, if you were trying to convince someone that you were absolutely, beyond any shadow of a doubt, male, you would have to provide more than that.

Really?

Yes, read what is said. He says that you make a measurement of where the electron is, and the waveform (ie. the mathematical equation) changes in such a way that the point that you have measured has a probability of 1, while the rest has a probability of 0.

Now, when we take into account that the mathematical equation itself was formed from measurements (all of which carry error) and that the measurement on which the change in waveform is based also carries error (simply by the nature of measuring anything), not to mention the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that, simply by observing it, we change the state of the electron..... there's an awful lot of room for error there.

My guess would be that you are taking a very tiny portion of a much larger explanation and trying to extrapolate it. In fact, it sounds a lot like people who read in a book that evolutionary theory states that human beings descended from a common ancestor with monkeys and then start yelling, "This book says we was descended from monkeys!"

So even though he specifically states something regarding the measurement, he's not talking about the measurement?

It is abundantly clear that when he speaks about probability, he is referring to the waveform itself, not to the measurement.

No, it is not.

Here you say it isn't.

Right. Therefore, you would have a contradiction.

Here you agree it is. Hmmmmm.....

But you can't observe something on the sidewalk that is actually on the road (at least, not without some hologram, and we're leaving that aside for the moment).

You don't need a hologram. You simply need to be standing far enough away that it looks like it is on the sidewalk to you. You are observing it on the sidewalk, even though it isn't there, because your measurement has error. If you are far enough away, something can look as though it is on the sidewalk, even though it is actually on the road.

So I accurately described the law of noncontradiction, and you strawmanned it! Brilliant!

Hardly. Your entire argument is based on the idiotic premise that our observations have no error in them.

So now that you've admitted that you were full of it when you claimed that God is logically contradictory because no theists actually believe the assumptions you used, would you like to actually show how God is logically contradictory using more general beliefs about Him? You know ones that might actual get some votes on a poll? I suppose you noticed that no one includes God when they are talking about the creation of the universe (or more accurately no one so far has voted that way).

http://www.venganza.org/

Well, to be fair, the KJV says 'evening and morning' rather than 'day and night' [make you wonder what God gets up to at night, doesn't it?]. Further, in context it is pretty fair to assume it's talking about periods of time in relation to light rather than whether God is switched on or off. Whether these periods were twelve hours long, on the other hand, is not clear.

Geneis 1:4-5 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I just have to point out, though... since the sun and moon, and all the tiny blinky stars, weren't glued onto the heavens for a couple of days at the start... there is good reason to suspect that the 'light' during the earlist parts of Genesis, is some kind of spirit emanation, or 'effect' of God, or the creation process.

I personally think that far too many people here are overly sensitive, and would last about 5 seconds in Usenet before running away in tears.

Which is fine. If we were debating on Usenet.

But, we aren't.

And OUR Mods, don't stand for that kind of behaviour.

More power to 'em, I reckon.

I'd much rather have a civilised debate, than spend half my time throwing and dodging flames.

The Hebrew reads with "yom", which is a 24-hour period/day. I think it's quite clear from that.

On the contrary, my friend, the word 'yom' (or 'yowm' as I had it transliterated earlier)... CAN mean 'day', as in a literal day.

However, it can ALSO mean:

"time"
"year"
"daytime" (as opposed to night-time)
"a working day"
"one day's journey"
"days" (as in, all the 'days' of my life)
"lifetime"
"period of time"
"(a) general period"
"yesterday"
"today"
"tomorrow"

And, within the context of scripture, it is translated as:

"day".... a total of 2008 times,
"time".... a total of 64 times,
"chronicles".... a total of 37 times
"daily".... a total of 44 times
"ever".... a total of 18 times
"year".... a total of 14 times
"continually".... a total of 10 times
"when".... a total of 10 times
"as".... a total of 10 times
"while".... a total of 8 times
"full".... a total of 4 times
"whole".... a total of 4 times
"always".... a total of 4 times

And 44 other 'miscellaneous' translations.


It isn't as clear cut as you might wish, my friend.

Rules have different interpretations. And it seems that some people have an interpretation that if you call an idea or a person "stupid", that's just flaming and deserving of banning. I call that being overly sensitive. There's no such thing as the right to not have hurt feelings, no matter what someone interprets the "rules" as being.

Actually, there IS such a thing as 'the right to not have hurt feelings'.... oh, maybe not in the whole wide ugly world, but, while we are playing in the sovereign territory owned by Jolt, (and in Max's playground), we are bound by the rules THEY care to name.

Brenchley was in breach of the rules. Thus, he deserved to get banned.

I could care less that he flamed me, it's not likely to send me to my mommy's skirts. But, I agreed to a set of rules when I 'entered', and so did he. (She?)

A Winner is you.


"Kingdom of Loathing" player?

Quantum physicists say that, actually. When we measure an electron, we know where it is, as opposed to it being, say, somewhere around Betelgeuse.


Are you sure Brenchley is not your puppet?

Sorry, my friend, but you REALLY would have had to work hard to pick a worse example.

You do, of course, know that there is no such thing as an electron... in purely material, concrete form, yes?

You realise that, what we 'call' an electron, is REALLY nothing more than a probability? A 'concentration' of charge?

About as near as we can measure, we can measure which ORBIT an electron is in. Maybe we can determine 'spin'. Perhaps we can calculate a quantum leap, if the atom is energised.

Try looking at the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for an explanation of why we CAN NOT know all there is to know, about even ONE sub-atomic particle.

Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos, pp.200-201, paperback

"Quantum mechanics, rightly, has a reputation as being anything but smooth and gradual; rather, as we will see explicitly in later chapters, it reveals a turbulent and jittery microcosmos. The origin of this jitteriness is the probabalistic nature of the wavefunction--even though things can be one wayat one moment, there is a probablity that they will be significantly different the moment later--not an ever-present jittery quality of the wavefunction itself.

In the standard description of the second stage, we make contact with observable reality by measuring the electron's position, and when we do so, the shape of its wavefunction sharply and abruptly changes. The electron's wavefunction is unlike more familiar examples like water waves and sound waves: when we measure the electron's position, its wavefunction spikes or, as illustrated in figure 4.7, it collapses, dropping to the value 0 everywhere the particle is not found and surging to 100 percent probability at the single location where the particle is found by the measurement.

So--what exactly was it you were saying, hmmmm?


I'm invoking the Montoya Principle on you, my friend.

"I do not think that means what you think it means"...

First: Mr Greene is addressing probability. He says the 'probability' drops to zero elsewhere, and surges to 100% at the measure site.

He didn't say the MEASUREMENT was 100% accurate, in fact... he didn't discuss the accuracy of the measurement, at all.

Let me show you an example: I am 100% probable at my current location. In my house. At my keyboard. How far from the keyboard am I?

The probability and the measurement are SEPARATE factors of the same experiment.


Second: He discussed the probabilty of a measured thing. The probabilty of an ALREADY HAPPENED THING will ALWAYS be 100%.


Third: As I've addressed previously, Mr Greene's explanation is an oversimplification. In fact, there IS no 'electron'. All Mr Greene is 'measuring' is an energy density.


Fourth: Consonant with my Third point: Energy densities may behave LIKE physical objects, but that doesn't mean they are. Remember this when you are reading a description like Mr Greene's... it will help you allow for the simple fact that simple observation MIGHT be enough of an external stimulus to force a result from a quantum system.

We have no real reason to assume that quantum reactions occur, or can be measured, in any similar fashion to macro-reactions.

Once again we witness the online version of sticking our fingers in our ears and going LALALALA.
Once again, you've lied.

Address what he wrote, and not what you think he wrote.

HA! Are you seriously suggesting that human being are so infallible that nothing we have observed and recorded to be one way with a large degree of certainty, e.g. something on the sidewalk, has NEVER turned out to be another way, e.g. in the road?
Do you ever get tired of creating strawmen?

And, talking about you,
No, you're not. You're talking about all men.


you said, "My proof that I am male is that I have a Y chromosome." I have shown that this is not ample evidence to determine whether or not you are male,
No, you have not.


Yes, read what is said. He says that you make a measurement of where the electron is, and the waveform (ie. the mathematical equation) changes in such a way that the point that you have measured has a probability of 1, while the rest has a probability of 0.
So you admit that the electron is where it is, and is not where it is not. Thank you for agreeing with me!

[snip the rest, since you agree with me

So now that you've admitted that you were full of it when you claimed that God is logically contradictory
Liar.

Keep lying about me; that will impress me.

Which is fine. If we were debating on Usenet.

But, we aren't.

And OUR Mods, don't stand for that kind of behaviour.
Then they're overly sensitive.

On the contrary, my friend, the word 'yom' (or 'yowm' as I had it transliterated earlier)... CAN mean 'day', as in a literal day.
According to every single jew I've ever talked to, it can only mean a literal day. And I've talked to a number of them.

Actually, there IS such a thing as 'the right to not have hurt feelings'
Actually, there isn't.


.... oh, maybe not in the whole wide ugly world, but, while we are playing in the sovereign territory owned by Jolt, (and in Max's playground), we are bound by the rules THEY care to name.
That doesn't make it a right.

Now what would happen if someone wanted an opinion on a piece of art the person created, was told it was ugly, and got hurt feelings? Would then the person have recourse to go to the moderator and say "my feelings were hurt"? No.

Ergo, there's not even a "right" to not have hurt feelings on this board. Deal with it.

Are you sure Brenchley is not your puppet?

Sorry, my friend, but you REALLY would have had to work hard to pick a worse example.
Sorry, but it was a great example.


You do, of course, know that there is no such thing as an electron... in purely material, concrete form, yes?
And?


You realise that, what we 'call' an electron, is REALLY nothing more than a probability? A 'concentration' of charge?
And?


About as near as we can measure, we can measure which ORBIT an electron is in. Maybe we can determine 'spin'. Perhaps we can calculate a quantum leap, if the atom is energised.
And?


Try looking at the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for an explanation of why we CAN NOT know all there is to know, about even ONE sub-atomic particle.
And?

Did you have a point, or did you just want to dispute Brian Greene (http://columbia-physics.net/faculty/greene_main.htm)

I'm invoking the Montoya Principle on you, my friend.

"I do not think that means what you think it means"...
Oh, but it does mean what I think it means.


First: Mr Greene is addressing probability. He says the 'probability' drops to zero elsewhere, and surges to 100% at the measure site.

He didn't say the MEASUREMENT was 100% accurate, in fact... he didn't discuss the accuracy of the measurement, at all.
So he didn't say that the probability of it being found where it is measured is 100%?

I'd say that discusses the accuracy of the measurement, i.e. that where it is measured is where it is?

Now then, did you have anything else you wished to be shown wrong about?

No, you're not. You're talking about all men.

I am talking about whether or not having a Y chromosome is enough to label someone male. Obviously, since there are women with Y chromosomes, it is not.

No, you have not.

Really? So if a female can have a Y chromosome, that doesn't mean that simply having a Y chromosome is not enough evidence to demonstrate that someone is male?

It would be like you claiming that the fact that I have blue eyes is enough to label me German. Then, I would demonstrate that there are people of nationalities other than German that have blue eyes. Thus, simply having blue eyes is not enough evidence to prove that someone is German. There are women with Y chromosomes. Thus, simply having a Y chromosome is not enough evidence to prove that someone is male. Understand now?

So you admit that the electron is where it is, and is not where it is not. Thank you for agreeing with me!

I have never said anything different. But that doesn't, of course, mean that it is where we think it is - where we observe it as being, just as a man that looks to be standing on the sidewalk might actually be on the road, just as a microscope has a specified distance at which two points can no longer be distinguished from each other, just as length measurements are accurately reported as X cm +/- Y cm.

[snip the rest, since you agree with me

It's really cute that you are so afraid of addressing my points that you have to do this.

So he didn't say that the probability of it being found where it is measured is 100%?

I'd say that discusses the accuracy of the measurement, i.e. that where it is measured is where it is?

The premise 'the measurement is 100% accurate' is not posited.
'100% probability' is being premised as a characteristic of the partical, not as a characteristic of the measurement of the measurement's accuracy.

Hello everbody.

So it is OK for them to discriminate not because of academic standards, but because they disagree with the viewpoint of the publisher?

And the next step if ID is allowed is what, religious tolerance? And that is really really bad? To be more tolerant?

:rolleyes:

Um...don't think so. Wait, that was a rhetorical question, wasn't it?

Bambambambambam
<3
Religious tolerance!

:fluffle:

Ok, BAAWA, at first you were actually attempting to have a discussion, but you have resorted to "Liar", "No, I didn't", "No, you didn't", "No, he didn't", "Nuh-uh", "I can't hear you", etc. When you'd like to actually address people's points instead of just saying LALALALA come back and we'll chat. Four people from four different angles have explained to you how Greene didn't mean what you think, and you've not replied to any of them. Your argument against a proper translation of a word by a studied linguist is "but a bunch of Jews I know said otherwise".

Let's look at the quality of your arguments -

No, I do not.

I have, actually.

I haven't.

Nope.

Yes, it does.

It does in my case.

Yes, I have.

No, it isn't.

No, I did not.

Most of them.

Still stupid that way. Why don't you try again.

Except I didn't say that. Nice lie.

So--got anything valid? Or did you just want to lie about me?

Got anything that isn't wrong?

That's nice. Care to address what Mr. Greene wrote?

Care to address what Mr. Greene wrote?

No, you didn't.

Could I trouble you to be honest, just once?

No, it is not.

Che'yeah--got anything that isn't "I said it, therefore it's true"?

Once again, you've lied.
Address what he wrote, and not what you think he wrote.

Do you ever get tired of creating strawmen?

No, you're not. You're talking about all men.

No, you have not.

Liar.
Keep lying about me; that will impress me.

Actually, there isn't.

And?

And?

And?

And?

Did you have a point, or did you just want to dispute Brian Greene

ETC.

Now let's address my 'lying' -

Now according to BAAWA he never said that most theists believe God created himself and therefore the poll I created was based on lie.

Here are the choices of the poll
God created the universe including Himself.
God created the universe excluding Himself.
Other - includes no creator.

As you can see I used practically the same wording I used when he said most of them (see quote below). And if you look at the poll, most of them seems to have been incorrect. So not only are you not addressing what you've actually said, BAAWA, but what you said has been shown to not hold up to the light of reality.

And just in case anyone is confused here is what he said -

He said most people believe that God created Himself with the universe,

I never said that, liar.

Thus, your poll is a joke based on a strawman.

Create a survey and let's see how many theists are including God when they say He created the universe (assuming they are of the theists that define God as the creator of the universe).
Most of them.

Whoops, sucks that people can actually quote you. In the future, you would do well to remember that everyone here can read everything you've posted. It's hard to call someone a liar when they quote you saying what you claim they are lying about.

But you can't observe something on the sidewalk that is actually on the road (at least, not without some hologram, and we're leaving that aside for the moment). So I accurately described the law of noncontradiction, and you strawmanned it! Brilliant! What will you do for an encore--say that I deny the law of identity

Mirages. You can observe something that is MILES AWAY from where it actually exists because of atmospheric disturbances.

Then they're overly sensitive.

Quit wasting time... or trying to boost your post-count, or whatever you think you are doing....

The Mods aren't 'overly sensitive'... they are applying 'the law'.

Or would you say that the police would be 'over sensitive' if they arrested a thug for throwing bricks at little old ladies? It's the granny's fault, right? For being 'too sensitive'.

I mean.. if we were in Usenet-land, we throw bricks at each other all the time...

etc.

According to every single jew I've ever talked to, it can only mean a literal day. And I've talked to a number of them.

You are either lying, mistaken, or have talked to some 'weird' Jews.

I am from a Jewish family, and have never encountered the idea that a Hebrew word can 'only mean ONE thing'.

I'm also something of a student of Hebrew, among other languages, and have never encountered the idea that a Hebrew word can 'only mean ONE thing'.

Hell - even in English, our words often have bundles of meanings.

"Bundles", for example...

Cite your evidence, my friend. I can support my claims... let's see you support yours.

Actually, there isn't.



That doesn't make it a right.

Now what would happen if someone wanted an opinion on a piece of art the person created, was told it was ugly, and got hurt feelings? Would then the person have recourse to go to the moderator and say "my feelings were hurt"? No.

Ergo, there's not even a "right" to not have hurt feelings on this board. Deal with it.

I'm done wasting time on this. Boost your count somewhere else.

The rules are the rules. "Jolt" has a code of conduct. You signed into it, just as I did.

Now quit whining when it is applied.

Sorry, but it was a great example.

And?

And?

And?

And?

Did you have a point, or did you just want to dispute Brian Greene (http://columbia-physics.net/faculty/greene_main.htm)

You are wasting my time.

If you aren't going to address any of the points, feel free to not post.

Oh, but it does mean what I think it means.



So he didn't say that the probability of it being found where it is measured is 100%?

I'd say that discusses the accuracy of the measurement, i.e. that where it is measured is where it is?

Now then, did you have anything else you wished to be shown wrong about?

Go back and read my post... if you wish, I can explain it to you, step by step.

You have done nothing to 'show (me) wrong'... as far as I can tell, you just didn't understand Mr Greene, didn't understand my post, and don't understand the basic difference between a probability and a measurement.

Just one more attempt to explain that critical difference.

I am an archery student. I fire an arrow at my target.

Evidence SHOWS that my arrow lands somewhere... and that THAT 'somewhere' has 100% probability of being the 'target'.

Which colour ring did I hit?

Ok, BAAWA, at first you were actually attempting to have a discussion, but you have resorted to "Liar", "No, I didn't", "No, you didn't", "No, he didn't", "Nuh-uh", "I can't hear you", etc. When you'd like to actually address people's points instead of just saying LALALALA come back and we'll chat. Four people from four different angles have explained to you how Greene didn't mean what you think, and you've not replied to any of them. Your argument against a proper translation of a word by a studied linguist is "but a bunch of Jews I know said otherwise".

Let's look at the quality of your arguments -
...
ETC.

BAAWA got 'pwned' by Jocabia.... :D

Did you have a point, or did you just want to dispute Brian Greene (http://columbia-physics.net/faculty/greene_main.htm)

If you can produce Mr Greene, we will ask him if he really meant what you are implying, given that he would know better than anyone. If, as I suspect, you can't, stop appealing to his authority and make your own case. You are not Brian Greene, and your argument will not get any better because you attempt to attach his name to your interpretation of what he said.

BAAWA got 'pwned' by Jocabia.... :D
Wow, no joke. That was painful to watch.

If you can produce Mr Greene, we will ask him if he really meant what you are implying, given that he would know better than anyone. If, as I suspect, you can't, stop appealing to his authority and make your own case. You are not Brian Greene, and your argument will not get any better because you attempt to attach his name to your interpretation of what he said.

Why doesn't someone simply ask him? His Email is right there:

greene -at- math.columbia.edu and greene -at- physics.columbia.edu

Wow, no joke. That was painful to watch.

It was poetry in motion. :)

(or, maybe... 'pwtry' in motion?)

Why doesn't someone simply ask him? His Email is right there:

greene -at- math.columbia.edu and greene -at- physics.columbia.edu

The 'someone' would be this BAAWA person, would it not?

I mean... I'm not wasting my time with it... and it is BAAWA who NEEDS Monsieur Greene to support his argument.

Not that I necessarily believe Mr Greene WOULD support that argument...

According to every single jew I've ever talked to, it can only mean a literal day. And I've talked to a number of them.
This mythical anecdotal 'evidence' is the best you have against someone that has proved his knowledge and study in biblical translation

LOL thats a good one

On the contrary, my friend, the word 'yom' (or 'yowm' as I had it transliterated earlier)... CAN mean 'day', as in a literal day.

However, it can ALSO mean:

"time"
"year"
"daytime" (as opposed to night-time)
"a working day"
"one day's journey"
"days" (as in, all the 'days' of my life)
"lifetime"
"period of time"
"(a) general period"
"yesterday"
"today"
"tomorrow"

And, within the context of scripture, it is translated as:

"day".... a total of 2008 times,
"time".... a total of 64 times,
"chronicles".... a total of 37 times
"daily".... a total of 44 times
"ever".... a total of 18 times
"year".... a total of 14 times
"continually".... a total of 10 times
"when".... a total of 10 times
"as".... a total of 10 times
"while".... a total of 8 times
"full".... a total of 4 times
"whole".... a total of 4 times
"always".... a total of 4 times

And 44 other 'miscellaneous' translations.


It isn't as clear cut as you might wish, my friend.


Just bringing this back up for parusal by others (hint my last quoted poster)
Great job Grave_n_idle

It was poetry in motion. :)

(or, maybe... 'pwtry' in motion?)

Let's not make it bigger than it is. The guy wrote soooooo many non-answers that I actually had to just stop quoting him. There were just too many. It was exactly difficult.

Let's not make it bigger than it is. The guy wrote soooooo many non-answers that I actually had to just stop quoting him. There were just too many. It was exactly difficult.

It's like your 'trademark', though... you have the patience and the observation to sift back through posts looking for hypocrisy and contradiction.

Your skills and abilities are much appreciated. :) Don't try to downplay them.

(Note: those same skills are even appreciated when you and I are on opposite sides.)

Just bringing this back up for parusal by others (hint my last quoted poster)
Great job Grave_n_idle

Thank you, my friend. :)

Nice to know you're appreciated. :)

It's like your 'trademark', though... you have the patience and the observation to sift back through posts looking for hypocrisy and contradiction.

Your skills and abilities are much appreciated. :) Don't try to downplay them.

(Note: those same skills are even appreciated when you and I are on opposite sides.)
I wholeheartedly agree. And it's quite good at making obnoxious pipsqueaks run for cover, so don't be shy Jocabia.