Christian BS

[awesome31312]

What do you mean human DNA is an 'extraordinary claim'? You don't think it exists?

No, it's just, people say things that are too complex too exist simply can't, but that's really faulty, and I was trying to prove that by mentioning DNA.

[cryptodevil]

Oh I see, yes well you can see how the brainwashed theist will ignore rational examples that show their thinking to be grossly flawed, so I don't think we're going to be able to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Look at how dishonest their responses are. When presented with the fact that science, whether correct or incorrect, is based in reasoned reality, while theism invokes magical thinking about paranormal super-deities, they ignore the point being made and simply throw questions at you that require their own discussion topic to expand upon in the hope that they can invoke their god-of-the-gaps somewhere along the way.

Because that makes sense, you know, "Not sure about that yet, therefore, God"

It is infantile.

[BADecker]

Oh I see, yes well you can see how the brainwashed theist will ignore rational examples that show their thinking to be grossly flawed, so I don't think we're going to be able to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Look at how dishonest their responses are. When presented with the fact that science, whether correct or incorrect, is based in reasoned reality, while theism invokes magical thinking about paranormal super-deities, they ignore the point being made and simply throw questions at you that require their own discussion topic to expand upon in the hope that they can invoke their god-of-the-gaps somewhere along the way.

Because that makes sense, you know, "Not sure about that yet, therefore, God"

It is infantile.

God-of-the-gaps? No gaps. http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm

Evolution science, at its core, doesn't have the answers. Evolution science, at its base, always goes back to "if"s, "maybe"s, and suppositions. If science ever became sufficiently knowledgeable that they virtually proved God to exist, would the men of science ever admit it? The honest ones might and are.

Youtube search on "cellular life" and watch the videos. There isn't anyone who has evidence that this stuff came about by evolution. But the simple operation of it all highly suggests God. Machines have makers.

If suggestions are infantile, then false assertions are downright criminal.

[Rassah]

No mind --> no Universe.  Empiricists tend to struggle with this concept, and this is evidenced by their tendency to describe the Universe as if all observers could be removed from it.  Yet, they fail to realize that a Universe without observers can't be a Universe at all, for there is no metric by which the Universe can be stated to exist.

"But...but...there would still be something!"   Actually, no, you don't have the authority to say anything about such a Universe at all.

So, does the universe exist as an imperial system of feet and pounds? Or metric system of meters and kilograms?

For this empiricist, there is no struggle. The universe exists whether there are observers or not. Observers just use their own arbitrary metrics to observe and measure it with, but the fact that there are so many different metrics proves that they are nothing but observer created arbitrary units, not something that the universe depends on for existence.

If science ever became sufficiently knowledgeable that they virtually proved God to exist, would the men of science ever admit it?

Again, that's NOT how science and scientific discovery works. THEISTS start out with an idea (god dun did it), and look for proof. Scientists start out with observable facts, and try to find an explanation, whatever it may be. That explanation isn't "God did it! Now let's find evidence to prove it, and ignore all evidence to the contrary!" No, it's, "We have no idea what did it! But based on these real life observable facts, this is our best guess, which we can test and repeat over and over."

So, next time you ever think of someone looking to prove some idea, just remember, that's not science. And if you want to give us scientific proof of god, give us a scientific test to perform and repeat, with similar results every time, which shows that god exists (I bet you can't even come up with such a test!). Not point at something you can't explain, and claim that it's SO much above YOUR level of understanding, that god is the only answer. (I'm sure to anyone living in Jesus's times, entire cities built on a grain of sand, which we use as computer processors, would have been proof of god, too).

[the joint]

No mind --> no Universe.  Empiricists tend to struggle with this concept, and this is evidenced by their tendency to describe the Universe as if all observers could be removed from it.  Yet, they fail to realize that a Universe without observers can't be a Universe at all, for there is no metric by which the Universe can be stated to exist.

"But...but...there would still be something!"   Actually, no, you don't have the authority to say anything about such a Universe at all.

So, does the universe exist as an imperial system of feet and pounds? Or metric system of meters and kilograms?

For this empiricist, there is no struggle. The universe exists whether there are observers or not. Observers just use their own arbitrary metrics to observe and measure it with, but the fact that there are so many different metrics proves that they are nothing but observer created arbitrary units, not something that the universe depends on for existence.

If you employ a metric that can be divided infinitely, then space is continuous.  If you employ a metric that cannot be divided infinitely, then space is discontinuous.  If no metric is employed, then spacetime doesn't even exist.  

Nothing can be defined without a metric.  But, metrics by definition are abstract, and are therefore conceived from mentality/mind.  No mind --> No metric --> No definable Universe.

You can say that it's no struggle for you all you want, but it doesn't have any bearing on whether you're correct, and in fact you're provably incorrect.  You can in no way soundly conclude that a Universe exists without observers.  If I ask you whether this Universe exists, you have a choice to answer either yes or no.  If you can't answer, then you don't know whether the Universe exists or not.  In a Universe without observers, such a question becomes entirely irrelevant.  A universe without observers renders any question or statement about such a universe irrelevant because there is no entity capable of answering the question (i.e. no observer to confirm the state of the Universe).

Information is completely unintelligible without an information processor (e.g. us) to make sense of that information.  In a Universe with no observers there are no information processors.   Accordingly, such a Universe would have no way of employing a metric from which it could be defined, and there would be absolutely no intelligible information anywhere.  Consequently, due to this complete lack of intelligible information, there are no grounds upon which to make intelligible statements about such a Universe.

[Rassah]

You probably have some specific definition on observe I'm not aware of. How do you explain universe actions that are happening while we are not observing them?

[the joint]

You probably have some specific definition on observe I'm not aware of. How do you explain universe actions that are happening while we are not observing them?

Let's just simplify things and equate 'observer' with 'information processor.'  An information processor 1) observes information and 2) interprets it in a meaningful way.  To soundly assert the Universe exists means that we must observe that Universe and interpret its existence.  

Without observers/information processors, there is nothing to interpret information in a meaningful way.  Accordingly, there is no basis upon which to assert the existence of the Universe, for to do so would require that information has been processed in an intelligible way that allows one to assert its existence.

You can hypothetically discuss "Universe actions" without observing them, but that's all it is -- a hypothetical scenario.  Does a falling tree make a sound if there are no observers of the event?  Answer: Irrelevant question.

I'm sure that you, as an empiricist, would agree that it's unfounded to make an assertion about an empirical state of the Universe without any empirical evidence of it, right?  I'd also like to point out that you have never evidenced a Universe independent of observation, and conversely 100% of the evidence you have for an existing Universe was discovered by way of observation.

[bl4kjaguar]

I'm sure that you, as an empiricist, would agree that it's unfounded to make an assertion about an empirical state of the Universe without any empirical evidence of it, right?  I'd also like to point out that you have never evidenced a Universe independent of observation, and conversely 100% of the evidence you have for an existing Universe was discovered by way of observation.

Yes, I am sure we can all agree on the absurdities of dogma.

[BADecker]

I'm sure that you, as an empiricist, would agree that it's unfounded to make an assertion about an empirical state of the Universe without any empirical evidence of it, right?  I'd also like to point out that you have never evidenced a Universe independent of observation, and conversely 100% of the evidence you have for an existing Universe was discovered by way of observation.

Yes, I am sure we can all agree on the absurdities of dogma.

Good thing we have dogma. If we didn't, we wouldn't have scientific protocol, and we wouldn't have near the fun exchanging opinions in a forum like this, with people from around the world, 'cause we wouldn't have invented computers. We'd still be living like cavemen. Love that dogma.

[the joint]

I'm sure that you, as an empiricist, would agree that it's unfounded to make an assertion about an empirical state of the Universe without any empirical evidence of it, right?  I'd also like to point out that you have never evidenced a Universe independent of observation, and conversely 100% of the evidence you have for an existing Universe was discovered by way of observation.

Yes, I am sure we can all agree on the absurdities of dogma.

I'm honestly not sure what point you were trying to make here.  Could you elaborate upon the relationship between "absurdities of dogma" and what I said?

[bl4kjaguar]

I'm sure that you, as an empiricist, would agree that it's unfounded to make an assertion about an empirical state of the Universe without any empirical evidence of it, right?  I'd also like to point out that you have never evidenced a Universe independent of observation, and conversely 100% of the evidence you have for an existing Universe was discovered by way of observation.

Yes, I am sure we can all agree on the absurdities of dogma.

I'm honestly not sure what point you were trying to make here.  Could you elaborate upon the relationship between "absurdities of dogma" and what I said?

It is a dogma to claim that the universe is independent of observation. Einstein thought as much, but when Tagore denied his dogma, Einstein said "then I am more religious than you!". Reference the link on my profile for this discussion.
I will post the link here as well:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/einstein_tagore.htm

[the joint]

I'm sure that you, as an empiricist, would agree that it's unfounded to make an assertion about an empirical state of the Universe without any empirical evidence of it, right?  I'd also like to point out that you have never evidenced a Universe independent of observation, and conversely 100% of the evidence you have for an existing Universe was discovered by way of observation.

Yes, I am sure we can all agree on the absurdities of dogma.

I'm honestly not sure what point you were trying to make here.  Could you elaborate upon the relationship between "absurdities of dogma" and what I said?

It is a dogma to claim that the universe is independent of observation. Einstein thought as much, but when Tagore denied his dogma, Einstein said "then I am more religious than you!". Reference the link on my profile for this discussion.
I will post the link here as well:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/einstein_tagore.htm

The 'dogma' you're talking about is called Positivism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

It's an idea that aligns with Cartesian dualism.  It asserts there is an absolute separation between mental and physical reality, and so thus it allows one to conjecture about hypothetical states of the Universe (e.g. what the Universe might be like in the total absence of observation).

The problem is that it's wrong.  Positivism has been known to be a logical impossibility for thousands of years.  It persists, however, because it happens to work quite beautifully when explaining isolated phenomena in relation to other isolated phenomena.  Accordingly, the scientific method is founded upon the assumption of a Positivistic Universe.  We just need to remember to disregard it before diving into metaphysics. 

[BADecker]

The problem is that it's wrong.  Positivism has been known to be a logical impossibility for thousands of years.  It persists, however, because it happens to work quite beautifully when explaining isolated phenomena in relation to other isolated phenomena.  Accordingly, the scientific method is founded upon the assumption of a Positivistic Universe.  We just need to remember to disregard it before diving into metaphysics. 

Wow! I couldn't have said the reason for the idea of Evolution being wrong any better than this. Especially, "It persists, however, because it happens to work quite beautifully when explaining isolated phenomena in relation to other isolated phenomena."

Thanks.

[the joint]

The problem is that it's wrong.  Positivism has been known to be a logical impossibility for thousands of years.  It persists, however, because it happens to work quite beautifully when explaining isolated phenomena in relation to other isolated phenomena.  Accordingly, the scientific method is founded upon the assumption of a Positivistic Universe.  We just need to remember to disregard it before diving into metaphysics. 

Wow! I couldn't have said the reason for the idea of Evolution being wrong any better than this. Especially, "It persists, however, because it happens to work quite beautifully when explaining isolated phenomena in relation to other isolated phenomena."

Thanks.

Here's what you need to remember, though -- evolution is both regarded and explained in terms of isolated phenomena in the scientific community, and it never tries to extend beyond the scope of isolated phenomena.  This basically that means that in an empirical context evolution is more-or-less correct.  If we recognize the scope of evolutionary theory, we can utilize its benefits (and there are many) at the same time that we can also understand there must exist broader, more comprehensive explanations. 

[bl4kjaguar]

This appears to be an appropriate place to mention this article from NEXUS magazine:

Evidence for Creation by Outside Intervention

Like domesticated plants and animals, humans stand well outside the classic Darwinian paradigm. Darwin himself made the observation that humans were surprisingly like domesticated animals.

[BADecker]

The problem is that it's wrong.  Positivism has been known to be a logical impossibility for thousands of years.  It persists, however, because it happens to work quite beautifully when explaining isolated phenomena in relation to other isolated phenomena.  Accordingly, the scientific method is founded upon the assumption of a Positivistic Universe.  We just need to remember to disregard it before diving into metaphysics. 

Wow! I couldn't have said the reason for the idea of Evolution being wrong any better than this. Especially, "It persists, however, because it happens to work quite beautifully when explaining isolated phenomena in relation to other isolated phenomena."

Thanks.

Here's what you need to remember, though -- evolution is both regarded and explained in terms of isolated phenomena in the scientific community, and it never tries to extend beyond the scope of isolated phenomena.  This basically that means that in an empirical context evolution is more-or-less correct.  If we recognize the scope of evolutionary theory, we can utilize its benefits (and there are many) at the same time that we can also understand there must exist broader, more comprehensive explanations. 

What!?

The scope of all life on earth is an isolated phenomena. It doesn't extend to any of the far stars. What does that have to do with evolution being correct?

Isaac Asimov was a clever science fiction writer. Much of his sci-fi writing could keep the reader almost spellbound, wondering how in the world an outcome like this could have happened... until there was explanation. Much of his sci-fi had science in it... real scientific observations and discoveries. In the isolated phenomena of Isaac Asimov sci-fi, the stories were correct. In the world of reality they are not.

The scope and benefits of evolution ideals has to do with methods to subvert people for political reasons, by those who would control everything. Are there benefits in testing and learning methods for controlling masses of people through deception? Obviously some people think that there are, or evolution would have died long ago as the sci-fi that it is.

The point? Evolution is correct within the isolated phenomena of itself. In the reality of real life in the world, it is not.

[ndnh]

The scope of all life on earth is an isolated phenomena. It doesn't extend to any of the far stars.

We don't really know, do we?

The scope and benefits of evolution ideals has to do with methods to subvert people for political reasons, by those who would control everything. Are there benefits in testing and learning methods for controlling masses of people through deception? Obviously some people think that there are, or evolution would have died long ago as the sci-fi that it is.

You mean religion?

The point? Evolution is correct within the isolated phenomena of itself. In the reality of real life in the world, it is not.

Evolution is observable.

[awesome31312]

Evolution is correct within the isolated phenomena of itself. In the reality of real life in the world, it is not.

This is perhaps the most illogical post of yours, and there was plenty of competition there. Belief in evolution may be optional, but participation is certainly mandatory, and I believe we have all seen why now  

Oh, and I see you're quoting a young Earth creationist site. Might as well come out and say the Earth is flat, like church morals.

[BADecker]

Evolution is correct within the isolated phenomena of itself. In the reality of real life in the world, it is not.

This is perhaps the most illogical post of yours, and there was plenty of competition there. Belief in evolution may be optional, but participation is certainly mandatory, and I believe we have all seen why now  

Oh, and I see you're quoting a young Earth creationist site. Might as well come out and say the Earth is flat, like church morals.

Who cares if the site was made by an orangutan? The stuff in it is incomplete. In addition to giving evolution an unfair, biased-in-favor-of-evolution benefit of the doubt, the stuff doesn't even include all the things that destroy every beneficial mutation that might have come along. But there is no evidence for beneficial mutations in nature in the first place.

Talk about competition if you like, but competition doesn't have anything to do with it.

Further, cause and effect is the thing we know. Let me quote you what I wrote at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1575332.msg16079564#msg16079564, and then find the information that really refutes it. You won't be able, because there is only talk against it - no factual science:

Newton's 3rd Law suggests otherwise. Remember, this law is a law. It isn't a theory. Everything that attempts to overcome Newton's 3rd Law is a theory or less... at least so far as we understand.

Newton's 3rd law with regard to free will works something like this.

Imagine that you make a free-will choice. To make this choice, almost countless numbers of electrons move in your brain. There are all kinds of additional chemical and bio-electrical stimuli at work in your brain, as well.

Now, focus on one electron in a firing synapse in you brain... one of the firings that is working with your decision-making process in the free-will choice we are discussing. This electron moves because it was bumped by a different electron = cause and effect. When it moves, it runs into another electron, stalling its own motion somewhat, and causing the other electron to move = cause and effect.

Your whole brain is full of actions and reactions, causes and effects, of all kinds of chemicals, that make synapses fire the way they do, and cause you to make what you think is a free-will choice one way or another. Your "free-will" choice is the effect of this causation process, and NOT free will after all.

All of this cause and effect goes back to what you had for supper last night, the cup of coffee you drank this morning, the sip of water you had at your desk, the perfume that beautiful co-worker of yours is wearing, etc., because the chemicals of all these affect you in some way. And all this in influenced by multitudes of things that affected the food you ate as it was growing, the chemicals in the water, the way the perfume was distilled. And all of this was caused to be the way it was by many other things... all the way back to the Beginning when God set the cause-and-effect process up to act out the earth's future history the way it did.

I agree with you that there is partial free will. But according to scientific laws that we know, there isn't any free will. And the free will that we have is something entirely different than what we think it is. Entirely different.

[awesome31312]

I agree with you that there is partial free will. But according to scientific laws that we know, there isn't any free will. And the free will that we have is something entirely different than what we think it is. Entirely different.

That's a next level discussion opener right there. I would say that, simultaneously, we have both free will, and at the same time, no free will at all (according to physics). I am talking about a psycho-social, spiritual level here. From a materialistic perspective, we are all going to die and there really is nothing deeper than that.