Here is a model:
01234567890
Everyone has a different worldview - how we see the world because we are all different.
Some people think only the physical exists, others think that moroni exists and wear "magic" underwear, as an example. Scientists often consider themselves to be looking for truth. If your viewpoint can't accurately describe the world around us -- wouldn't you want to find one that does?
Define "physical" before you move on.
And scientists are looking for an accurate model.
Theists aren't.
And scientists are looking for an accurate model.
Theists aren't.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 31 2009, 05:56 PM)
Define "physical" before you move on.
And scientists are looking for an accurate model.
Theists aren't.
If you really want me to:
"...
1. Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit. See Synonyms at bodily."
(Reference: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...entry/physical)
You don't like the concepts of intelligence (possibly because Cosmic entity can mean God) and the Natural Man believes the spiritual does not exist. It scares me to face the truth, I pity us both. I don't know what your going through in life. I wish you the best.
And scientists are looking for an accurate model.
Theists aren't.
If you really want me to:
"...
1. Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit. See Synonyms at bodily."
(Reference: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...entry/physical)
You don't like the concepts of intelligence (possibly because Cosmic entity can mean God) and the Natural Man believes the spiritual does not exist. It scares me to face the truth, I pity us both. I don't know what your going through in life. I wish you the best.
QUOTE
scientists are looking for an accurate model
I think the old man, Paul Johnson would disagree with that assessment.
I, however, have not been able to open up this link:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/co...aningless.thtml
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 31 2009, 09:50 PM)
If you really want me to:
"...
1. Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit. See Synonyms at bodily."
(Reference: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...entry/physical)
You don't like the concepts of intelligence (possibly because Cosmic entity can mean God) and the Natural Man believes the spiritual does not exist. It scares me to face the truth, I pity us both. I don't know what your going through in life. I wish you the best.
What I don't like are wishywashy definitions that are made to suit the argument the person is making.
What about light and electricity are they "physical"?
And you keep getting details wrong. It's not that the spiritual does not exist, it's that there is no evidence of it.
And what are you trying to demonstrate with the poll?
So what if there is time?
"...
1. Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit. See Synonyms at bodily."
(Reference: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...entry/physical)
You don't like the concepts of intelligence (possibly because Cosmic entity can mean God) and the Natural Man believes the spiritual does not exist. It scares me to face the truth, I pity us both. I don't know what your going through in life. I wish you the best.
What I don't like are wishywashy definitions that are made to suit the argument the person is making.
What about light and electricity are they "physical"?
And you keep getting details wrong. It's not that the spiritual does not exist, it's that there is no evidence of it.
And what are you trying to demonstrate with the poll?
So what if there is time?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Oct 31 2009, 10:01 PM)
I think the old man, Paul Johnson would disagree with that assessment.
I, however, have not been able to open up this link:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/co...aningless.thtml
I got it open.
What's your point?
That there are people with columns that don't understand science, or what a "theory" is?
Creation is just a story.
I, however, have not been able to open up this link:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/co...aningless.thtml
I got it open.
What's your point?
That there are people with columns that don't understand science, or what a "theory" is?
Creation is just a story.
QUOTE
there are people with columns that don't understand science,
The American Spectator of the same year was able to use American scientists to redirect the otherwise boffin answer.
http://spectator.org/archives/2005/08/05/t...e-that-couldun/
To be stubbornly ignorant, unlike their predecessor Isaac Newton, of the Bible is a working shame and a downfall of a nation if not a great empire.
MrB.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 31 2009, 10:38 PM)
What I don't like are wishywashy definitions that are made to suit the argument the person is making.
What about light and electricity are they "physical"?
And you keep getting details wrong. It's not that the spiritual does not exist, it's that there is no evidence of it.
And what are you trying to demonstrate with the poll?
So what if there is time?
According to the physics booklet Motion Mountain it talks about time not existing (I'm guessing they mean, physically.) For biology the circadian cycle is neat, cause you can hopefully find was to avoid/ cope with jet lag and control one's sleep cycle. I looked at one of the first definitions for physical I googled. How's your biology teaching going - maybe you were kidding? --I liked the "Sun causes evolution" mockery. you had me. Time, truth existing seperately from the physical? Where do cells (or I don't know/forget what) get the specific info to replicate DNA? --they know how to interact. -- You do not want to face the truth.... I can't do anything else... pray
What about light and electricity are they "physical"?
And you keep getting details wrong. It's not that the spiritual does not exist, it's that there is no evidence of it.
And what are you trying to demonstrate with the poll?
So what if there is time?
According to the physics booklet Motion Mountain it talks about time not existing (I'm guessing they mean, physically.) For biology the circadian cycle is neat, cause you can hopefully find was to avoid/ cope with jet lag and control one's sleep cycle. I looked at one of the first definitions for physical I googled. How's your biology teaching going - maybe you were kidding? --I liked the "Sun causes evolution" mockery. you had me. Time, truth existing seperately from the physical? Where do cells (or I don't know/forget what) get the specific info to replicate DNA? --they know how to interact. -- You do not want to face the truth.... I can't do anything else... pray
Where is this thread heading? I haven't voted as the meaning has not been clarified yet.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Oct 31 2009, 11:19 PM)
The American Spectator of the same year was able to use American scientists to redirect the otherwise boffin answer.
http://spectator.org/archives/2005/08/05/t...e-that-couldun/
To be stubbornly ignorant, unlike their predecessor Isaac Newton, of the Bible is a working shame and a downfall of a nation if not a great empire.
MrB.
Who says that scientists are ignorant of that particular work of fiction?
Ringworld is a more interesting work of fiction though.
QUOTE
Ringworld is a more interesting work of fiction though.
Yeah, maybe... I don't read fiction. I read the Bible. 
The most fiction I read is the stuff of liberal idiots on this forum. 
MrB.
I should note that I mention Isaac Newton and his work on prophecy as an act of non-fiction. And for which we share something in common. Relativity wise, I re-put, if I may, the Earth at the centre of the Universe. And there maybe more parts of the Bible that I take more literally than Sir Isaac ever did. It is a shame we don't know more on what he spent most of his career{or certainly his spare time, alchemy included} on. He owned more Bibles than I ever will, probably... which is saying something... although on the translated version count, I suspect not.
Is there any other ontic possibility that could intelligibly be added here?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Nov 2 2009, 11:04 AM)
Yeah, maybe... I don't read fiction. I read the Bible. The most fiction I read is the stuff of liberal idiots on this forum.
MrB.
But how do you know the Bible is does not contain mostly fiction?
The most common method is circular logic.
But other than that how do you know?
The most fiction I read is the stuff of liberal idiots on this forum. MrB.
But how do you know the Bible is does not contain mostly fiction?
The most common method is circular logic.
But other than that how do you know?
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 2 2009, 12:34 PM)
But how do you know the Bible is does not contain mostly fiction?
The most common method is circular logic.
But other than that how do you know?
By holding it up to the evidence. Was Isaac (Isreal) God's chosen people or ishmael? The field is called apologetics (Edit: Proving whether something is true or not is called apologetics. ) If truth is knowable, then it should follow that there would be ample evidence of truth in and around our universe -- such as a physical laws, desire to be loved. What circular logic are you referring to? If we can't know anything - don't we know then that can't know anything?
The most common method is circular logic.
But other than that how do you know?
By holding it up to the evidence. Was Isaac (Isreal) God's chosen people or ishmael? The field is called apologetics (Edit: Proving whether something is true or not is called apologetics. ) If truth is knowable, then it should follow that there would be ample evidence of truth in and around our universe -- such as a physical laws, desire to be loved. What circular logic are you referring to? If we can't know anything - don't we know then that can't know anything?
If truth is knowable, then it should be available to all regardless of (or in spite of) culturally selected divine revelation. In fact, if "god" wrote it into the laws of nature, then divine revelation is pointless.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 2 2009, 11:01 AM)
By holding it up to the evidence. Was Isaac (Isreal) God's chosen people or ishmael? The field is called apologetics. The field is called apologetics. If truth is knowable, then it should follow that there would be ample evidence of truth in and around our universe -- such as a physical laws, desire to be loved. What circular logic are you referring to?
Apologetic sources invariably claim that the bible is factually accurate because it claims to be factually accurate. Also, Apologetics is not a field of science or history, but of theology.
Apologetic sources invariably claim that the bible is factually accurate because it claims to be factually accurate. Also, Apologetics is not a field of science or history, but of theology.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Nov 2 2009, 04:37 PM)
If truth is knowable, then it should be available to all regardless of (or in spite of) culturally selected divine revelation. In fact, if "god" wrote it into the laws of nature, then divine revelation is pointless.
Some have been blinded - or chosen there own way -- for example Natural Atheism isn't true because spirits exist and time (nonphysical). (Also see,Rom. 1:20; Rom #:22, so divine revelation is necessary. We are seperated from knowing (relationship not head knowledge) because of sin (wrongdoing). You can know truth (head knowledge) and not The truth (A person)
Some have been blinded - or chosen there own way -- for example Natural Atheism isn't true because spirits exist and time (nonphysical). (Also see,Rom. 1:20; Rom #:22, so divine revelation is necessary. We are seperated from knowing (relationship not head knowledge) because of sin (wrongdoing). You can know truth (head knowledge) and not The truth (A person)
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 2 2009, 04:58 PM)
Apologetic sources invariably claim that the bible is factually accurate because it claims to be factually accurate. Also, Apologetics is not a field of science or history, but of theology.
Some of us are doing Macro-Evolution apologetics in this forum too - true or not. See? Example: Flat Earth apologetics. I know what you mean.-- Everyone has a worldview (For example atheology -defending naturalism)
Some of us are doing Macro-Evolution apologetics in this forum too - true or not. See? Example: Flat Earth apologetics. I know what you mean.-- Everyone has a worldview (For example atheology -defending naturalism)
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 2 2009, 05:16 PM)
spirits exist
Prove it.
Prove it.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 2 2009, 04:01 PM)
By holding it up to the evidence. Was Isaac (Isreal) God's chosen people or ishmael? The field is called apologetics (Edit: Proving whether something is true or not is called apologetics. ) If truth is knowable, then it should follow that there would be ample evidence of truth in and around our universe -- such as a physical laws, desire to be loved. What circular logic are you referring to? If we can't know anything - don't we know then that can't know anything?
But when we hold it up to evidence, it fails.
The evidence says that the Earth is older than 10,000 years.
And you talk about Isaac and Ishmael. Where do we have evidence outside the Bible and Koran?
But when we hold it up to evidence, it fails.
The evidence says that the Earth is older than 10,000 years.
And you talk about Isaac and Ishmael. Where do we have evidence outside the Bible and Koran?
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 2 2009, 05:56 PM)
But when we hold it up to evidence, it fails.
The evidence says that the Earth is older than 10,000 years.
And you talk about Isaac and Ishmael. Where do we have evidence outside the Bible and Koran?
The evidence says that the Earth is older than 10,000 years.
And you talk about Isaac and Ishmael. Where do we have evidence outside the Bible and Koran?
What it comes down to is belief we both have the same evidence/facts to work with. we've already discussed topics similar to this. Have a good one.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 3 2009, 01:12 AM)
What it comes down to is belief we both have the same evidence/facts to work with. we've already discussed topics similar to this. Have a good one.
Yes we do have the same facts to work with.
But you have randomly chosen an unverified book and ignore geological evidence.
Yes we do have the same facts to work with.
But you have randomly chosen an unverified book and ignore geological evidence.
Here is the good news, Buttershug.
"Richard Nisbett at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and others discovered that just half an hour's training in statistical reasoning can improve a person's ability to use rational thinking in everday situations." The bad news:
"IQ measures the brightness of the searchlight, but where we point it also matters. Some people don't point their searchlights at the other side of the case much, for many reasons-entrenched ideas, avoidance of what might be disturing, simple haste"
I mentioned as much{haste wise}, & as far as geology goes-------> Showtopic= 26819.
MrB.
As far as the bold part I made... we Christians call that the realization of sin & the sinful nature of man.
Quotes from New Scientist, the current issue number is 2732.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Nov 4 2009, 10:32 AM)
Here is the good news, Buttershug.
"Richard Nisbett at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and others discovered that just half an hour's training in statistical reasoning can improve a person's ability to use rational thinking in everday situations." The bad news:
"IQ measures the brightness of the searchlight, but where we point it also matters. Some people don't point their searchlights at the other side of the case much, for many reasons-entrenched ideas, avoidance of what might be disturing, simple haste"
I mentioned as much{haste wise}, & as far as geology goes-------> Showtopic= 26819.
MrB.
As far as the bold part I made... we Christians call that the realization of sin & the sinful nature of man.
Quotes from New Scientist, the current issue number is 2732.
And the Jedi call it the dark side of the Force.
What's your point?
"Richard Nisbett at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and others discovered that just half an hour's training in statistical reasoning can improve a person's ability to use rational thinking in everday situations." The bad news:
"IQ measures the brightness of the searchlight, but where we point it also matters. Some people don't point their searchlights at the other side of the case much, for many reasons-entrenched ideas, avoidance of what might be disturing, simple haste"
I mentioned as much{haste wise}, & as far as geology goes-------> Showtopic= 26819.
MrB.
As far as the bold part I made... we Christians call that the realization of sin & the sinful nature of man.
Quotes from New Scientist, the current issue number is 2732.
And the Jedi call it the dark side of the Force.
What's your point?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 3 2009, 01:12 AM)
What it comes down to is belief we both have the same evidence/facts to work with. we've already discussed topics similar to this. Have a good one.
So - you're not going to provide any evidence that spirits exist?
So - you're not going to provide any evidence that spirits exist?
Non-physical entities do not exist.
You know that Tong. You know, in clear moments, there are no non-physical entities with human characteristics.
But there are interactions of natural forces that work in this complex, chemical, electromagnetic wet mass that we live in.
Try and understand that. Don't give myth power over your life. The mysteries you experience belong to you, not some *** god.
You know that Tong. You know, in clear moments, there are no non-physical entities with human characteristics.
But there are interactions of natural forces that work in this complex, chemical, electromagnetic wet mass that we live in.
Try and understand that. Don't give myth power over your life. The mysteries you experience belong to you, not some *** god.
QUOTE (orestis+Nov 4 2009, 11:24 PM)
Non-physical entities do not exist.
You know that Tong. You know, in clear moments, there are no non-physical entities with human characteristics.
But there are interactions of natural forces that work in this complex, chemical, electromagnetic wet mass that we live in.
Try and understand that. Don't give myth power over your life. The mysteries you experience belong to you, not some *** god.
Beauty, intelligence, reason, math, logic, information.... Dreams...
You know that Tong. You know, in clear moments, there are no non-physical entities with human characteristics.
But there are interactions of natural forces that work in this complex, chemical, electromagnetic wet mass that we live in.
Try and understand that. Don't give myth power over your life. The mysteries you experience belong to you, not some *** god.
Beauty, intelligence, reason, math, logic, information.... Dreams...
logic
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 5 2009, 12:21 AM)
Beauty, intelligence, reason, math, logic, information.... Dreams...
But none of those need any kind of supernatural explanation.
This is why I said to start with an agreed upon definition.
God isn't needed for any of those items.
But none of those need any kind of supernatural explanation.
This is why I said to start with an agreed upon definition.
God isn't needed for any of those items.
I think that this was an excellent thread topic that was wasted as another attempt to elevate science by comparing it to something as incomparable to it as creationism. Plus the debate of theism/atheism and creation/evolution has been done to death on so many other threads. Isn't it time to evolve into something else, like this one for example?
Personally, I see it as practically an entire dimension of empiricism to be able to distinguish between words and ideas that refer directly to physical entities and those that refer to concepts or patterns among multiple entities.
I wouldn't know how to estimate the proportion, but how much science is predicated on generalizing across multiple entities included in the same classification? Since classification is a conceptual projection on an entity, empirical observations of a classification can't be direct. They have to be synthesized from multiple observations and the level of analysis and level of classificatory narrowness exert cognitive influence on research processes and results.
So, I think you need a philosophy of science that studies the effects of conceptual logics on the translation of empirical knowledge into generalizable findings. Without that you're prone to assuming that research findings are naturally objective simply because they have synthesized data from empirical observations. Modeling, methodologies, and synthetic language and concepts move knowledge from the level of the concrete to the abstract, and in doing so obscure the empirical fidelity of even experimental or other observation-based findings.
So time, logic, math, etc. all exist, but as synthetic artificial human creations, and they should be understood as such and controlled for in scientific understandings of natural phenomena, imo.
Personally, I see it as practically an entire dimension of empiricism to be able to distinguish between words and ideas that refer directly to physical entities and those that refer to concepts or patterns among multiple entities.
I wouldn't know how to estimate the proportion, but how much science is predicated on generalizing across multiple entities included in the same classification? Since classification is a conceptual projection on an entity, empirical observations of a classification can't be direct. They have to be synthesized from multiple observations and the level of analysis and level of classificatory narrowness exert cognitive influence on research processes and results.
So, I think you need a philosophy of science that studies the effects of conceptual logics on the translation of empirical knowledge into generalizable findings. Without that you're prone to assuming that research findings are naturally objective simply because they have synthesized data from empirical observations. Modeling, methodologies, and synthetic language and concepts move knowledge from the level of the concrete to the abstract, and in doing so obscure the empirical fidelity of even experimental or other observation-based findings.
So time, logic, math, etc. all exist, but as synthetic artificial human creations, and they should be understood as such and controlled for in scientific understandings of natural phenomena, imo.
What do you mean "elevate"?
Science is the only method of determining truth.
Ok so non-science has more answers but they are not reliable.
Have you heard the expression "the proof of the pudding is in the tasting"?
Last I checked things like GPS work but not all God believers believe in the same same God.
But then I'm not convinced you have yet figured out that there is a difference between fact and fiction.
Science is the only method of determining truth.
Ok so non-science has more answers but they are not reliable.
Have you heard the expression "the proof of the pudding is in the tasting"?
Last I checked things like GPS work but not all God believers believe in the same same God.
But then I'm not convinced you have yet figured out that there is a difference between fact and fiction.
I came across some interesting quotes by Voltaire:
If God did not exist, He would have to be invented.
Voltaire was a firm believer in God, but he expressed much doubt about humanity's idea of what god is.
He claimed that nature itself was proof of god's existence, which was the common view before the discovery of evolution.
These words still hold true today when think about whether god exists or not.
If god exists, then how do we separate what is real from the attributes that humanity has falsely assigned to the divine?
Because of the extremely wide variety of religious opinions, we can only make the case that they're all right in some respect, or they're all wrong.
If god exists, one thing is certain: he/she/it is indescribable.
Words will always fail to describe god's qualities.
"God is love" and "God is a jealous god" would be crude approximations of the truth.
If I know with great relative certainty that religions have widely missed the mark about the reality of god, then what reason do I have to believe? If god exists, there is no reason to believe in him/her/it. Either every religious experience is driven by god, or no religious experiences are driven by god. I have chosen the latter. It is foolish to think that one religion knows the truth, and all the others don't.
If religious experiences are not driven by god, then where do I get the concept of god?
Obviously, at some point in history, someone invented god.
Does anybody want to carry this conversation further? Otherwise I'll shut up.
(edit)
To summarize:
I can understand if you want to discuss the idea of god by itself, but you can't justify pushing one particular religion or its attached dogma.
The god of the Christian bible is an amalgamation of centuries of wishful thinking by Middle Eastern philosophers. Jesus probably did exist in some name or form, but his reputation was extremely exaggerated by his followers.
So time, logic, math, etc. all exist, but as synthetic artificial human creations, and they should be understood as such and controlled for in scientific understandings of natural phenomena, imo.
That would only be true if one and one added algebraically could equal something other than two.
Math is discovered not created by man.
QUOTE
If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor. |
If God did not exist, He would have to be invented.
Voltaire was a firm believer in God, but he expressed much doubt about humanity's idea of what god is.
He claimed that nature itself was proof of god's existence, which was the common view before the discovery of evolution.
These words still hold true today when think about whether god exists or not.
If god exists, then how do we separate what is real from the attributes that humanity has falsely assigned to the divine?
Because of the extremely wide variety of religious opinions, we can only make the case that they're all right in some respect, or they're all wrong.
If god exists, one thing is certain: he/she/it is indescribable.
Words will always fail to describe god's qualities.
"God is love" and "God is a jealous god" would be crude approximations of the truth.
If I know with great relative certainty that religions have widely missed the mark about the reality of god, then what reason do I have to believe? If god exists, there is no reason to believe in him/her/it. Either every religious experience is driven by god, or no religious experiences are driven by god. I have chosen the latter. It is foolish to think that one religion knows the truth, and all the others don't.
If religious experiences are not driven by god, then where do I get the concept of god?
Obviously, at some point in history, someone invented god.
Does anybody want to carry this conversation further? Otherwise I'll shut up.
(edit)
To summarize:
I can understand if you want to discuss the idea of god by itself, but you can't justify pushing one particular religion or its attached dogma.
The god of the Christian bible is an amalgamation of centuries of wishful thinking by Middle Eastern philosophers. Jesus probably did exist in some name or form, but his reputation was extremely exaggerated by his followers.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 5 2009, 05:56 PM)
So time, logic, math, etc. all exist, but as synthetic artificial human creations, and they should be understood as such and controlled for in scientific understandings of natural phenomena, imo.
What makes something a synthetic/artificial creation?
Are all human creations synthetic/artificial? When a human plants a tree, is it artificial? When a human builds a house with wood, is it artificial?
If time and math are synthetic/artificial, does that mean that the calculations used to identifiy the time of a solar eclipse also artificial?
What makes something a synthetic/artificial creation?
Are all human creations synthetic/artificial? When a human plants a tree, is it artificial? When a human builds a house with wood, is it artificial?
If time and math are synthetic/artificial, does that mean that the calculations used to identifiy the time of a solar eclipse also artificial?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 5 2009, 12:26 PM)
So time, logic, math, etc. all exist, but as synthetic artificial human creations, and they should be understood as such and controlled for in scientific understandings of natural phenomena, imo.
That would only be true if one and one added algebraically could equal something other than two.
Math is discovered not created by man.
Does true beauty expire?
If your a blind man how do you "know" your wife/girlfriend is bueatiful? http://academictips.org/blogs/moral-tale-t...f-a-blind-girl/
If your a blind man how do you "know" your wife/girlfriend is bueatiful? http://academictips.org/blogs/moral-tale-t...f-a-blind-girl/
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+)
Prove it.
We are spiritual beings.
love, peace, joy - People are known by what they give? Whom should you trust?
P.S. Buttershug: I've heard woman ask the question: "Am I beautiful" you/I might want to have an already prepared answer.
love, peace, joy - People are known by what they give? Whom should you trust?
P.S. Buttershug: I've heard woman ask the question: "Am I beautiful" you/I might want to have an already prepared answer.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 5 2009, 08:33 PM)
Does true beauty expire?
If your a blind man how do you "know" your wife/girlfriend is bueatiful? http://academictips.org/blogs/moral-tale-t...f-a-blind-girl/
If your a blind man how do you "know" your wife/girlfriend is bueatiful? http://academictips.org/blogs/moral-tale-t...f-a-blind-girl/
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+)
Prove it.
Beauty, intelligence, reason, math, logic, information.... Dreams...
God isn't needed for any of those items.
Why isn't God needed for intelligence and for that matter the maths if man hasn't created the underlying logic? This thread was trivial from the start. And your argument with Vkamath that Math is uncovered by humans and not created by them shows how messed up you are.
MrB.
It may seem strange, at first blush, to speak of life in terms of "information." A fascinating part of this debate is that the naturalists do not disagree with the ID theorists in the slightest on this fundamental point. Both sides agree that life exhibits specified complexity, and that information theory is a fruitful and even necessary tool in explaining how life may have developed.
http://spectator.org/archives/
2005/08/05/the-little-engine-that-couldun/ Darwinism Undone print OR 1?
·Some things are clearly fundamental, and some emergent.
·Why would God be needed for intelligence?
·At what step is there a need for God?
·Look at Gary G's page. He breaks it down
·he demonstrates that at no stage do you need to invoke a God.
MrB.
http://cd.textfiles.com/hackchronii/RADIO1/FINAGLE.TXT
We are spiritual beings.
love, peace, joy - People are known by what they give? Whom should you trust?
P.S. Buttershug: I've heard woman ask the question: "Am I beautiful" you/I might want to have an already prepared answer.
Stating something as if it is a fact does not make it one.
What does "we are spiritual beings" even mean?
OH! And spell check - look into it.
love, peace, joy - People are known by what they give? Whom should you trust?
P.S. Buttershug: I've heard woman ask the question: "Am I beautiful" you/I might want to have an already prepared answer.
Stating something as if it is a fact does not make it one.
What does "we are spiritual beings" even mean?
OH! And spell check - look into it.
Don't worry. It will get easier with time. Some things are just not meant to be.
I am sure that God will forgive you
I am sure that God will forgive you
I'm sure Tracer will be happy to hear that god will forgive his atrocious spelling and grammar. Now, do you have anything to add to the discussion?
QUOTE (Frothy+Nov 6 2009, 01:25 PM)
Don't worry. It will get easier with time. Some things are just not meant to be.
I am sure that God will forgive you
What makes you sure there is a God and he will forgive anyone?
I am sure that God will forgive you
What makes you sure there is a God and he will forgive anyone?
QUOTE
I am sure that God will forgive you
Which one and do I get 72 virgins?
QUOTE ( (TracerTong @ Nov. 5 2009+ 12:21 AM) )
Beauty, intelligence, reason, math, logic, information.... Dreams...
QUOTE (Buttershug @ 11:52 AM+)
God isn't needed for any of those items.
Why isn't God needed for intelligence and for that matter the maths if man hasn't created the underlying logic? This thread was trivial from the start. And your argument with Vkamath that Math is uncovered by humans and not created by them shows how messed up you are.
MrB.
QUOTE
It may seem strange, at first blush, to speak of life in terms of "information." A fascinating part of this debate is that the naturalists do not disagree with the ID theorists in the slightest on this fundamental point. Both sides agree that life exhibits specified complexity, and that information theory is a fruitful and even necessary tool in explaining how life may have developed.
http://spectator.org/archives/
2005/08/05/the-little-engine-that-couldun/ Darwinism Undone print OR 1?
Some things are clearly fundamental, and some emergent.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Nov 7 2009, 11:45 AM)
[/QUOTE]
Why isn't God needed for intelligence and for that matter the maths if man hasn't created the underlying logic? This thread was trivial from the start. And your argument with Vkamath that Math is uncovered by humans and not created by them shows how messed up you are.
MrB.
http://spectator.org/archives/
2005/08/05/the-little-engine-that-couldun/ Darwinism Undone print OR 1?
Why would God be needed for intelligence?
At what step is there a need for God?
Look at Gary G's page. He breaks it down without cluing in that by doing so he demonstrates that at no stage do you need to invoke a God.
Have you ever even studied math?
Do you even understand 1+1=2?
Sure people invented the symbols to express that but did not invent it.
Why isn't God needed for intelligence and for that matter the maths if man hasn't created the underlying logic? This thread was trivial from the start. And your argument with Vkamath that Math is uncovered by humans and not created by them shows how messed up you are.
MrB.
http://spectator.org/archives/
2005/08/05/the-little-engine-that-couldun/ Darwinism Undone print OR 1?
Why would God be needed for intelligence?
At what step is there a need for God?
Look at Gary G's page. He breaks it down without cluing in that by doing so he demonstrates that at no stage do you need to invoke a God.
Have you ever even studied math?
Do you even understand 1+1=2?
Sure people invented the symbols to express that but did not invent it.
QUOTE (Matador blathers and then Buttershug rathers inanely+)
QUOTE
·Some things are clearly fundamental, and some emergent.
·Why would God be needed for intelligence?
·At what step is there a need for God?
·Look at Gary G's page. He breaks it down
·he demonstrates that at no stage do you need to invoke a God.
The issue is clearly framed; is it Life fundamental OR life Emergent?.
I don't know what you're talking about with Gary G. Have you, on the other hand, heard of a Sidney Harris' cartoon of two "men" at a chalkboard where one of the steps is labeled, "then a miracle occurs"? The stages are plenty and are fairly well known where a "god of the gaps" is currently necessary and presumably intelligent.
MrB.
It is on this page,
http://math.sfsu.edu/beck/quotes.html
about half way down.
I don't know what you're talking about with Gary G. Have you, on the other hand, heard of a Sidney Harris' cartoon of two "men" at a chalkboard where one of the steps is labeled, "then a miracle occurs"? The stages are plenty and are fairly well known where a "god of the gaps" is currently necessary and presumably intelligent.
MrB.
It is on this page,
http://math.sfsu.edu/beck/quotes.html
about half way down.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Nov 8 2009, 01:00 PM)
The stages are plenty and are fairly well known where a "god of the gaps" is currently necessary and presumably intelligent.
MrB.
Be sure to add "for now" to that.
And do you realize you are arguing based on pure ignorance?
Your stance is "we don't know therefore God did it.".
and a God of the gaps is needed only by people who can not say "we don't know yet".
MrB.
Be sure to add "for now" to that.
And do you realize you are arguing based on pure ignorance?
Your stance is "we don't know therefore God did it.".
and a God of the gaps is needed only by people who can not say "we don't know yet".
A subtle difference..
http://math.sfsu.edu/beck/images/ynot.jpg
No, my stance is; we don't know how God did it that yet makes experimental sense.
http://math.sfsu.edu/beck/images/ynot.jpg
QUOTE
Your stance is "we don't know therefore God did it.".
No, my stance is; we don't know how God did it that yet makes experimental sense.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Nov 8 2009, 09:43 PM)
A subtle difference..
http://math.sfsu.edu/beck/images/ynot.jpg
No, my stance is; we don't know how God did it that yet makes experimental sense.
You start with the conclusion then try and make the evidence fit your conclusion.
In school when you wrote tests did you fill in all the answers then read the questions?
That's what you are doing here.
http://math.sfsu.edu/beck/images/ynot.jpg
No, my stance is; we don't know how God did it that yet makes experimental sense.
You start with the conclusion then try and make the evidence fit your conclusion.
In school when you wrote tests did you fill in all the answers then read the questions?
That's what you are doing here.
QUOTE
You start with the conclusion then try and make the evidence fit your conclusion.
What conclusion is that? The Bible is evidence for a living God, proof is entirely seperate. In fact, it might be even more of the "Devil" in the details.MrB.
http://cd.textfiles.com/hackchronii/RADIO1/FINAGLE.TXT
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You start with the conclusion then try and make the evidence fit your conclusion. |
What conclusion is that? The Bible is evidence for a living God, proof is entirely seperate. In fact, it might be even more of the "Devil" in the details.
MrB.
http://cd.textfiles.com/hackchronii/RADIO1/FINAGLE.TXT
A further series of rules - or really advice to experimenters - has
been formulated. they are a natural consequence of the first four
laws reduced to day-to-day practice.
1. Experiments must be reproducible - they should all fail in
the same way.
2. First draw your curves - then plot the readings.
3. Experience is directly proportional to equipment ruined.
4. A record of data is useful - it indicates you've been working.
5. To study a subject best, understand it thoroughly before you
start.
6. In case of doubt, make it sound convincing.
7. Do not believe in miracles - rely on them.
...
12. In any problem, if you find yourself doing an unending amount
of work, the answer may be obtained by inspection.
...
John W. Campbell feels there is a different basic structure
behind the Finagle, fudge and diddle factors. The Finagle factor,
he claims, is characterized by changing the universe to fit an
equation. The fudge factor, on the other hand, changes the equation
to fit the universe. And finally, the diddle factor changes things
so that th[e] universe and the equation appear to fit, without making
any real change in either.
For example, the planet Uranus was introduced to the universe when
Newtonian laws couldn't be to match known planetary motions. This
is a beautiful example of the application of the Finagle factor.
Einstein's work leading to relativity was strongly influenced by the
observed facts about the orbit of Mercury. Obviously a fudge factor
was introduced.
The photographer's use of a "soft-focus" lens when taking portraits
of women over 35 is an example of the diddle factor. By blurring
the results, photographs are made to appear to match the facts in a
far more satisfactory manner.
To our knowledge, this is the first clear enunciation of the
scientific method. All our vast sum of human knowledge has been
derived with these as the basic tools. By having them in writing
for the first time, perhaps our children can build even better
futures than the best we envision today.
REPRODUCED FROM THE IRE STUDENT QUARTERLY, SEPTEMBER 1958.
MrB.
http://cd.textfiles.com/hackchronii/RADIO1/FINAGLE.TXT
A further series of rules - or really advice to experimenters - has
been formulated. they are a natural consequence of the first four
laws reduced to day-to-day practice.
1. Experiments must be reproducible - they should all fail in
the same way.
2. First draw your curves - then plot the readings.
3. Experience is directly proportional to equipment ruined.
4. A record of data is useful - it indicates you've been working.
5. To study a subject best, understand it thoroughly before you
start.
6. In case of doubt, make it sound convincing.
7. Do not believe in miracles - rely on them.
...
12. In any problem, if you find yourself doing an unending amount
of work, the answer may be obtained by inspection.
...
John W. Campbell feels there is a different basic structure
behind the Finagle, fudge and diddle factors. The Finagle factor,
he claims, is characterized by changing the universe to fit an
equation. The fudge factor, on the other hand, changes the equation
to fit the universe. And finally, the diddle factor changes things
so that th[e] universe and the equation appear to fit, without making
any real change in either.
For example, the planet Uranus was introduced to the universe when
Newtonian laws couldn't be to match known planetary motions. This
is a beautiful example of the application of the Finagle factor.
Einstein's work leading to relativity was strongly influenced by the
observed facts about the orbit of Mercury. Obviously a fudge factor
was introduced.
The photographer's use of a "soft-focus" lens when taking portraits
of women over 35 is an example of the diddle factor. By blurring
the results, photographs are made to appear to match the facts in a
far more satisfactory manner.
To our knowledge, this is the first clear enunciation of the
scientific method. All our vast sum of human knowledge has been
derived with these as the basic tools. By having them in writing
for the first time, perhaps our children can build even better
futures than the best we envision today.
REPRODUCED FROM THE IRE STUDENT QUARTERLY, SEPTEMBER 1958.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Nov 9 2009, 09:06 AM)
What conclusion is that? The Bible is evidence for a living God, proof is entirely seperate. In fact, it might be even more of the "Devil" in the details.
MrB.
http://cd.textfiles.com/hackchronii/RADIO1/FINAGLE.TXT
The conclusion you start with, is that the Bible is evidence of a Living God.
And that was a joke piece you quoted, or did you not understand that?
Do you not know what "finagle" means?
MrB.
http://cd.textfiles.com/hackchronii/RADIO1/FINAGLE.TXT
The conclusion you start with, is that the Bible is evidence of a Living God.
And that was a joke piece you quoted, or did you not understand that?
Do you not know what "finagle" means?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Nov 9 2009, 07:06 PM)
What conclusion is that? The Bible is evidence for a living God, proof is entirely seperate. In fact, it might be even more of the "Devil" in the details.
MrB.
http://cd.textfiles.com/hackchronii/RADIO1/FINAGLE.TXT
my eyes
MrB.
http://cd.textfiles.com/hackchronii/RADIO1/FINAGLE.TXT
my eyes
QUOTE (Matador+Nov 1 2009, 12:19 AM)
Where is this thread heading? I haven't voted as the meaning has not been clarified yet.
I. Realativism vs. absolutes
a.--If everything is relative thats an absolute truth
b.--"If atheism is true, then there no such thing as truth. Then atheism cannot be true." -Phil Fernandes
c. If natural laws exist (such as truth, gravity), then there would have to be a law giver....
Do a web search if you want
I. Realativism vs. absolutes
a.--If everything is relative thats an absolute truth
b.--"If atheism is true, then there no such thing as truth. Then atheism cannot be true." -Phil Fernandes
c. If natural laws exist (such as truth, gravity), then there would have to be a law giver....
Do a web search if you want
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 9 2009, 03:04 PM)
If everything is relative thats an absolute truth
You're mixing definitions again.
You're mixing definitions again. Idiotic wordplay.
You're mixing definitions again. Idiotic wordplay.
If natural laws exist (such as truth, gravity), then there would have to be a law giver....
Scientists often consider themselves to be looking for truth. If your viewpoint can't accurately describe the world around us -- wouldn't you want to find one that does?
You're mixing definitions again.
QUOTE
"If atheism is true, then there no such thing as truth. Then atheism cannot be true." -Phil Fernandes
You're mixing definitions again. Idiotic wordplay.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "If atheism is true, then there no such thing as truth. Then atheism cannot be true." -Phil Fernandes |
You're mixing definitions again. Idiotic wordplay.
If natural laws exist (such as truth, gravity), then there would have to be a law giver....
Does wood require a wooder? Does a rock require a rocker? No.
Laws are precepts which cannot be violated without consequences. They do not require a sky-god to create them or enforce them.
Laws are precepts which cannot be violated without consequences. They do not require a sky-god to create them or enforce them.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 9 2009, 07:04 PM)
If natural laws exist, then there would have to be a law giver....
If law givers exist, there must be a law giver's mother... who probably worked very hard as a waitress to put her child through law giver's school.
If law givers exist, there must be a law giver's mother... who probably worked very hard as a waitress to put her child through law giver's school.
The Lawgiver?
HG Wells.
I would have included a serious retort but there is little to add to FBM's points that would not be redundant.
Watched Phil Fernandes. Not real impressive.
QUOTE
“Not to go on all-fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men? “Not to suck up Drink; that is the Law. Are we not Men? “Not to eat Fish or Flesh; that is the Law. Are we not Men? “Not to claw the Bark of Trees; that is the Law. Are we not Men? “Not to chase other Men; that is the Law. Are we not Men?”
HG Wells.
I would have included a serious retort but there is little to add to FBM's points that would not be redundant.
Watched Phil Fernandes. Not real impressive.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 9 2009, 07:07 PM)
You're mixing definitions again.
You're mixing definitions again. Idiotic wordplay.
Does wood require a wooder? Does a rock require a rocker? No.
Laws are precepts which cannot be violated without consequences. They do not require a sky-god to create them or enforce them.
Can you elaborate? Maybe I should have used the word relativist instead of atheist. Whats your presupposition- where are you coming from?
You're mixing definitions again. Idiotic wordplay.
Does wood require a wooder? Does a rock require a rocker? No.
Laws are precepts which cannot be violated without consequences. They do not require a sky-god to create them or enforce them.
Can you elaborate? Maybe I should have used the word relativist instead of atheist. Whats your presupposition- where are you coming from?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 9 2009, 04:26 PM)
Can you elaborate? Maybe I should have used the word relativist instead of atheist. Whats your presupposition- where are you coming from?
You're using "truth" in the theistic sense. There are some things that are true, and some things that are false. No-one denies that. Your "relativistic" perspective is a straw man.
You're using "truth" in the theistic sense. There are some things that are true, and some things that are false. No-one denies that. Your "relativistic" perspective is a straw man.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 9 2009, 08:29 PM)
You're using "truth" in the theistic sense. There are some things that are true, and some things that are false. No-one denies that. Your "relativistic" perspective is a straw man.
Thats my point -So are you saying there is truth, - history happened, the way it happened. Yes I agree. I don't see your point, please explain?
Thats my point -So are you saying there is truth, - history happened, the way it happened. Yes I agree. I don't see your point, please explain?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 9 2009, 04:39 PM)
Thats my point -So are you saying there is truth, a way - history happened, the way it happened. Yes I agree.
Sure, what's your point?
Sure, what's your point?
QUOTE
If atheism is true, then there no such thing as truth. Then atheism cannot be true.
THIS is a fallacious statement.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 9 2009, 08:39 PM)
Sure, what's your point?
THIS is a fallacious statement.
Edited: If absolute relativity (no truths exist) is true, then there no such thing as truth. Then absolute relativity can't be true.
If natural laws exist (such as truth, gravity), then there would have to be a law giver....
THIS is a fallacious statement.
Edited: If absolute relativity (no truths exist) is true, then there no such thing as truth. Then absolute relativity can't be true.
If natural laws exist (such as truth, gravity), then there would have to be a law giver....
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 9 2009, 04:59 PM)
Edited: If absolute relativity (no truths exist) is true, then there no such thing as truth. Then absolute relativity can't be true.
Relativity (aka the THEORY OF RELATIVITY) is not what you are talking about, and no atheist claims to believe what you are talking about.
Relativity (aka the THEORY OF RELATIVITY) is not what you are talking about, and no atheist claims to believe what you are talking about.
QUOTE
If natural laws exist (such as truth, gravity), then there would have to be a law giver....
Does wood require a wooder? Does a rock require a rocker? No.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 9 2009, 08:59 PM)
Edited: If absolute relativity (no truths exist) is true, then there no such thing as truth. Then absolute relativity can't be true.
If natural laws exist (such as truth, gravity), then there would have to be a law giver....
You forget that maybe the absolute truth is that there is no God.
And so far no one knows the complete absolute truth.
Someone saying we don't know the absolute truth does not mean they are saying that there is no absolute truth.
@FBM it's been ten years since someone asked if I was a moral relativist.
It's a phrase made up by people who believe that the Bible is the absolute truth.
But any Bible defender that says that some part of the Bible is taken out of context is a relativist. If the Bible is the absolute authority on morality then there would be no context.
If natural laws exist (such as truth, gravity), then there would have to be a law giver....
You forget that maybe the absolute truth is that there is no God.
And so far no one knows the complete absolute truth.
Someone saying we don't know the absolute truth does not mean they are saying that there is no absolute truth.
@FBM it's been ten years since someone asked if I was a moral relativist.
It's a phrase made up by people who believe that the Bible is the absolute truth.
But any Bible defender that says that some part of the Bible is taken out of context is a relativist. If the Bible is the absolute authority on morality then there would be no context.
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 9 2009, 05:54 PM)
@FBM it's been ten years since someone asked if I was a moral relativist.
It's a phrase made up by people who believe that the Bible is the absolute truth.
But any Bible defender that says that some part of the Bible is taken out of context is a relativist. If the Bible is the absolute authority on morality then there would be no context.
If the bible was absolutely moral, then we should all go out and stone our rebellious children.
It still bugs me when people insist that they get their sense of morality from the bible.
It's a phrase made up by people who believe that the Bible is the absolute truth.
But any Bible defender that says that some part of the Bible is taken out of context is a relativist. If the Bible is the absolute authority on morality then there would be no context.
If the bible was absolutely moral, then we should all go out and stone our rebellious children.
It still bugs me when people insist that they get their sense of morality from the bible.
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 9 2009, 09:54 PM)
You forget that maybe the absolute truth is that there is no God.
And so far no one knows the complete absolute truth.
Someone saying we don't know the absolute truth does not mean they are saying that there is no absolute truth.
@FBM it's been ten years since someone asked if I was a moral relativist.
It's a phrase made up by people who believe that the Bible is the absolute truth.
But any Bible defender that says that some part of the Bible is taken out of context is a relativist. If the Bible is the absolute authority on morality then there would be no context.
The Bible is not the absolute authority on morality -- some Evangelical Christians claim God is. God isn't the bible. When they say the bible is the 'Word of God' they mean they believe God is the original author. (tired) ---
I think I understand more -- You know all this (life) happened but don't believe in God/gods and Evolution and Humanism would be logical to you - things just 'are' in your mind;
got it. -- There would be no context for morality, in your thinking, because morality is a non-existant (relative) human concept?
And so far no one knows the complete absolute truth.
Someone saying we don't know the absolute truth does not mean they are saying that there is no absolute truth.
@FBM it's been ten years since someone asked if I was a moral relativist.
It's a phrase made up by people who believe that the Bible is the absolute truth.
But any Bible defender that says that some part of the Bible is taken out of context is a relativist. If the Bible is the absolute authority on morality then there would be no context.
The Bible is not the absolute authority on morality -- some Evangelical Christians claim God is. God isn't the bible. When they say the bible is the 'Word of God' they mean they believe God is the original author. (tired) ---
I think I understand more -- You know all this (life) happened but don't believe in God/gods and Evolution and Humanism would be logical to you - things just 'are' in your mind;
got it. -- There would be no context for morality, in your thinking, because morality is a non-existant (relative) human concept?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 10 2009, 01:12 AM)
The Bible is not the absolute authority on morality -- some Evangelical Christians claim God is. God isn't the bible. When they say the bible is the 'Word of God' they mean they believe God is the original author. (tired) ---
I think I understand more -- You know all this (life) happened but don't believe in God/gods and Evolution and Humanism would be logical to you - things just 'are' in your mind; got it. -- There would be no context for morality, in your thinking, because morality is a non-existant (relative) human concept?
I think you are moving forward.
I really like the Phillip K. (last name is a word for penis)'s quote "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Why does there need to be a God or Creator for there to be context for morality?
And absolute/relative morality has to do with the idea of something being wrong depending on circumstances or not.
If something was ok for Lot to do then either it is ok for us to do, or it's relative.
I think I understand more -- You know all this (life) happened but don't believe in God/gods and Evolution and Humanism would be logical to you - things just 'are' in your mind; got it. -- There would be no context for morality, in your thinking, because morality is a non-existant (relative) human concept?
I think you are moving forward.
I really like the Phillip K. (last name is a word for penis)'s quote "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Why does there need to be a God or Creator for there to be context for morality?
And absolute/relative morality has to do with the idea of something being wrong depending on circumstances or not.
If something was ok for Lot to do then either it is ok for us to do, or it's relative.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 10 2009, 01:12 AM)
There would be no context for morality, in your thinking, because morality is a non-existant (relative) human concept?
I think there are a lot of people around here who think they know what others think.
BTW
Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior
Monkeys have a sense of morality, say scientists
Are Morals Exclusive To Religious People?
I think there are a lot of people around here who think they know what others think.
BTW
Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior
Monkeys have a sense of morality, say scientists
Are Morals Exclusive To Religious People?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct. 31 2009, 05:14 PM)
Scientists often consider themselves to be looking for truth. If your viewpoint can't accurately describe the world around us -- wouldn't you want to find one that does?
QUOTE (New Scientist+ issue #2732)
IQ measures the brightness of the searchlight, but where we point it also matters. Some people don't point their searchlights at the other side of the case much, for many reasons-entrenched ideas, avoidance of what might be disturing, simple haste.
Yes, the territory is not the map. But people are so idiotic or sinful too much of the time to notice how ironic they paint themselves.** Buttershug for the purpose of this exercise in science definition or the immaterial## must be considered a prime example of dimwittedness. It is just not decent to be so slow and type so much.
MrB.
**Of course, this map idea works both ways, that is why Creationists are so fun to pick on.
##Let's add morality to the list(as well as the notion of ironic).
[Moderator: Notice that this user was suspended 14 days for promulgating frauds on another thread, which is the antithesis of communicating verifiable, justified and useful information.]
Yes, the territory is not the map. But people are so idiotic or sinful too much of the time to notice how ironic they paint themselves.** Buttershug for the purpose of this exercise in science definition or the immaterial## must be considered a prime example of dimwittedness. It is just not decent to be so slow and type so much.
MrB.
**Of course, this map idea works both ways, that is why Creationists are so fun to pick on.
##Let's add morality to the list(as well as the notion of ironic).
[Moderator: Notice that this user was suspended 14 days for promulgating frauds on another thread, which is the antithesis of communicating verifiable, justified and useful information.]
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 10 2009, 01:12 AM)
The Bible is not the absolute authority on morality -- some Evangelical Christians claim God is. God isn't the bible. When they say the bible is the 'Word of God' they mean they believe God is the original author. (tired) ---
I think I understand more -- You know all this (life) happened but don't believe in God/gods and Evolution and Humanism would be logical to you - things just 'are' in your mind;
got it. -- There would be no context for morality, in your thinking, because morality is a non-existant (relative) human concept?
So, if you were to suddenly learn, hypothetically speaking that there was no god, would you abandon all morality? Would you suddenly start killing, stealing, raping and pillaging? Would those things become okay without a god?
I think I understand more -- You know all this (life) happened but don't believe in God/gods and Evolution and Humanism would be logical to you - things just 'are' in your mind;
got it. -- There would be no context for morality, in your thinking, because morality is a non-existant (relative) human concept?
So, if you were to suddenly learn, hypothetically speaking that there was no god, would you abandon all morality? Would you suddenly start killing, stealing, raping and pillaging? Would those things become okay without a god?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Nov 10 2009, 09:50 AM)
[/QUOTE]
Yes, the territory is not the map. But people are so idiotic or sinful too much of the time to notice how ironic they paint themselves.** Buttershug for the purpose of this exercise in science definition or the immaterial## must be considered a prime example of dimwittedness. It is just not decent to be so slow and type so much.
MrB.
**Of course, this map idea works both ways, that is why Creationists are so fun to pick on.
##Let's add morality to the list(as well as the notion of ironic).
You quoted a joke as a serious argument and call me dimwitted?
And it's "the map is not the territory" You can't even get that right.
The map idea does not work both ways. THAT is the point of the saying.
It is an old NLP phrase.
The point is that there is the "territory". That is what exists outside of Man.
The map is a representation of that territory.
You think I don't understand how you reach your conclusions. But I do they are just not valid methods. You GG, Newguy, and iseason don't understand that because you can "prove" any conclusion you start with that means you can't prove any conclusion you start with. You have to start without a conclusion. And it doesn't matter if an individual post starts without the conclusion. It's the reasoning that must start without the conclusion.
Your last two posts are clear examples of dimwittedness. You use a joke piece as an argument. then you can't get a simple concept as "the map is not the territory" even close to being right.
Yes, the territory is not the map. But people are so idiotic or sinful too much of the time to notice how ironic they paint themselves.** Buttershug for the purpose of this exercise in science definition or the immaterial## must be considered a prime example of dimwittedness. It is just not decent to be so slow and type so much.
MrB.
**Of course, this map idea works both ways, that is why Creationists are so fun to pick on.
##Let's add morality to the list(as well as the notion of ironic).
You quoted a joke as a serious argument and call me dimwitted?
And it's "the map is not the territory" You can't even get that right.
The map idea does not work both ways. THAT is the point of the saying.
It is an old NLP phrase.
The point is that there is the "territory". That is what exists outside of Man.
The map is a representation of that territory.
You think I don't understand how you reach your conclusions. But I do they are just not valid methods. You GG, Newguy, and iseason don't understand that because you can "prove" any conclusion you start with that means you can't prove any conclusion you start with. You have to start without a conclusion. And it doesn't matter if an individual post starts without the conclusion. It's the reasoning that must start without the conclusion.
Your last two posts are clear examples of dimwittedness. You use a joke piece as an argument. then you can't get a simple concept as "the map is not the territory" even close to being right.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Nov 10 2009, 12:24 PM)
So, if you were to suddenly learn, hypothetically speaking that there was no god, would you abandon all morality? Would you suddenly start killing, stealing, raping and pillaging? Would those things become okay without a god?
I'm not arguing for or against right now. I'm just correcting what buttershug said-the bible isn't EC's moral standard - God is.
Your right thats a Strawman fallacy people use - 'unreligous don't have morals' and thats wrong bigoted judging.
I'm not arguing for or against right now. I'm just correcting what buttershug said-the bible isn't EC's moral standard - God is.
Your right thats a Strawman fallacy people use - 'unreligous don't have morals' and thats wrong bigoted judging.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 10 2009, 01:19 PM)
I'm not arguing for or against right now. I'm just correcting what buttershug said-the bible isn't EC's moral standard - God is.
Do evangelicals stone their rebellious children? Do they say that slavery is a-ok?
Many moral standards are the result of recent developments.
There are many things that we consider moral that our grandfathers considered immoral.
There are many things that we consider immoral that our grandfathers considered moral.
Morality changes with each generation. God has very little to do with it.
Do evangelicals stone their rebellious children? Do they say that slavery is a-ok?
Many moral standards are the result of recent developments.
There are many things that we consider moral that our grandfathers considered immoral.
There are many things that we consider immoral that our grandfathers considered moral.
Morality changes with each generation. God has very little to do with it.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Nov 9 2009, 04:06 AM)
What conclusion is that? The Bible is evidence for a living God, proof is entirely seperate. In fact, it might be even more of the "Devil" in the details.
MrB.
http://cd.textfiles.com/hackchronii/RADIO1/FINAGLE.TXT
ROFLMAO
Dear god, you are now officially the dumbest person on this forum!!
MrB.
http://cd.textfiles.com/hackchronii/RADIO1/FINAGLE.TXT
ROFLMAO
Dear god, you are now officially the dumbest person on this forum!!
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 10 2009, 06:08 PM)
ROFLMAO
Dear god, you are now officially the dumbest person on this forum!!
I still choose to believe the bible and trust Jesus.
Dear god, you are now officially the dumbest person on this forum!!
I still choose to believe the bible and trust Jesus.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 10 2009, 01:24 PM)
I still choose to believe the bible and trust Jesus.
Of course. Idiots tend to stick to their guns despite any evidence to the contrary.
Of course. Idiots tend to stick to their guns despite any evidence to the contrary.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 10 2009, 06:24 PM)
I still choose to believe the bible and trust Jesus.
Then give up logic and reason.
They do not support starting with the conclusion as you do.
But why not the Koran, or Aesop's Fables or some other book?
Then give up logic and reason.
They do not support starting with the conclusion as you do.
But why not the Koran, or Aesop's Fables or some other book?
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Oct 31 2009, 05:19 PM)
To be stubbornly ignorant, unlike their predecessor Isaac Newton, of the Bible is a working shame and a downfall of a nation if not a great empire.
MrB.
To be ignorant of fairy tales and legends as they are concerned with cosmology is completely (repeat COMPLETELY) irrelevant to the question! there is no evidence to support their myths, only wishful thinking. To include them in serious debate about the beginning of the universe is completely idiotic! The mathematics models used to describe the universe have been proven to be accurate and there is no evidence that they are inaccurate up to the instant of the Big Bang! At the instant of the BB and before the are useless.
What SH meant in the interview is that there is no reference from which we can intelligently frame a discussion about what came before the BB. There has to be some frame of reference for the discussion to not be completely based on wild guesses! And once you start wild guessing about a subject you get into the realm of religions and will accomplish nothing.
FGG
MrB.
To be ignorant of fairy tales and legends as they are concerned with cosmology is completely (repeat COMPLETELY) irrelevant to the question! there is no evidence to support their myths, only wishful thinking. To include them in serious debate about the beginning of the universe is completely idiotic! The mathematics models used to describe the universe have been proven to be accurate and there is no evidence that they are inaccurate up to the instant of the Big Bang! At the instant of the BB and before the are useless.
What SH meant in the interview is that there is no reference from which we can intelligently frame a discussion about what came before the BB. There has to be some frame of reference for the discussion to not be completely based on wild guesses! And once you start wild guessing about a subject you get into the realm of religions and will accomplish nothing.
FGG
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 10 2009, 02:04 PM)
But why not the Koran, or Aesop's Fables or some other book?
Or the Eddas and the Heimskringla? At least they have action and adventure in addition to cosmology, theology and blatantly false history.
Or the Eddas and the Heimskringla? At least they have action and adventure in addition to cosmology, theology and blatantly false history.
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 10 2009, 07:04 PM)
Then give up logic and reason.
They do not support starting with the conclusion as you do.
But why not the Koran, or Aesop's Fables or some other book?
They do not support starting with the conclusion as you do.
But why not the Koran, or Aesop's Fables or some other book?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
"....on don't understand that because you can "prove" any conclusion you start with that means you can't prove any conclusion you start with. You have to start without a conclusion. And it doesn't matter if an individual post starts without the conclusion. It's the reasoning that must start without the conclusion."
-- I can't understand.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 10 2009, 05:41 PM)
I can't understand.
We know.
We know.
You mean when people make up things to fit their conclusion, huh.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 10 2009, 06:49 PM)
You mean when people make up things to fit their conclusion, huh.
How does this compare to your attempts to torture logic into supporting your conclusions?
At least I have logic and science on my side. What do you have? A book?
How does this compare to your attempts to torture logic into supporting your conclusions?
At least I have logic and science on my side. What do you have? A book?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 10 2009, 11:11 PM)
How does this compare to your attempts to torture logic into supporting your conclusions?
At least I have logic and science on my side. What do you have? A book?
The evidence is the same for both of us... same planet... same physical laws (Newton http://www.thenagain.info/thenagain/Source...nPrincipia.asp)
, http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answer...ion#paginateTop
Not all athiests are Darwinists either some are ider's.
At least I have logic and science on my side. What do you have? A book?
The evidence is the same for both of us... same planet... same physical laws (Newton http://www.thenagain.info/thenagain/Source...nPrincipia.asp)
, http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answer...ion#paginateTop
Not all athiests are Darwinists either some are ider's.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 10 2009, 09:24 PM)
The evidence is the same for both of us... same planet... same physical laws
Yet you choose to ignore the vast amount of physical evidence that evolution is built on. That's called willful ignorance.
The idea that an atheist can believe in intelligent design is idiotic.
I have warned you about using Answers in Genesis as a source. They have no interest in facts or science. They are intellectual trolls.
Yet you choose to ignore the vast amount of physical evidence that evolution is built on. That's called willful ignorance.
QUOTE
Not all athiests are Darwinists either some are ider's.
The idea that an atheist can believe in intelligent design is idiotic.
I have warned you about using Answers in Genesis as a source. They have no interest in facts or science. They are intellectual trolls.
Hope persons answered the poll wrong on purpose. What does the "science" knowledge you have tell you? How about logic? Physical senses- sight,smell,touch,taste,sound --do they apply? :-(
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 10 2009, 10:00 PM)
Hope you answered the poll wrong on purpose? What does the "science" knowledge you have tell you? How about logic? Physical senses- sight,smell,touch,taste,sound --do they apply? logic comes from our mind.
I didn't answer your poll. You did not define what you mean by "non-physical." You could have meant non-physical in terms of light, or non-physical in terms of god, angels and other mythological beings.
If you are quoting Answers in Genesis, you might as well grab a megaphone and shout out "HELLO! I'M A DUMBASS CREATIONIST!"
I have given you references to the scientific evidence for evolution before. Obviously, you didn't read them.
Before you post, I suggest that you read up on the concepts of Empiricism and Rationalism.
I didn't answer your poll. You did not define what you mean by "non-physical." You could have meant non-physical in terms of light, or non-physical in terms of god, angels and other mythological beings.
If you are quoting Answers in Genesis, you might as well grab a megaphone and shout out "HELLO! I'M A DUMBASS CREATIONIST!"
I have given you references to the scientific evidence for evolution before. Obviously, you didn't read them.
Before you post, I suggest that you read up on the concepts of Empiricism and Rationalism.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 11 2009, 02:00 AM)
Hope you answered the poll wrong on purpose? What does the "science" knowledge you have tell you? How about logic? Physical senses- sight,smell,touch,taste,sound --do they apply? logic comes from our mind.
There is no answer to the poll that backs you up.
you are not contradicting anything that people who disagree with you say.
The existence of the "non-physical" says nothing about the existence of God.
There is no answer to the poll that backs you up.
you are not contradicting anything that people who disagree with you say.
The existence of the "non-physical" says nothing about the existence of God.
I'll look over that again sometime, people in public schools get taught Darwinism. It doesn't fit reality. The Info in DNA and RNA requires intelligence. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent...ian-mechanisms/
later.
later.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 11 2009, 02:18 AM)
I'll look over that, people in public schools get taught Darwinism. It doesn't fit reality
How so?
What doesn't fit?
And remember evidence first, then conclusion.
How so?
What doesn't fit?
And remember evidence first, then conclusion.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 11 2009, 01:33 AM)
The idea that an atheist can believe in intelligent design is idiotic.
Technically, it would be possible to believe that life was designed by some intelligent being that travelled around to water-rich planets and spread DNA like Johnny Appleseed to see would would grow and evolve. Who knows, maybe there's an intelligent being somewhere who cryogenically freezes himself for 100,000 years at a time so he can wake up for a couple weeks of study of his "creations" and then go back to sleep to preserve his longevity.
In fact, I bet his cryogenic chamber is buried somewhere in the mountains of Mars. Maybe NASA should start launching "probes" to search for water on Mars as a cover-operation for a mission to eradicate this obviously superior being who hold the potential to destroy all life on Earth if he is unhappy with what he sees the next time he wakes up for an observation, if life hasn't eradicated itself on its own by then, that is.
Technically, it would be possible to believe that life was designed by some intelligent being that travelled around to water-rich planets and spread DNA like Johnny Appleseed to see would would grow and evolve. Who knows, maybe there's an intelligent being somewhere who cryogenically freezes himself for 100,000 years at a time so he can wake up for a couple weeks of study of his "creations" and then go back to sleep to preserve his longevity.
In fact, I bet his cryogenic chamber is buried somewhere in the mountains of Mars. Maybe NASA should start launching "probes" to search for water on Mars as a cover-operation for a mission to eradicate this obviously superior being who hold the potential to destroy all life on Earth if he is unhappy with what he sees the next time he wakes up for an observation, if life hasn't eradicated itself on its own by then, that is.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 10 2009, 10:18 PM)
I'll look over that again sometime, people in public schools get taught Darwinism.
There is no "Darwinism." That's just a pejorative term used by creationists to create a false distinction between evolutionary biologists and other scientists. In fact, the Theory of Evolution is practically universally accepted within the scientific community. The only dissenters are people who do not understand the theory in the first place.
Have you studied DNA or RNA? I seriously doubt it. I think it is much more likely that you are just repeating the same creationist garbage that you've heard told to you.
If you want to know about science, ASK AN ACTUAL SCIENTIST. THERE ARE SEVERAL ON THIS FORUM.
There is no "Darwinism." That's just a pejorative term used by creationists to create a false distinction between evolutionary biologists and other scientists. In fact, the Theory of Evolution is practically universally accepted within the scientific community. The only dissenters are people who do not understand the theory in the first place.
QUOTE
It doesn't fit reality. The Info in DNA and RNA requires intelligence.
Have you studied DNA or RNA? I seriously doubt it. I think it is much more likely that you are just repeating the same creationist garbage that you've heard told to you.
If you want to know about science, ASK AN ACTUAL SCIENTIST. THERE ARE SEVERAL ON THIS FORUM.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 10 2009, 10:31 PM)
Technically, it would be possible to believe that life was designed by some intelligent being that travelled around to water-rich planets and spread DNA like Johnny Appleseed to see would would grow and evolve. Who knows, maybe there's an intelligent being somewhere who cryogenically freezes himself for 100,000 years at a time so he can wake up for a couple weeks of study of his "creations" and then go back to sleep to preserve his longevity.
Even if that was true, the theory of evolution would still also be true, as species would have to evolve in the meantime. That would be "Evolution with occasional extraterrestrial interference" not "Intelligent Design." Besides, evidence points to specific patterns of diversity then change, diversity then change, over and over again. It would be very obvious if every species on earth went through changes at the same time at regular or irregular intervals.
For your reading pleasure: Punctuated Equilibrium
Even if that was true, the theory of evolution would still also be true, as species would have to evolve in the meantime. That would be "Evolution with occasional extraterrestrial interference" not "Intelligent Design." Besides, evidence points to specific patterns of diversity then change, diversity then change, over and over again. It would be very obvious if every species on earth went through changes at the same time at regular or irregular intervals.
For your reading pleasure: Punctuated Equilibrium
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 11 2009, 02:18 AM)
I'll look over that again sometime, people in public schools get taught Darwinism. It doesn't fit reality. The Info in DNA and RNA requires intelligence. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent...ian-mechanisms/
later.
See that is the problem of starting with the conclusion.
You end up saying things that are totally false to support the conclusion.
But at least you didn't post a joke as evidence.
If Creationists are right why do they resort to publishing utter non-sense?
later.
See that is the problem of starting with the conclusion.
You end up saying things that are totally false to support the conclusion.
But at least you didn't post a joke as evidence.
If Creationists are right why do they resort to publishing utter non-sense?
[QUOTE=Buttershug, Nov. 10 2009, 01:03 PM]
>>> You quoted a joke as a serious argument and call me dimwitted? <<<
Yes, but you are in good company. The small and the great will be at the resurrection of the dead. Jokes hide seriousness. That's the point.
Idiots such as yourself have been running the asylum far too long in my opinion. However it is always, "God's will be done."
If this post goes through{after working through the preview, the quote function doesn't seem to work(the color red does obviously)}, I must be off suspension. The dipwad moderator made a ridiculous choice. One can feel lucky by googling "Davenport stele" OR feel luckier with the fuller name "Davenport Calendar Stele". Two different persepctives and still the question, "what actually is the fraud charge?" Is it that one cannot hypothesize outside the main stream?
The sole promulgation of fraud certainly wasn't on my part. This is about open inquiry{or the forum operators want a closed inquiry and yours truly banned}. For instance, I have been reading about the CRU Hadley's email ** releases... one comment stuck with me nicely (re: climate change fraud). You are either a skeptic or a fanatic. Well, color me skeptical.
You know... blah, blah++ "without faith" it is impossible to please Him.
Faith is not a gut reaction as it pleases Phil Jones, the director of CRUnit. Faith is a gift, lest any man boast—I am pretty sure without looking it up, that is Ephesians.
Yours truly,
MrB.
++All right, for the pedantic A-hole moderator, i looked up my quotation marks; see Hebrews, chapter eleven.
That other thread the moderator spoke about------->Showtopic= 25402
**
Let us assume the 'hacked' emails are legitmate and none of them made up as all reports I have seen indicates their trustworthiness.
EDIT:
The Hadley Center is suppose to be completely seperate.
>>> You quoted a joke as a serious argument and call me dimwitted? <<<
Yes, but you are in good company. The small and the great will be at the resurrection of the dead. Jokes hide seriousness. That's the point.
Idiots such as yourself have been running the asylum far too long in my opinion. However it is always, "God's will be done."
If this post goes through{after working through the preview, the quote function doesn't seem to work(the color red does obviously)}, I must be off suspension. The dipwad moderator made a ridiculous choice. One can feel lucky by googling "Davenport stele" OR feel luckier with the fuller name "Davenport Calendar Stele". Two different persepctives and still the question, "what actually is the fraud charge?" Is it that one cannot hypothesize outside the main stream?
The sole promulgation of fraud certainly wasn't on my part. This is about open inquiry{or the forum operators want a closed inquiry and yours truly banned}. For instance, I have been reading about the CRU
You know... blah, blah++ "without faith" it is impossible to please Him.
Faith is not a gut reaction as it pleases Phil Jones, the director of CRUnit. Faith is a gift, lest any man boast—I am pretty sure without looking it up, that is Ephesians.
Yours truly,
MrB.
++All right, for the pedantic A-hole moderator, i looked up my quotation marks; see Hebrews, chapter eleven.
That other thread the moderator spoke about------->Showtopic= 25402
**
Let us assume the 'hacked' emails are legitmate and none of them made up as all reports I have seen indicates their trustworthiness.
EDIT:
The Hadley Center is suppose to be completely seperate.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Nov 27 2009, 03:37 PM)
[QUOTE=Buttershug, Nov. 10 2009, 01:03 PM]
>>> You quoted a joke as a serious argument and call me dimwitted? <<<
Yes, but you are in good company. The small and the great will be at the resurrection of the dead. Jokes hide seriousness. That's the point.
What do you base that on?
Why do you say there will be a resurrection?
Because some unconfirmed book told you so?
Faith is a curse. It actively prevents people from learning the truth.
>>> You quoted a joke as a serious argument and call me dimwitted? <<<
Yes, but you are in good company. The small and the great will be at the resurrection of the dead. Jokes hide seriousness. That's the point.
What do you base that on?
Why do you say there will be a resurrection?
Because some unconfirmed book told you so?
Faith is a curse. It actively prevents people from learning the truth.
Humans have a belief and rules they live by... It depends on what/who you believe. You don't "know" for example what happened in the past for origins of life. Your premise here is false.
Faith is a curse. It actively prevents people from learning the truth.
QUOTE (buttershug+Nov 27 2009, 06:57 PM)
Faith is a curse. It actively prevents people from learning the truth.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Nov 28 2009, 02:33 AM)
Humans have a belief and rules they live by... It depends on what/who you believe. You don't "know" for example what happened in the past for origins of life. Your premise here is false.
But I don't need to know.
And I most certainly don't need to pretend to know.
I prefer no answers to wrong answers.
And do the rules people live by really depend on what they believe? Or is it more accurate to say the people believe in what supports the rules they live by.
Is Rev. Phelps against homosexuals because he's a devout Christian? Or maybe he's a devout christian because he's against homosexuals.
It just seems strange that generally people believe in what supports their wants.
And things are in the last place you look because you stop looking when you find them.
And people with faith believe they have the answers so they stop looking for them.
But I don't need to know.
And I most certainly don't need to pretend to know.
I prefer no answers to wrong answers.
And do the rules people live by really depend on what they believe? Or is it more accurate to say the people believe in what supports the rules they live by.
Is Rev. Phelps against homosexuals because he's a devout Christian? Or maybe he's a devout christian because he's against homosexuals.
It just seems strange that generally people believe in what supports their wants.
And things are in the last place you look because you stop looking when you find them.
And people with faith believe they have the answers so they stop looking for them.
I have passed mein voten.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.