| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Vacendak" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2004 03:53:01 PM |
| Object: |
A god who plays mind games |
That's how i see it.
You can't detect him with any of our 5 senses, and yet we still have to
believe in him. Because if we don't, we all get sent to hell to be tortured
for all eternity.A god who punishes people for making an honest mistake, by
reading the wrong sacred text or by calling him the wrong name.
"A god who puts out traps for people, invites them to sin, and allows them
to sin and commit crimes he could prevent. Only to finally get the barbarian
pleasure to punish them in an excessive way, of no use for himself, without
them changing their ways and without their example preventing others from
committing crimes." Baron d'Holbach (Systeme de la Nature, 1789)
Why should i believe in a god like this?
.
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
11 Oct 2004 10:14:54 PM |
|
|
On 2 Oct 2004 07:24:26 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<2tisl0l8drbcl10hmf2bnqmi6vevo7evgo@4ax.com>...
On 1 Oct 2004 16:10:24 -0700, (keith) wrote:
thomasagain@yahoo.dk (Thomas P.) wrote in message news:<58f199d9.0410010312.26e4a55f@posting.google.com>...
(keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0409300524.4da40110@posting.google.com>...
thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<4kkkl0dubca30d0bodc9ibu66ngu1k37fo@4ax.com>...
snip
(snip)
You have made it up.
No I didn't. I got the idea that God is merciful and just from
passages that explicitly say God is merciful and just, passages that
*don't* say that God mandated any genocides.
That is not where you got the idea from. If it was, you would have no
reason to reject passages that contradict that idea and to accept
those that did not.
You are mistaken. Ehen I was an atheist I had still seen the bible and
I knew that the Bible explicitly claimed God was merciful and just.
When I began to believe in God, I found myself believing those
passages. Thus the idea that God was merciful and just didn't just
creatively pop into my mind.
Is there perfect goodness and justice in the world as you would expect
if God was good and just?
You read the Bible with a preconceived notion of
what your god is. Those passages that fit your notion you judge as
truly describing god; the others are rejected. It is all based on
your subjective idea of god; which is what I have been trying to point
out to you.
That's not quite correct.
That is quite correct, and what you wrote below confirms it.
Not quite.
I do believe certain things about God, and I
bring those beliefs to the Bible when I read it. If I enconter a
passage that seems tro conflict with what I believe about God, I
consider the possibility that I (a) was wrong about God, (b) the
passage was wrong about God or (c) I misunderstood the passage. If
after such consideration, I still find myself believing they way I did
before and I believe I read the passage correctly, then logic dictates
that I conlcude the passage was wrong.
THis confirms my claim that you were not *quite* correct, because you
left out (a) above.
snip
The Bible is a collection of writings, written by different authors
over a period of many years. There is no inconsistency in believing
that some of those writings are the inspired word of God while some
are not;
Your only possible reason for doing so would be your preconceived
notions about god.
My reason for doing so would be the fact that the passage seemed to me
to conflict with something I believe about God,
That is what I said; thank you once again.
Your particular description included a few loaded words that created a
false impression, IMO. If I read a bible passage that seems to
conflict with my belief about God, I cannot consistently believe the
passage and continue to believe what I previously believed about
God--I have to reject one or the other. But there's no rational
obligation to reject my previous belief about God, especially if tat
belief seems to me to be more likely than the biblical claim.
Would you ever allow yourself to use observation to determine whether
a claim is true or not?
The Bible says that God is good but observation tells us there is no good
God.
and after
consideration I still believe what I believed about God. That's what
any rational persom *must* do.
No, Keith, rational people are under no obligation to reject
information because it rejects their preconceived notions.
I never claimed any such thing.
That is
what you do. That is what you have described yourself as doing.
No it isn't. I described myself as rejecting one of two conflicting
claim, rejecting the one I was least confident in.
In other words you are not learning anything about
god from the Bible; you are judging it against a god you already have
in mind.
Not really, not when I am using specific desriptions of God given in
the bible.
Which you would reject if they conflicted with what you already
believed and for no other objective reason.
You mean like if I believed something else about God--for example if I
didn;t believe God existed and I read a person's claim on a cyber
forum that God exists, you are saying that I would reject his claim
simply because I didn't believe that God exists? You do *that*.
there is no inconsistency in thinking that God's inspiration
was filtered through fallen human beings who sometimes allowed their
own prejudices to seep into the message.
It is clearly a totally irrational method of communication. Some of
the writers, according to you, allowed their own prejudices to seep
into the message. You, on the other hand, have been able to separate
what is true and what is not. That position is highly inconsistent,
in that you free yourself from the failings of other humans, in the
case at hand other humans who have supposedly been working under
divine inspiration.
Not at all. Obviously I could be wrong. But I have no choice but use
my own judgment to decide what's true or false; necessarily I believe
what my judgment shows me--you do too.
If I base my judgement not on available objective evidence (i.e. the
Bible contradicts itself constantly, therefore it is unreliable) but
actually reject that evidence because it conflicts with my
preconceived notions, I am being irrational. It is what you describe
yourself as doing.
No I dodn't. You haven't presented any evidence that God *isn't*
merciful and just and you don't *believe* the bible passages that seem
to indicate otherwise, so you don't consider *them* evidence. I don't
consider them evidence either, so what evidence are you talking about
that I am rejecting?
Look around you, read a newspaper, get on the internet, for *proof*
that there is no good and just God.
(snip)
Duh!! Those things I think are true amazingly agree with those things
I think are true! That's pretty much the same for everyone on earth,
Thomas.
Not everyone, some of us try to test our perceptions against reality
and not base them on what we like or do not like; which is your method
of discerning the will of your god.
Not on what I like or dislike. I try (like you) to compare my beliefs
against reality, but like you all I have are my beliefs about
reality--there is nothing you know that isn't also something you
believe, and everything you believe is something you *think*
corresponds to reality.
The total lack of validity in your argument is revealed once again by
your inevitable reliance on solipsism as your final argument.
Obviously what I wrote above *isn't* solipsism; you continue to resort
to mislabelling when *our* argument is failing.
I like you, encounter new things and add new
beliefs, and when I notice an inconsistency between my new belief and
an old one I give up one or both of the conflicting beliefs. But at
any particular moment, there are things that I believe are true, and
amazingly those things agree with the things I believe are true.
(snip)
You are nuts if you think there is an inconsistency in believing those
things you think are true and disbelieving those things you do not
think are true.
That's right Keith! Don't ever respond to what might possibly make
you question your position. Making believe that something else has
been said is so much easier.
Your charge here is absurd. Nothing I have said implies I don't
question my position. You are reading into my position your own
prejudices.
That must be it.
There doesn't seem to ne any better explanation, since nothing I wrote
implies I don't question my beliefs and any *non-prejudiced* observer
could tell that.
You continue to believe what you want in spite of evidence all around you.
A good God would have no need to be merciful.
A good God would not permit any form of suffering his creations.
Keith
-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
16 Sep 2004 10:17:58 PM |
|
|
keith wrote:
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409161301.1e3ff0a4@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409160531.60ac3a6f@posting.google.com>...
jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409151129.3898c719@posting.google.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409150523.5abfbe06@posting.google.com>...
(snip)
Golly, there's a surprize; you dodged. Answer the question: Why do
you believe in something for which there is no evidence? What thing
is it you presume I believe in without evidence?
It wasn't really a dodge, the point I was making is that it is
necessarily the case that each of us believe something without
evidence, if we believe anything at all.
I asked a straightforward question, and you responded by not
answering. Looks like a dodge to me. And again I ask, what thing is
it you presume I believe in without evidence? Why do you think "it is
necessarily the case that each of us believe something without
evidence, if we believe anything at all"? I don't agree, but maybe
you can come up with an example that will sway me.
You couldn't evaluate
evidence at all without presupposed premises from which you make your
evaluation.
What do you mean by "presupposed premises"? Ideally, one should
evaluate evidence with no preconceptions, apart from things like "the
universe exists" and the like. Is that what you mean by presupposed
premises?
Those are among the presupposed premises, but there are also others.
For example: astronomers look at the spectral patterns in stars and
conclude that they use hydrogen fusion to produce their light. This
presupposes that the laws of physics are the same light-years away as
they are in labs in earth. You can't *test* this hypothesis unless you
actually *go* to those places, and we haven't done so.
The problem is, scientists know WHY hyrogen produces the
spectrum it does, knowing how allows to to say with certainty,
that lines similar to those produced in a lab on earth must be from the
same phenomenon 1 million light years from earth.
Or any other spectrum of any other element.
So your example does not hold at all.
if you see the same spectrum in the lab, from our sun, from stars
10 light years away, 1000, or a billion, its hard to say that all of a
sudden the laws changed but by golly look EXACTLY like we would expect from
what we know why an element will produce a given spectrum.
Its like saying 1/2 light year out its not the laws of physics that are
making the spectrum of a star look like that but the doings of fairies.
It makes sense in other words, and nothing else would.
We do know the bible has serious problems in its claims in Genesis that
cannot poossibly be correct, for example the Earth preceeding the moon
and sun and stars.
Science works, religion, especially Genesis, do not.
Without the
presupposition you couldn't infer anything about those far off stars.
Similarly for estimating the age of the universe. We make some
observations, and trace things back to a point, assuming that the
universe wasn't simply created at some more recent time,
Now you are gibbering.
Theology makes many claims that can't work at all.
Yet you guys never drop bad ideas.
John 14:12-4 says if you ask Jesus anything, he will do it for you, to
maginy his Father.
And you will work bigger mirables than he.
This does not work, and there are many more claimed of miracle working
power. Mark 11:22-3, Matthew 18:19, 21:22.
Obviously, Christianity and the Bible are proven wrong by these failed
claims.
Science works, religion does not.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
17 Sep 2004 08:50:40 AM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:<414a6464$0$169$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
(snip)
You couldn't evaluate
evidence at all without presupposed premises from which you make your
evaluation.
What do you mean by "presupposed premises"? Ideally, one should
evaluate evidence with no preconceptions, apart from things like "the
universe exists" and the like. Is that what you mean by presupposed
premises?
Those are among the presupposed premises, but there are also others.
For example: astronomers look at the spectral patterns in stars and
conclude that they use hydrogen fusion to produce their light. This
presupposes that the laws of physics are the same light-years away as
they are in labs in earth. You can't *test* this hypothesis unless you
actually *go* to those places, and we haven't done so.
The problem is, scientists know WHY hyrogen produces the
spectrum it does, knowing how allows to to say with certainty,
that lines similar to those produced in a lab on earth must be from the
same phenomenon 1 million light years from earth.
Or any other spectrum of any other element.
If the laws of physics *were* different a million lightyears away then
*hydrogen *wouldn't* produce that spectrum and the evidence would
falsify the claim that far-off stars were made of hydrogen. We have to
presuppose the physics their is the same as the physics here to draw
the conclusion we do, since we can't *go* there and do experiments to
check. But you offer an argument for the physics being the same below;
I'll address that part ehn.
So your example does not hold at all.
if you see the same spectrum in the lab, from our sun, from stars
10 light years away, 1000, or a billion, its hard to say that all of a
sudden the laws changed but by golly look EXACTLY like we would expect from
what we know why an element will produce a given spectrum.
Certainly not any harder to believe than that this physics constancy
could exist without God. You have no evidence that the possibility
you mock above is unlikely, you simply trust yoou gut on it. That's
not different from the way a theist trusts his gut on the evidence for
God.
Its like saying 1/2 light year out its not the laws of physics that are
making the spectrum of a star look like that but the doings of fairies.
It makes sense in other words, and nothing else would.
There's nothing logically incoherent about the idea that the laws of
physics are different in all different parts of space, but that by
coincidence stars happen to produce similar spectra that look the same
as the hydrogen spectrum so that view does make *sense*. Your gut
tells you it's not likely, but that's not an objective measure or
anything, ou gut instinct certainly isn't objective verifiable
evidence. In fact, your gut instinct is what you use to evaluate
evidence, just like the theist uses his gut instinct to evaluate the
evidence he says points to God.
We do know the bible has serious problems in its claims in Genesis that
cannot poossibly be correct, for example the Earth preceeding the moon
and sun and stars.
Not being a genesaic literalist, I should probably not even get into
this, but it is not correct to say that the earth oculdn't possibly
have been supernaturally created before the stars were.
Science works, religion, especially Genesis, do not.
Without the
presupposition you couldn't infer anything about those far off stars.
Similarly for estimating the age of the universe. We make some
observations, and trace things back to a point, assuming that the
universe wasn't simply created at some more recent time,
Now you are gibbering.
NO I'm not. We look out how things are, we use what we know about the
physical processes, and we extrapolate backwards until we get to what
looks like the beginning, billions of years ago. WE copuld
analogouosly look at a 20 year-old, and knowing what we know about
biology conclude that he began to exist some 20 years ago. But this
conclusion poresupposes that he wasn't created all at once three years
ago, but created with all the characteristics of a 17 year old.
Theology makes many claims that can't work at all.
Yet you guys never drop bad ideas.
below you jump to a different topic altogether. But I'll take that
sidetrack
John 14:12-4 says if you ask Jesus anything, he will do it for you, to
maginy his Father.
And you will work bigger mirables than he.
This does not work, and there are many more claimed of miracle working
power. Mark 11:22-3, Matthew 18:19, 21:22.
Obviously, Christianity and the Bible are proven wrong by these failed
claims.
Science works, religion does not.
John 14: jesus says that whatever "you"--the disciples? All
Christians?--ask "in MY name I will do..."; why think that trying to
do magic tricks in acting in Christ's name? The Disciples were often
unconfident that they could do the job Christ chose them for, and
jesus' above statements were were in the context of telling the
disciples that they *could in fact* get eh job done because they'd
have divine help. There's no reason to interpret it as a generalized
ability to do magic on command.
Keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
17 Sep 2004 05:44:27 PM |
|
|
keith wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<414a6464$0$169$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
(snip)
You couldn't evaluate
evidence at all without presupposed premises from which you make
your evaluation.
What do you mean by "presupposed premises"? Ideally, one should
evaluate evidence with no preconceptions, apart from things like "the
universe exists" and the like. Is that what you mean by presupposed
premises?
Those are among the presupposed premises, but there are also others.
For example: astronomers look at the spectral patterns in stars and
conclude that they use hydrogen fusion to produce their light. This
presupposes that the laws of physics are the same light-years away as
they are in labs in earth. You can't *test* this hypothesis unless you
actually *go* to those places, and we haven't done so.
The problem is, scientists know WHY hyrogen produces the
spectrum it does, knowing how allows to to say with certainty,
that lines similar to those produced in a lab on earth must be from the
same phenomenon 1 million light years from earth.
Or any other spectrum of any other element.
If the laws of physics *were* different a million lightyears away then
*hydrogen *wouldn't* produce that spectrum and the evidence would
falsify the claim that far-off stars were made of hydrogen. We have to
presuppose the physics their is the same as the physics here to draw
the conclusion we do, since we can't *go* there and do experiments to
check. But you offer an argument for the physics being the same below;
I'll address that part ehn.
One heats up elements in the lab and note their spectrums.
You look at stars a billion light years away and see the same spectrum.
you look a billion light years in the opposite direction and see the same
spectrum.
Its obvious then, that indeed, the laws are the same.
Otherwise you'd see different things indiffrent directions.
Maybe, there is no physics a billion years away.
Maybe Magic Easter bunnies are out there playing tricks on us so
it only looks like physical processes we see on earth work the same a
billion light years in opposite directions.
And X-rays and radio waves and other processes are the same
either direct as on earth.
No, it simply does not work and all science knows it and knows why.
Making special pleadings to make room for magic Easter Bunnies
playing tricks, or even god simply isn't done.
So your example does not hold at all.
if you see the same spectrum in the lab, from our sun, from stars
10 light years away, 1000, or a billion, its hard to say that all of a
sudden the laws changed but by golly look EXACTLY like we would expect
from what we know why an element will produce a given spectrum.
Certainly not any harder to believe than that this physics constancy
could exist without God. You have no evidence that the possibility
you mock above is unlikely, you simply trust yoou gut on it. That's
not different from the way a theist trusts his gut on the evidence for
God.
Its like saying 1/2 light year out its not the laws of physics that are
making the spectrum of a star look like that but the doings of fairies.
It makes sense in other words, and nothing else would.
There's nothing logically incoherent about the idea that the laws of
physics are different in all different parts of space, but that by
coincidence stars happen to produce similar spectra that look the same
as the hydrogen spectrum so that view does make *sense*.
Except its spectra of hydrogen, oxygen, iron and many other elements.
And radio waves, and other phenomenon, x-rays, microwave radiation
and other effects.
That these all are not cause by the same physics and are different in all
parts of space, but look exactly like they are the same in all parts of
space is a spectacularly goofy claim.
It just doesn't work. An atom of hydrogen is hit with energetic photons
and is ionized, its electron stripped away. That electron gains energy
by beinghit by phitons, and then dumps that energy in a fashion
thayt produces a standard and obvious spectrum of photons that carry
away that energy from that electron.
This spectrum is the same on earth, 1 billion light years in any direction.
Thatthere could be differing physics out there that just happen to look the
same but are not simply isn't a feasible idea. And all the elements works
like this.
And if you claim may be so, its up to you to show how it works and show
evidence it is so.
Its so unlikey, that science dismisses it because it is so unlikely.
Its your burden to prove it is so and how it works in detail to be taken
seriously.
Its pseudoscience with a religous agenda and not well though out at that.
Cheerful Charlie
Your gut
tells you it's not likely, but that's not an objective measure or
anything, ou gut instinct certainly isn't objective verifiable
evidence. In fact, your gut instinct is what you use to evaluate
evidence, just like the theist uses his gut instinct to evaluate the
evidence he says points to God.
We do know the bible has serious problems in its claims in Genesis that
cannot poossibly be correct, for example the Earth preceeding the moon
and sun and stars.
Not being a genesaic literalist, I should probably not even get into
this, but it is not correct to say that the earth oculdn't possibly
have been supernaturally created before the stars were.
Science works, religion, especially Genesis, do not.
Without the
presupposition you couldn't infer anything about those far off stars.
Similarly for estimating the age of the universe. We make some
observations, and trace things back to a point, assuming that the
universe wasn't simply created at some more recent time,
Now you are gibbering.
NO I'm not. We look out how things are, we use what we know about the
physical processes, and we extrapolate backwards until we get to what
looks like the beginning, billions of years ago. WE copuld
analogouosly look at a 20 year-old, and knowing what we know about
biology conclude that he began to exist some 20 years ago. But this
conclusion poresupposes that he wasn't created all at once three years
ago, but created with all the characteristics of a 17 year old.
Theology makes many claims that can't work at all.
Yet you guys never drop bad ideas.
below you jump to a different topic altogether. But I'll take that
sidetrack
John 14:12-4 says if you ask Jesus anything, he will do it for you, to
maginy his Father.
And you will work bigger mirables than he.
This does not work, and there are many more claimed of miracle working
power. Mark 11:22-3, Matthew 18:19, 21:22.
Obviously, Christianity and the Bible are proven wrong by these failed
claims.
Science works, religion does not.
John 14: jesus says that whatever "you"--the disciples? All
Christians?--ask "in MY name I will do..."; why think that trying to
do magic tricks in acting in Christ's name? The Disciples were often
unconfident that they could do the job Christ chose them for, and
jesus' above statements were were in the context of telling the
disciples that they *could in fact* get eh job done because they'd
have divine help. There's no reason to interpret it as a generalized
ability to do magic on command.
Keith
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
20 Sep 2004 09:09:58 AM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:<414b75c4$0$172$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<414a6464$0$169$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
(snip)
(snip)
Those are among the presupposed premises, but there are also others.
For example: astronomers look at the spectral patterns in stars and
conclude that they use hydrogen fusion to produce their light. This
presupposes that the laws of physics are the same light-years away as
they are in labs in earth. You can't *test* this hypothesis unless you
actually *go* to those places, and we haven't done so.
The problem is, scientists know WHY hyrogen produces the
spectrum it does, knowing how allows to to say with certainty,
that lines similar to those produced in a lab on earth must be from the
same phenomenon 1 million light years from earth.
Or any other spectrum of any other element.
If the laws of physics *were* different a million lightyears away then
*hydrogen *wouldn't* produce that spectrum and the evidence would
falsify the claim that far-off stars were made of hydrogen. We have to
presuppose the physics their is the same as the physics here to draw
the conclusion we do, since we can't *go* there and do experiments to
check. But you offer an argument for the physics being the same below;
I'll address that part ehn.
One heats up elements in the lab and note their spectrums.
You look at stars a billion light years away and see the same spectrum.
you look a billion light years in the opposite direction and see the same
spectrum.
Its obvious then, that indeed, the laws are the same.
Otherwise you'd see different things indiffrent directions.
Here you make an argument for the similarity of physics throughout the
universe, the argument I alluded to above, and an argument that is
very similar to the argument for God based on the existence of the
universe. But that's not the point here. I addressed the argument
below.
(snip)
So your example does not hold at all.
if you see the same spectrum in the lab, from our sun, from stars
10 light years away, 1000, or a billion, its hard to say that all of a
sudden the laws changed but by golly look EXACTLY like we would expect
from what we know why an element will produce a given spectrum.
Certainly not any harder to believe than that this physics constancy
could exist without God. You have no evidence that the possibility
you mock above is unlikely, you simply trust yoou gut on it. That's
not different from the way a theist trusts his gut on the evidence for
God.
I point out here that below you *confirm* that you use yor gut to
estimate the unlikelihood of physics being different in other parts of
space.
Its like saying 1/2 light year out its not the laws of physics that are
making the spectrum of a star look like that but the doings of fairies.
It makes sense in other words, and nothing else would.
There's nothing logically incoherent about the idea that the laws of
physics are different in all different parts of space, but that by
coincidence stars happen to produce similar spectra that look the same
as the hydrogen spectrum so that view does make *sense*.
Except its spectra of hydrogen, oxygen, iron and many other elements.
And radio waves, and other phenomenon, x-rays, microwave radiation
and other effects.
That these all are not cause by the same physics and are different in all
parts of space, but look exactly like they are the same in all parts of
space is a spectacularly goofy claim.
I didn't claim it wasn't a goofy claim, but the point is: you cannot
objectively determine spectacular goofiness, you determine that by
your gut. You cannot get away from using your gut which is what I have
been saying. It is equally goofy to claim that the universe could
exist apart from God, I would say.
It just doesn't work. An atom of hydrogen is hit with energetic photons
and is ionized, its electron stripped away. That electron gains energy
by beinghit by phitons, and then dumps that energy in a fashion
thayt produces a standard and obvious spectrum of photons that carry
away that energy from that electron.
This spectrum is the same on earth, 1 billion light years in any direction.
Thatthere could be differing physics out there that just happen to look the
same but are not simply isn't a feasible idea. And all the elements works
like this.
Isn't feasible? It doesn't contradict anything (except your intuition
of what's likely).
And if you claim may be so, its up to you to show how it works and show
evidence it is so.
Its so unlikey, that science dismisses it because it is so unlikely.
I made no such claim, william. What I claimed was that to evaluate any
evidence you have to depend on something for which you have no
evidence--in this case you have to depend on your ability to judge
what kind of physics is feasible.
Its your burden to prove it is so and how it works in detail to be taken
seriously.
Its pseudoscience with a religous agenda and not well though out at that.
Huh?
Keith
Cheerful Charlie
Your gut
tells you it's not likely, but that's not an objective measure or
anything, ou gut instinct certainly isn't objective verifiable
evidence. In fact, your gut instinct is what you use to evaluate
evidence, just like the theist uses his gut instinct to evaluate the
evidence he says points to God.
We do know the bible has serious problems in its claims in Genesis that
cannot poossibly be correct, for example the Earth preceeding the moon
and sun and stars.
Not being a genesaic literalist, I should probably not even get into
this, but it is not correct to say that the earth oculdn't possibly
have been supernaturally created before the stars were.
Science works, religion, especially Genesis, do not.
Without the
presupposition you couldn't infer anything about those far off stars.
Similarly for estimating the age of the universe. We make some
observations, and trace things back to a point, assuming that the
universe wasn't simply created at some more recent time,
Now you are gibbering.
NO I'm not. We look out how things are, we use what we know about the
physical processes, and we extrapolate backwards until we get to what
looks like the beginning, billions of years ago. WE copuld
analogouosly look at a 20 year-old, and knowing what we know about
biology conclude that he began to exist some 20 years ago. But this
conclusion poresupposes that he wasn't created all at once three years
ago, but created with all the characteristics of a 17 year old.
Theology makes many claims that can't work at all.
Yet you guys never drop bad ideas.
below you jump to a different topic altogether. But I'll take that
sidetrack
John 14:12-4 says if you ask Jesus anything, he will do it for you, to
maginy his Father.
And you will work bigger mirables than he.
This does not work, and there are many more claimed of miracle working
power. Mark 11:22-3, Matthew 18:19, 21:22.
Obviously, Christianity and the Bible are proven wrong by these failed
claims.
Science works, religion does not.
John 14: jesus says that whatever "you"--the disciples? All
Christians?--ask "in MY name I will do..."; why think that trying to
do magic tricks in acting in Christ's name? The Disciples were often
unconfident that they could do the job Christ chose them for, and
jesus' above statements were were in the context of telling the
disciples that they *could in fact* get eh job done because they'd
have divine help. There's no reason to interpret it as a generalized
ability to do magic on command.
Keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
20 Sep 2004 10:15:03 PM |
|
|
keith wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<414b75c4$0$172$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<414a6464$0$169$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
(snip)
(snip)
Those are among the presupposed premises, but there are also others.
For example: astronomers look at the spectral patterns in stars and
conclude that they use hydrogen fusion to produce their light. This
presupposes that the laws of physics are the same light-years away
as they are in labs in earth. You can't *test* this hypothesis
unless you actually *go* to those places, and we haven't done so.
The problem is, scientists know WHY hyrogen produces the
spectrum it does, knowing how allows to to say with certainty,
that lines similar to those produced in a lab on earth must be from
the same phenomenon 1 million light years from earth.
Or any other spectrum of any other element.
If the laws of physics *were* different a million lightyears away then
*hydrogen *wouldn't* produce that spectrum and the evidence would
falsify the claim that far-off stars were made of hydrogen. We have to
presuppose the physics their is the same as the physics here to draw
the conclusion we do, since we can't *go* there and do experiments to
check. But you offer an argument for the physics being the same below;
I'll address that part ehn.
One heats up elements in the lab and note their spectrums.
You look at stars a billion light years away and see the same spectrum.
you look a billion light years in the opposite direction and see the same
spectrum.
Its obvious then, that indeed, the laws are the same.
Otherwise you'd see different things indiffrent directions.
Here you make an argument for the similarity of physics throughout the
universe, the argument I alluded to above, and an argument that is
very similar to the argument for God based on the existence of the
universe. But that's not the point here. I addressed the argument
below.
(snip)
No, you are not THINKING about this.
You have to offer some REASON why its different 1 billion
light years away, not just offer a rhetorical question.
because we have good REASON to believe it is not.
There is no theoretical reason for any difference.
If you think there is, you have to offer EVIDENCE.
And burden of proof is on YOU, not those who have been
making great progress with the assumption physics
does not differ 1 billion light years away.
Many have tried to come up with scientific claims
like that and have failed.
Trying to find dark matter, dark energy and other
hypotheticals. But the changes such things may
show far away that give their presense away don't.
There is no sign physics differs far away or should.
And good reason to suppose it does not.
Rhetorical questions are not science.
Argument over.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
21 Sep 2004 08:14:01 AM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:<414fa9c1$0$167$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<414b75c4$0$172$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<414a6464$0$169$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
(snip)
One heats up elements in the lab and note their spectrums.
You look at stars a billion light years away and see the same spectrum.
you look a billion light years in the opposite direction and see the same
spectrum.
Its obvious then, that indeed, the laws are the same.
Otherwise you'd see different things indiffrent directions.
Here you make an argument for the similarity of physics throughout the
universe, the argument I alluded to above, and an argument that is
very similar to the argument for God based on the existence of the
universe. But that's not the point here. I addressed the argument
below.
(snip)
No, you are not THINKING about this.
You have to offer some REASON why its different 1 billion
light years away, not just offer a rhetorical question.
because we have good REASON to believe it is not.
There is no theoretical reason for any difference.
Your reason for thinking the physics is the same is your judgment
about a probability: you judge that it is incredibly unlikely that the
same spectra would be produced by different causes. You have to
presuppose the accuracy of this faculty of yours to judge probability
in order draw that conclusion and you do not have any evidence that
your judgment about such things *is* accurate.
If you think there is, you have to offer EVIDENCE.
And burden of proof is on YOU, not those who have been
making great progress with the assumption physics
does not differ 1 billion light years away.
You do know that I agree with those physicists don't you? Your above
comment means that I'd have to give them a good reason to think their
judgment about the likelihood of the same spectra being produced by
different causes was wrong, since they have no good reason to reject
it. My simply calling their judgments wishful thinking or something
like that wouldn't be enough. The same is true when atheists say we
theists are wishfully thinking.
Many have tried to come up with scientific claims
like that and have failed.
Trying to find dark matter, dark energy and other
hypotheticals. But the changes such things may
show far away that give their presense away don't.
There is no sign physics differs far away or should.
And good reason to suppose it does not.
Rhetorical questions are not science.
I agree with yout last sentence.
keith
Argument over.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
21 Sep 2004 08:04:38 PM |
|
|
keith wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<414fa9c1$0$167$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
Your reason for thinking the physics is the same is your judgment
about a probability: you judge that it is incredibly unlikely that the
same spectra would be produced by different causes. You have to
presuppose the accuracy of this faculty of yours to judge probability
in order draw that conclusion and you do not have any evidence that
your judgment about such things *is* accurate.
Physics works.
Religion over several thousand years of speculation on the natural world
has a perfect record.
Always wrong. On everything religion ever had an opinion on.
If anybody thinks that physics 1 billion light years way is different than
here, they have every right to write this up and submit evidence to per
reviewed journals.
But only evidence talks, rhetorical questions alway walk.
There is very good reasonto doubt it, very good reason to
believe ther is no diffrence in matter 1 billion light years wawy.
Rhetorical questions in science are meaningless.
That is all you have.
With a religous agenda.
You have no evidence the well tested assumption
physics is the same 1 billion light years away is not the same.
There is good evidence it is.
Since you are not a competent phsyicist, I will defer to
competent physicists.
Argument over.
If you still wish to argue in this fashion, turn it 180
degree around and apply the same reasoning to god.
There is no reason to suppose god exists or has anything
to do with physics and so you have no right to consider it
true in any way until it is proven with hard evidence.
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
22 Sep 2004 08:55:50 AM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:<4150dcab$0$171$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<414fa9c1$0$167$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
Your reason for thinking the physics is the same is your judgment
about a probability: you judge that it is incredibly unlikely that the
same spectra would be produced by different causes. You have to
presuppose the accuracy of this faculty of yours to judge probability
in order draw that conclusion and you do not have any evidence that
your judgment about such things *is* accurate.
Physics works.
yes it does; I have never denied that.
Religion over several thousand years of speculation on the natural world
has a perfect record.
Always wrong. On everything religion ever had an opinion on.
You have no basis for that claim.
If anybody thinks that physics 1 billion light years way is different than
here, they have every right to write this up and submit evidence to per
reviewed journals.
Here you ignore what *I* wrote above; you're not *discussing* things,
you are speechifying.
But only evidence talks, rhetorical questions alway walk.
There is very good reasonto doubt it, very good reason to
believe ther is no diffrence in matter 1 billion light years wawy.
yes there is: your accurate intuition that it is unlikely that the
exact same spectra would obtain if the physics were different
Rhetorical questions in science are meaningless.
That is all you have.
With a religous agenda.
Your comment is baseless, ironically *your* the one engaing in
rhetoric.
You have no evidence the well tested assumption
physics is the same 1 billion light years away is not the same.
There is good evidence it is.
Since you are not a competent phsyicist, I will defer to
competent physicists.
Here you imply that I have expressed doubts that the laws of physics
are the same everywhere. That is not accurate.
Argument over.
If you still wish to argue in this fashion, turn it 180
degree around and apply the same reasoning to god.
There is no reason to suppose god exists or has anything
to do with physics and so you have no right to consider it
true in any way until it is proven with hard evidence.
But I *didn't* say there was no reason to suppose the laws of physics
are the same everywhere; I said that teh *reason* is your accurate
intuition about how unlikely it would be for the same spectra being
observed if the laws weren't rhe same. My point all along was that you
can't get away from trusting your intuition; you prove my point.
keith
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
22 Sep 2004 11:27:33 AM |
|
|
keith wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<4150dcab$0$171$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<414fa9c1$0$167$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
Your reason for thinking the physics is the same is your judgment
about a probability: you judge that it is incredibly unlikely that the
same spectra would be produced by different causes. You have to
presuppose the accuracy of this faculty of yours to judge probability
in order draw that conclusion and you do not have any evidence that
your judgment about such things *is* accurate.
Physics works.
yes it does; I have never denied that.
Religion over several thousand years of speculation on the natural world
has a perfect record.
Always wrong. On everything religion ever had an opinion on.
You have no basis for that claim.
Flat earth, Earth is the center of the Universe,
if the earth was round, there could be no life possible
on the antipodes, the idea of life on other planets is
blasphemous, on and on the errors go.
Name me one thing either Islam or Christianity or
Judaism had to say in their scriptures on the nature
of the natural world that was not dead wrong.
I have lots of basis to make this claim.
Christianity was especially error prone.
Genesis is loaded with scientific howlers.
The Quran is too, comets were created to chase
eaves dropping djinn away from Allah's throne
in the 7th heavan.
Religion got nothing right at all.
Show me anything if you think I'm wrong.
We had to wait for science to do all the
heavy lifting here.
If anybody thinks that physics 1 billion light years way is different
than here, they have every right to write this up and submit evidence to
per reviewed journals.
Here you ignore what *I* wrote above; you're not *discussing* things,
you are speechifying.
So what? If someone squeals "Maybe things are different out there!",
well maybe not. What's your evidence? Hard evidence is all
I care about. We have lots of hard evidence things aren't different out
there.
I expect anybody who claims it is not to take the trouble to
study this and know why this is an old question, well settled
by phsyics.
I don't care to educate you on this issue.
But only evidence talks, rhetorical questions alway walk.
There is very good reasonto doubt it, very good reason to
believe ther is no diffrence in matter 1 billion light years wawy.
yes there is: your accurate intuition that it is unlikely that the
exact same spectra would obtain if the physics were different
Science's. because peole have already chewed thjis over long ago.
Again, you know little about it, and I simply don't feel like educating you
on the particulars.
Again, hard evidence only.
Rhetorical questions in science are meaningless.
That is all you have.
With a religous agenda.
Your comment is baseless, ironically *your* the one engaing in
rhetoric.
Its you who made the rhetorical claim.
Now what you need is some good evidence
to show you have any real reason to make such a claim.
You have no evidence the well tested assumption
physics is the same 1 billion light years away is not the same.
There is good evidence it is.
Since you are not a competent phsyicist, I will defer to
competent physicists.
Here you imply that I have expressed doubts that the laws of physics
are the same everywhere. That is not accurate.
What you did was ask a rhetorical question about that.
That is, you want to shift the burden of evidence to me to disprove a
rhetorical claim.
Which is not my burden.
A number of phenomnon have been noted that people
seriously tried to explain as varying physics in other
parts of the Universe. It has never worked out that there was
any such.
Example superstrings, super dense regions of space
left over from the big bang, This made certain predictions
which did not work out.
Its not like this sort of question has not been chewed
over again and again.
But not in a rhetorical question manner.
Its been dealt with.
Argument over.
If you still wish to argue in this fashion, turn it 180
degree around and apply the same reasoning to god.
There is no reason to suppose god exists or has anything
to do with physics and so you have no right to consider it
true in any way until it is proven with hard evidence.
But I *didn't* say there was no reason to suppose the laws of physics
are the same everywhere; I said that teh *reason* is your accurate
intuition about how unlikely it would be for the same spectra being
observed if the laws weren't rhe same. My point all along was that you
can't get away from trusting your intuition; you prove my point.
Its not about intuition.
Its about common sense, which is what science is, applied
common sense with double checks.
These things get severely tested.
And have been. Intuition has nothing to do with it.
And again, if you know what a spectra is what it is, and
how that works, and teh same phenomenon is seen a billion
light years away in opposite directions, it is not intuition
to note that is is very unlikely then, that there is any difference,
when you can also see no reason for any difference to occur anyway.
A hot hydrogen atom obviously works the same a billion lights
years away in any direction as it does on earth.
You get the same spectrum. and you know why light from a hot
hydrogen atom does what it does the way it does it. Or hot helium,
oxygen, iron or calcium for that matter.
This has nothing to do with intuition and everything to do with careful
observation.
Which careful observations have been made for a century looking
for any such signs of different behavior in distant parts of the Universe.
When we do get such differences, we know what they are, such as the
twisting of space/time which makes the apparent orbit of Mercury
appear different from assumed space not so bent.
Such differences are not differences of physics because such effects
are to be seen anywhere a massive object occludes stars.
Intuition is not in play here, except as far as it can be made
into a real hypothesis and tested properly.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
25 Sep 2004 09:59:48 PM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:<4151b4f5$0$169$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<4150dcab$0$171$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<414fa9c1$0$167$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
Your reason for thinking the physics is the same is your judgment
about a probability: you judge that it is incredibly unlikely that the
same spectra would be produced by different causes. You have to
presuppose the accuracy of this faculty of yours to judge probability
in order draw that conclusion and you do not have any evidence that
your judgment about such things *is* accurate.
Physics works.
yes it does; I have never denied that.
Religion over several thousand years of speculation on the natural world
has a perfect record.
Always wrong. On everything religion ever had an opinion on.
You have no basis for that claim.
Flat earth, Earth is the center of the Universe,
if the earth was round, there could be no life possible
on the antipodes, the idea of life on other planets is
blasphemous, on and on the errors go.
1. None of the first few were essential to Christian religion, even
though the Catholic Church thought it was. It;s stuff like that that
turned people into Protestants.
2. Life on other planets is also not blasphemous; on the other hand,
there ciertainly isn't any evidence that such life exists.
Name me one thing either Islam or Christianity or
Judaism had to say in their scriptures on the nature
of the natural world that was not dead wrong.
That God *created* it. None of those above books were science books
and whatever they said that might have referred to the things of
science are entirely incidental to the spiritual things they are
about.
I have lots of basis to make this claim.
Christianity was especially error prone.
Genesis is loaded with scientific howlers.
The Quran is too, comets were created to chase
eaves dropping djinn away from Allah's throne
in the 7th heavan.
Religion got nothing right at all.
Show me anything if you think I'm wrong.
We had to wait for science to do all the
heavy lifting here.
Science is really good in its domain, but religion is about a
different area of our experience.
If anybody thinks that physics 1 billion light years way is different
than here, they have every right to write this up and submit evidence to
per reviewed journals.
Here you ignore what *I* wrote above; you're not *discussing* things,
you are speechifying.
So what? If someone squeals "Maybe things are different out there!",
well maybe not. What's your evidence? Hard evidence is all
I care about. We have lots of hard evidence things aren't different out
there.
I didn't *suggest* that things might be different out there. I simply
pointed ut that the idea that the laws are the *same* depends on your
judgment abut a probability that that you cannot have evidence for.
I expect anybody who claims it is not to take the trouble to
study this and know why this is an old question, well settled
by phsyics.
I don't care to educate you on this issue.
I am laughing out loud now:-)
But only evidence talks, rhetorical questions alway walk.
There is very good reasonto doubt it, very good reason to
believe ther is no diffrence in matter 1 billion light years wawy.
yes there is: your accurate intuition that it is unlikely that the
exact same spectra would obtain if the physics were different
Science's.
Science doesn't *make* judgments; scientists do.
because peole have already chewed thjis over long ago.
Again, you know little about it, and I simply don't feel like educating you
on the particulars.
Again, hard evidence only.
I am again luaghing out loud.
Rhetorical questions in science are meaningless.
That is all you have.
With a religous agenda.
Your comment is baseless, ironically *your* the one engaing in
rhetoric.
Its you who made the rhetorical claim.
Now what you need is some good evidence
to show you have any real reason to make such a claim.
I challenge you to paraphrase my claim--don't look it back up, just
tell me what you think I claimed.
You have no evidence the well tested assumption
physics is the same 1 billion light years away is not the same.
There is good evidence it is.
Since you are not a competent phsyicist, I will defer to
competent physicists.
Here you imply that I have expressed doubts that the laws of physics
are the same everywhere. That is not accurate.
What you did was ask a rhetorical question about that.
That is, you want to shift the burden of evidence to me to disprove a
rhetorical claim.
Which is not my burden.
Obviously yuo *can't* disprove the alleged rhetorical question, and I
am quite shocked that you somehow think I am asking to disprove any
rhetorical claims.
A number of phenomnon have been noted that people
seriously tried to explain as varying physics in other
parts of the Universe. It has never worked out that there was
any such.
Example superstrings, super dense regions of space
left over from the big bang, This made certain predictions
which did not work out.
Its not like this sort of question has not been chewed
over again and again.
That is of course not relevant to what we are discussing.
But not in a rhetorical question manner.
Its been dealt with.
Argument over.
If you still wish to argue in this fashion, turn it 180
degree around and apply the same reasoning to god.
There is no reason to suppose god exists or has anything
to do with physics and so you have no right to consider it
true in any way until it is proven with hard evidence.
But I *didn't* say there was no reason to suppose the laws of physics
are the same everywhere; I said that teh *reason* is your accurate
intuition about how unlikely it would be for the same spectra being
observed if the laws weren't rhe same. My point all along was that you
can't get away from trusting your intuition; you prove my point.
Its not about intuition.
Its about common sense, which is what science is, applied
common sense with double checks.
These things get severely tested.
And have been. Intuition has nothing to do with it.
That you think common sense is different from intuition might explain
why you haven't understood the debate. And it is not possible to test
the claim that "it is very unlikely that the spectra from stars would
match spectra we get from earth labs unless the laws of physics were
the same there as here".
And again, if you know what a spectra is what it is, and
how that works, and teh same phenomenon is seen a billion
light years away in opposite directions, it is not intuition
to note that is is very unlikely then,....
yes it is, since you have no way to test your probability estimate.
that there is any difference,
when you can also see no reason for any difference to occur anyway.
No reason for any difference? Even if the spectra were different, we'd
not have a specific reason to think the laws of physics were
different--we might just as well conclude that the stars were
different than they are.
A hot hydrogen atom obviously works the same a billion lights
years away in any direction as it does on earth.
Obviously? How do you meausre "obviously"? There certainly isn't any
logically necessary reason to think that hydrogen behaves the same
there as it does here, or that there aren't some other kind of matter
that mimics hydrogen in the lab. Your "obviously" reflects your
intuition.
You get the same spectrum. and you know why light from a hot
hydrogen atom does what it does the way it does it. Or hot helium,
oxygen, iron or calcium for that matter.
This has nothing to do with intuition and everything to do with careful
observation.
Yuo cannot carefully observe "obviousness' which is yuor justification
for the claim that hydrogen behaves the same way everywhere.
Which careful observations have been made for a century looking
for any such signs of different behavior in distant parts of the Universe.
And the behavior was always the same, I know. And that "obviously"
means the laws of physics are the same, and you cannot measure that
obviousness, you cannot "carefully observe" that obviousness. That
obviousness, that common sense you speak of *is* intuition. And you
cannot escape using it.
When we do get such differences, we know what they are, such as the
twisting of space/time which makes the apparent orbit of Mercury
appear different from assumed space not so bent.
Such differences are not differences of physics because such effects
are to be seen anywhere a massive object occludes stars.
Intuition is not in play here, except as far as it can be made
into a real hypothesis and tested properly.
The intuition comes when you decide that such and such result means
that such and such theory has anything to do with how the world really
is. You can't escape it--you've proved that again in this most recent
of your posts.
keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
26 Sep 2004 11:13:14 AM |
|
|
keith wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<4151b4f5$0$169$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<4150dcab$0$171$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:<414fa9c1$0$167$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
keith wrote:
Your reason for thinking the physics is the same is your judgment
about a probability: you judge that it is incredibly unlikely that
the same spectra would be produced by different causes. You have to
presuppose the accuracy of this faculty of yours to judge
probability in order draw that conclusion and you do not have any
evidence that your judgment about such things *is* accurate.
Physics works.
yes it does; I have never denied that.
Religion over several thousand years of speculation on the natural
world has a perfect record.
Always wrong. On everything religion ever had an opinion on.
You have no basis for that claim.
Flat earth, Earth is the center of the Universe,
if the earth was round, there could be no life possible
on the antipodes, the idea of life on other planets is
blasphemous, on and on the errors go.
1. None of the first few were essential to Christian religion, even
though the Catholic Church thought it was. It;s stuff like that that
turned people into Protestants.
It was essential enough to the Catholic heirarchy at the time
you could be tortured and burnt at the stake (as was Bruno)
for heresies like this. And they most certainly did see it as
essential. Such claims were a slippery slope to atheism, skepticism,
and unorthodoxy. Unorthodoxy was a very big concern to them.
This was a vast error on their part.
2. Life on other planets is also not blasphemous; on the other hand,
there ciertainly isn't any evidence that such life exists.
It was a blasphemy then. Bruno was tortured and burt at the
stake for this and other heresies and was specifically asked
to recant that particular claim.
The dogma was, life could not so exist, for theological reasons.
after all, if there was such life, Jesus could not minister to them.
Name me one thing either Islam or Christianity or
Judaism had to say in their scriptures on the nature
of the natural world that was not dead wrong.
That God *created* it. None of those above books were science books
and whatever they said that might have referred to the things of
science are entirely incidental to the spiritual things they are
about.
That is dead wrong. We have othr tales with many gods,
and we have yet to see any gods.
You are right, they most certainly weren't science books, yet
today's idiot creationists tell us it most certainly is, as do
many Moslems tell us the Quran is the source of science.
I have lots of basis to make this claim.
Christianity was especially error prone.
Genesis is loaded with scientific howlers.
The Quran is too, comets were created to chase
eaves dropping djinn away from Allah's throne
in the 7th heavan.
Religion got nothing right at all.
Show me anything if you think I'm wrong.
We had to wait for science to do all the
heavy lifting here.
Science is really good in its domain, but religion is about a
different area of our experience.
But religion, trying to encroach on that domain made nothing
but errors. Why then should we trust they got the religion part right?
Islam claims you go to hell if blasphemously, you insist
Jesus was son of god, Christianity says you burn if you don't
accept that. Hinduism says something else.
We now know the storie of Moses, Joshua an the patriarchs
are not history and never happened, archeaology has proven
that. Not only did religion get that wrong, but a lot
of lying and story telling went on long ago.
They didn't get the religion part right either.
Goose eggs all around.
If anybody thinks that physics 1 billion light years way is different
than here, they have every right to write this up and submit evidence
to per reviewed journals.
Here you ignore what *I* wrote above; you're not *discussing* things,
you are speechifying.
So what? If someone squeals "Maybe things are different out there!",
well maybe not. What's your evidence? Hard evidence is all
I care about. We have lots of hard evidence things aren't different out
there.
I didn't *suggest* that things might be different out there. I simply
pointed ut that the idea that the laws are the *same* depends on your
judgment abut a probability that that you cannot have evidence for.
No, you made a rhetorical question, which I point out, doesn't count for
anything.
You got evidence there is a good reason for your rhetorical question?
Spit it out.
Evidence only.
A rhetorical question very well DOES suggest things.
Otherwise, why make it?
Judgment about things like this is a settled issue, there is good
scientific evidnce to support the strong view that physics does not change
with distance.
Rhetorical questions by non-experts with agendas
are suspect.
I expect anybody who claims it is not to take the trouble to
study this and know why this is an old question, well settled
by phsyics.
I don't care to educate you on this issue.
I am laughing out loud now:-)
Don't laugh. You know very little about an issue
that has been well chewed over for a long, long time.
You barely know anything.
One could fill bookshelves with the issue.
Example, Isaac newton theorized a Universe wide regularity
that was the basic underlying theoretical foundation on
Newtonian physics. It was important for physics because
that gave a frame of reference to understanding things like
momentum and inertia and other technicalities.
Einstein overturned Newtonian physics. Newton's physics was
explicitly regular and absolute. General relativity removed these
frames of reference, all mattered between the relative observations
of different observers at different points of space-time, and at
differing speeds.
These deep theoretical issues starting with Newton, explicitly
stated that physics was the same throughout the Universe,
such regularity was not a feature, but the very foundation of
why other features of physics were the way they were. without such a
regularity, the Universe could not exust as it did.
Obviously, you are unaware of any of this and the history of it all,
and the deeper understandings of Newtonian physics.
You probably are equally unaware that for Newton, this was
theology, he was hoping his new physics and way of mathematically
doing physics would be the basis of a new understanding
of the nature of the world that would place god on a scientific basis,
he was paralleling Descarte's attempt to found philosphy on
an axiomatic basis which was also likewise, an attempt to put god on
a proven basis to fight rising religous skepticism.
This is a deep and highly developed series of ideas that you are surely
almost totaly ignorant of the history and nature of.
newton was the father of classical physics and it had a theological
backround to it and the idea that physics was the same through
out the Universe had theroetical aspects not merely based on
assumptions, but deeper theoretical understandings of how
the Universe coordinated itself locally and thus was understandable
at all and was thus amenable to calculable examinations.
And it gets only more complex with the coming of quantum physics.
But only evidence talks, rhetorical questions alway walk.
There is very good reasonto doubt it, very good reason to
believe ther is no diffrence in matter 1 billion light years wawy.
yes there is: your accurate intuition that it is unlikely that the
exact same spectra would obtain if the physics were different
Science's.
Science doesn't *make* judgments; scientists do.
Yes, but based on sound scientific standards for what is
good judgement or not.
because peole have already chewed thjis over long ago.
Again, you know little about it, and I simply don't feel like educating
you on the particulars.
Again, hard evidence only.
I am again luaghing out loud.
You should be googling. But hey...
Religion makes its judgments too.
There can be no life on any theortical antipodes
of Earth since men living there would not see
Jesus's return as per teh Bible.
There can be no life on othr planest as Jesus
would have been a singular historical happening
and could not be known to other possible planets again,
against scripture.
Bad judgment..
Rhetorical questions in science are meaningless.
That is all you have.
With a religous agenda.
Your comment is baseless, ironically *your* the one engaing in
rhetoric.
Its you who made the rhetorical claim.
Now what you need is some good evidence
to show you have any real reason to make such a claim.
I challenge you to paraphrase my claim--don't look it back up, just
tell me what you think I claimed.
You made a rhetorical statement that the claim science
made that physics is much the same across the Universe
was a mere assumption, a mere judgment.
Its not. Its an idea that has has alot of hard evidence developed
over centuries to back it up.
Rhetorical statments like that are burden of proof
shifting device.
You have no evidence the well tested assumption
physics is the same 1 billion light years away is not the same.
There is good evidence it is.
Since you are not a competent phsyicist, I will defer to
competent physicists.
Here you imply that I have expressed doubts that the laws of physics
are the same everywhere. That is not accurate.
What you did was ask a rhetorical question about that.
That is, you want to shift the burden of evidence to me to disprove a
rhetorical claim.
Which is not my burden.
Obviously yuo *can't* disprove the alleged rhetorical question, and I
am quite shocked that you somehow think I am asking to disprove any
rhetorical claims.
I can, but that would take a lot of explaining as it is a rather complex
subject with a long history. It does not lend itself to envelope back
type explanations, as I have given you that and you have rejected them.
I am under no obligation to educate you.
Do your own homework.
I gave you clues, you rejected them
A number of phenomnon have been noted that people
seriously tried to explain as varying physics in other
parts of the Universe. It has never worked out that there was
any such.
Example superstrings, super dense regions of space
left over from the big bang, This made certain predictions
which did not work out.
Its not like this sort of question has not been chewed
over again and again.
That is of course not relevant to what we are discussing.
But not in a rhetorical question manner.
Its been dealt with.
Argument over.
If you still wish to argue in this fashion, turn it 180
degree around and apply the same reasoning to god.
There is no reason to suppose god exists or has anything
to do with physics and so you have no right to consider it
true in any way until it is proven with hard evidence.
But I *didn't* say there was no reason to suppose the laws of physics
are the same everywhere; I said that teh *reason* is your accurate
intuition about how unlikely it would be for the same spectra being
observed if the laws weren't rhe same. My point all along was that you
can't get away from trusting your intuition; you prove my point.
Its not about intuition.
Its about common sense, which is what science is, applied
common sense with double checks.
These things get severely tested.
And have been. Intuition has nothing to do with it.
That you think common sense is different from intuition might explain
why you haven't understood the debate. And it is not possible to test
the claim that "it is very unlikely that the spectra from stars would
match spectra we get from earth labs unless the laws of physics were
the same there as here".
And again, if you know what a spectra is what it is, and
how that works, and teh same phenomenon is seen a billion
light years away in opposite directions, it is not intuition
to note that is is very unlikely then,....
yes it is, since you have no way to test your probability estimate.
that there is any difference,
when you can also see no reason for any difference to occur anyway.
No reason for any difference? Even if the spectra were different, we'd
not have a specific reason to think the laws of physics were
different--we might just as well conclude that the stars were
different than they are.
A hot hydrogen atom obviously works the same a billion lights
years away in any direction as it does on earth.
Obviously? How do you meausre "obviously"? There certainly isn't any
logically necessary reason to think that hydrogen behaves the same
there as it does here, or that there aren't some other kind of matter
that mimics hydrogen in the lab. Your "obviously" reflects your
intuition.
You get the same spectrum. and you know why light from a hot
hydrogen atom does what it does the way it does it. Or hot helium,
oxygen, iron or calcium for that matter.
This has nothing to do with intuition and everything to do with careful
observation.
Yuo cannot carefully observe "obviousness' which is yuor justification
for the claim that hydrogen behaves the same way everywhere.
Which careful observations have been made for a century looking
for any such signs of different behavior in distant parts of the
Universe.
And the behavior was always the same, I know. And that "obviously"
means the laws of physics are the same, and you cannot measure that
obviousness, you cannot "carefully observe" that obviousness. That
obviousness, that common sense you speak of *is* intuition. And you
cannot escape using it.
When we do get such differences, we know what they are, such as the
twisting of space/time which makes the apparent orbit of Mercury
appear different from assumed space not so bent.
Such differences are not differences of physics because such effects
are to be seen anywhere a massive object occludes stars.
Intuition is not in play here, except as far as it can be made
into a real hypothesis and tested properly.
The intuition comes when you decide that such and such result means
that such and such theory has anything to do with how the world really
is. You can't escape it--you've proved that again in this most recent
of your posts.
keith
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
15 Sep 2004 06:36:09 AM |
|
|
On 14 Sep 2004 21:27:22 -0700, (JessHC) wrote:
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message news:<ba696799.0409141220.50bb4280@posting.google.com>...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message news:<2qo321F11vtifU1@uni-berlin.de>...
"keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0409131656.c886d83@posting.google.com...
snip
Nope, God does exist
Prove it then.
God's existence doesn't depend on my feeble ability to prove he exists:-)
Why do you believe in something for which there is no evidence?
More to the point, why does he expect us to take him seriously? And
why does he make so many stupid comments because we don't?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
17 Sep 2004 02:30:09 PM |
|
|
keith <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote:
God's existence doesn't depend on my feeble ability to
prove he exists:-)
Mmmm, waffles. I like mine with butter and real maple syrup, please! :)
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
14 Sep 2004 01:44:35 PM |
|
|
keith wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<4145e89c$0$20254$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
Echo2Drs wrote:
You can't detect him with any of our 5 senses, and yet we still have to
believe in him.
The 5 senses, see, hear,taste, touch and smell, are all feelings of our animal
body (flesh). Animals have all 5 of these too.
These 5 are the senses we use to experience this dimension. For good and bad!
"A god who puts out traps for people, invites them to sin, and allows them
to sin and commit crimes he could prevent.
God doesn't set traps. If you are married and commit adultry, you did it
yourself. Nobody forced you to do it!! By your free will you did it!!!
If you stuff yourself with food, its nobody's fault but your own! God didn't
poke it down your throat!
Why should i believe in a god like this?
Because God ISN'T like this!
God is Not a dictator, He gave you free will to choose your own path, right or
wrong!
Nope God simply doesn't exist.
Your belief is just crutch for your fears.
Sad really.
Nope, God does exist and my belief is not a crutch for my fears.
Where is this God fella then ? Doesn't seem to have much use, does he ?
And
one other thing: you know this national mess that Bush has inflicted
on us? It;s your fault unless you voted for Al Gore in the last
election:-)
Urm...actually I voted for Plaid Cymru.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
Skype callto://hellward
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: A god who plays mind games |
15 Sep 2004 08:44:22 AM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<41473c45$0$20252$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
keith wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<4145e89c$0$20254$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>...
Echo2Drs wrote:
You can't detect him with any of our 5 senses, and yet we still have to
believe in him.
The 5 senses, see, hear,taste, touch and smell, are all feelings of our animal
body (flesh). Animals have all 5 of these too.
These 5 are the senses we use to experience this dimension. For good and bad!
"A god who puts out traps for people, invites them to sin, and allows them
to sin and commit crimes he could prevent.
God doesn't set traps. If you are married and commit adultry, you did it
yourself. Nobody forced you to do it!! By your free will you did it!!!
If you stuff yourself with food, its nobody's fault but your own! God didn't
poke it down your throat!
Why should i believe in a god like this?
Because God ISN'T like this!
God is Not a dictator, He gave you free will to choose your own path, right or
wrong!
Nope God simply doesn't exist.
Your belief is just crutch for your fears.
Sad really.
Nope, God does exist and my belief is not a crutch for my fears.
Where is this God fella then ?
He's around.
Doesn't seem to have much use, does he ?
If he wasn't around, you wouldn't exist; I'd say that's very useful.
And
one other thing: you know this national mess that Bush has inflicted
on us? It;s you | | |
