| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"jabriol" |
| Date: |
12 Feb 2004 06:20:30 PM |
| Object: |
Believe Only What You See? |
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what they
concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
"So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity perturbs
the motion of the parent stars." Yes, for the astronomers, the visible
effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence of
unseen heavenly bodies.
Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a Creator
conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what they cannot see.
As I said many times over. it is not the evidence per se. It is how the
evidence is interpreted and by whom and his level of authority and how it
affects your life.
.
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
12 Feb 2004 11:58:53 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in
news:iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com:
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see.
In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected
what they concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
"So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity
perturbs
the motion of the parent stars." Yes, for the astronomers, the visible
effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence
of unseen heavenly bodies.
Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a
Creator conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what
they cannot see.
As I said many times over. it is not the evidence per se. It is how
the evidence is interpreted and by whom and his level of authority and
how it affects your life.
Don't confuse real science with religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
13 Feb 2004 06:11:21 AM |
|
|
Maverick <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns948E46A55A74Dinsensitiveclodhotma@192.71.180.100>...
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in
news:iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com:
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see.
In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected
what they concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
"So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity
perturbs
the motion of the parent stars." Yes, for the astronomers, the visible
effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence
of unseen heavenly bodies.
Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a
Creator conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what
they cannot see.
As I said many times over. it is not the evidence per se. It is how
the evidence is interpreted and by whom and his level of authority and
how it affects your life.
Don't confuse real science with religion.
Science is a religion for many, evolution is based on faith, not observable facts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
13 Feb 2004 07:25:59 AM |
|
|
(JaBrIoL) wrote in
news:d222de3e.0402130411.75dab3f7@posting.google.com:
Maverick <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns948E46A55A74Dinsensitiveclodhotma@192.71.180.100>...
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in
news:iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com:
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot
see. In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected
what they concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant
stars.
"So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity
perturbs
the motion of the parent stars." Yes, for the astronomers, the
visible effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the
existence of unseen heavenly bodies.
Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a
Creator conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what
they cannot see.
As I said many times over. it is not the evidence per se. It is how
the evidence is interpreted and by whom and his level of authority
and how it affects your life.
Don't confuse real science with religion.
Science is a religion for many, evolution is based on faith, not
observable facts.
Wrong. Science is not a religion. If you knew anything about either one,
you would realize this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
13 Feb 2004 04:57:54 PM |
|
|
"Maverick" <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns948E92721F05insensitiveclodhotma@192.71.180.100...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in
news:d222de3e.0402130411.75dab3f7@posting.google.com:
Maverick <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns948E46A55A74Dinsensitiveclodhotma@192.71.180.100>...
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in
news:iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com:
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot
see. In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected
what they concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant
stars.
"So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity
perturbs
the motion of the parent stars." Yes, for the astronomers, the
visible effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the
existence of unseen heavenly bodies.
Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a
Creator conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what
they cannot see.
As I said many times over. it is not the evidence per se. It is how
the evidence is interpreted and by whom and his level of authority
and how it affects your life.
Don't confuse real science with religion.
Science is a religion for many, evolution is based on faith, not
observable facts.
Wrong. Science is not a religion. If you knew anything about either one,
you would realize this.
humors us.. define science.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ImpBush" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
12 Feb 2004 07:38:19 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com...
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what
they
concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
"So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity
perturbs
the motion of the parent stars." Yes, for the astronomers, the visible
effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence of
unseen heavenly bodies.
Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a Creator
conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what they cannot
see.
As I said many times over. it is not the evidence per se. It is how the
evidence is interpreted and by whom and his level of authority and how it
affects your life.
What is your point? What does possible life on another planet have to do
with an imaginary creator?
You still taking your meds?
.
|
|
|
| User: "davers_disfellowshiped" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
12 Feb 2004 07:56:13 PM |
|
|
In article <gUVWb.19823$Q_4.16190@okepread03>, says...
`#"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
`#news:iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com...
`#>
`#>
`#> Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In
`#> January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what
`#they
`#> concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
`#>
`#> "So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity
`#perturbs
`#> the motion of the parent stars." Yes, for the astronomers, the visible
`#> effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence of
`#> unseen heavenly bodies.
`#>
`#> Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
`#> scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a Creator
`#> conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what they cannot
`#see.
`#>
`#> As I said many times over. it is not the evidence per se. It is how the
`#> evidence is interpreted and by whom and his level of authority and how it
`#> affects your life.
`#
`#What is your point? What does possible life on another planet have to do
`#with an imaginary creator?
`#
`#You still taking your meds?
`#
`#
`#
`#
`#
The same mechanism that allows you to envision life/planets allows one to
'see' the Creator. It is called, faith...;0)
davers_disfellowshiped
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
12 Feb 2004 08:41:41 PM |
|
|
"davers_disfellowshiped" <davers_dfd@urkidding.right.yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1a95dcacfdd0da57989701@news.west.cox.net...
In article <gUVWb.19823$Q_4.16190@okepread03>, says...
`#"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
`#news:iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com...
`#>
`#>
`#> Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see.
In
`#> January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected
what
`#they
`#> concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
`#>
`#> "So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity
`#perturbs
`#> the motion of the parent stars." Yes, for the astronomers, the visible
`#> effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence
of
`#> unseen heavenly bodies.
`#>
`#> Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
`#> scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a
Creator
`#> conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what they cannot
`#see.
`#>
`#> As I said many times over. it is not the evidence per se. It is how
the
`#> evidence is interpreted and by whom and his level of authority and how
it
`#> affects your life.
`#
`#What is your point? What does possible life on another planet have to do
`#with an imaginary creator?
`#
`#You still taking your meds?
`#
`#
`#
`#
`#
The same mechanism that allows you to envision life/planets allows one to
'see' the Creator. It is called, faith...;0)
Except, of course, that the word translated as "faith" from the Old
Testament means something different than the English word "faith," and
likewise with the Greek/Aramaic word from the New Testament that is also
translated into English as "faith" doesn't mean much of anything like the
English word "faith."
.
|
|
|
| User: "davers_disfellowshiped" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
12 Feb 2004 11:40:25 PM |
|
|
In article <FPWWb.2057$WW3.1894@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
says...
`#
`#"davers_disfellowshiped" <davers_dfd@urkidding.right.yahoo.com> wrote in
`#message news:MPG.1a95dcacfdd0da57989701@news.west.cox.net...
`#> In article <gUVWb.19823$Q_4.16190@okepread03>, says...
`#> `#"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
`#> `#news:iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com...
`#> `#>
`#> `#>
`#> `#> Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see.
`#In
`#> `#> January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected
`#what
`#> `#they
`#> `#> concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
`#> `#>
`#> `#> "So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity
`#> `#perturbs
`#> `#> the motion of the parent stars." Yes, for the astronomers, the visible
`#> `#> effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence
`#of
`#> `#> unseen heavenly bodies.
`#> `#>
`#> `#> Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
`#> `#> scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a
`#Creator
`#> `#> conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what they cannot
`#> `#see.
`#> `#>
`#> `#> As I said many times over. it is not the evidence per se. It is how
`#the
`#> `#> evidence is interpreted and by whom and his level of authority and how
`#it
`#> `#> affects your life.
`#> `#
`#> `#What is your point? What does possible life on another planet have to do
`#> `#with an imaginary creator?
`#> `#
`#> `#You still taking your meds?
`#> `#
`#> `#
`#> `#
`#> `#
`#> `#
`#>
`#> The same mechanism that allows you to envision life/planets allows one to
`#> 'see' the Creator. It is called, faith...;0)
`#
`#Except, of course, that the word translated as "faith" from the Old
`#Testament means something different than the English word "faith," and
`#likewise with the Greek/Aramaic word from the New Testament that is also
`#translated into English as "faith" doesn't mean much of anything like the
`#English word "faith."
`#
Render the definitions, please.
davers_disfellowshiped
.
|
|
|
| User: "JPG" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
13 Feb 2004 08:42:00 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:40:25 -0700, davers_disfellowshiped
<davers_dfd@urkidding.right.yahoo.com> wrote:
`#
`#Except, of course, that the word translated as "faith" from the Old
`#Testament means something different than the English word "faith," and
`#likewise with the Greek/Aramaic word from the New Testament that is also
`#translated into English as "faith" doesn't mean much of anything like the
`#English word "faith."
`#
Render the definitions, please.
From dictionary.com
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or
thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
See the difference?
#1 implies that although we don't have the knowledge or the means to validate
scientific evidence ourselves, we accept the scientific method whereby others
have used this evidence to obtain the "truth" about the natural world.
#2 says we accept as true without evidence.
JPG
davers_disfellowshiped
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
13 Feb 2004 02:25:20 AM |
|
|
davers wrote:
`#> Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In
`#> January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what
`#they
`#> concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
`#>
`#> "So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity
`#perturbs
`#> the motion of the parent stars." Yes, for the astronomers, the visible
`#> effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence of
`#> unseen heavenly bodies.
`#>
`#> Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
`#> scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a
Creator
`#> conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what they cannot
`#see.
`#>
`#> As I said many times over. it is not the evidence per se. It is how the
`#> evidence is interpreted and by whom and his level of authority and how it
`#> affects your life.
`#
`#What is your point? What does possible life on another planet have to do
`#with an imaginary creator?
`#
`#You still taking your meds?
`#
`#
`#
`#
`#
The same mechanism that allows you to envision life/planets allows one to
'see' the Creator. It is called, faith...;0)
Yes, all praise to our Glorious Creator, Cthulu, hallowed be his Name. Ia'
Ftagn!
*********************************************
"Plutonians are teh suk." Ignignot from ATHF
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
14 Feb 2004 07:56:09 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com...
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what
they
concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
"So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity
perturbs
the motion of the parent stars." Yes, for the astronomers, the visible
effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence of
unseen heavenly bodies.
This indirect evidence is objective and repeatable. It is by nature a
collection of scientific observations. The conclusions are scientifically
valid and like all scientific conclusions are subject to further
investigation and revision based on the scientific evidence.
Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a Creator
conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what they cannot
see.
No intellectually honest and reasonably coherent believers assert this.
There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. Any evidence is
shared subjective experience.
As I said many times over. it is not the evidence per se. It is how the
evidence is interpreted and by whom and his level of authority and how it
affects your life.
This is simply false. It is not a matter of interpretation. Rather you are
conflating objective scientific evidence with other forms of philosophical
inquiry.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
13 Feb 2004 04:17:38 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message news:<iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com>...
(snippage)
"So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity perturbs
the motion of the parent stars." Yes, for the astronomers, the visible
effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence of
unseen heavenly bodies.
Notice that word "visible", there. It's a key to the fallacy
you're trying to pass off as an argument.
Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a Creator
conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what they cannot see.
No, they don't. The "visible effects of gravity" caused by an
unseen heavenly body are still *visible*; that's the point.
As I said many times over. it is not the evidence per se. It is how the
evidence is interpreted and by whom and his level of authority and how it
affects your life.
I'd be able to rebut this if I could actually tell what it meant.
*Particularly* wrt astronomy or the scientific method.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
13 Feb 2004 09:43:57 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message news:<iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com>...
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what they
concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
"So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity perturbs
the motion of the parent stars." Yes, for the astronomers, the visible
effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence of
unseen heavenly bodies.
Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a Creator
conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what they cannot see.
As I said many times over. it is not the evidence per se. It is how the
evidence is interpreted and by whom and his level of authority and how it
affects your life.
So Jabbers, you've given up on the Red Sea nonsense. Good.
The observations you quote above fit in with a well defined physical
theory, but still aren't regarded as proof; merely as reason to
believe.
There is no theory of God or (while I'm at it) ID. There is a
long-standing tradition of myths and stories etc, but this in no way
helps us learn about the universe we inhabit. In fact it has mislead;
it made Newton believe that there was such a thing as absolute time
and space, and his authority was enough to delay relativity for
centuries.
Similarly, ID postulates a Designer, but this tells us nothing about
why the world is as it is, because it is equally good at explaining
any scenario.
Scientific theories are what Karl Popper called falsifiable. That is,
they can be proved wrong in principle, so they only work for some
scenarios, but not others.
This is the big difference between a rational philosophy and a
superstition. We hold to a picture of the world which can in principle
be falsified, so we put ourselves in a position where we can allow
reality to teach us.
Religious traditions can't do this and that is why I won't subscribe:
they are incapable of the most profound form of growth.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
13 Feb 2004 05:35:06 PM |
|
|
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:53ad390d.0402130743.7a73ddc8@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:<iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com>...
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what
they
concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
"So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity
perturbs
the motion of the parent stars." Yes, for the astronomers, the visible
effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence of
unseen heavenly bodies.
Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a
Creator
conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what they cannot
see.
As I said many times over. it is not the evidence per se. It is how the
evidence is interpreted and by whom and his level of authority and how
it
affects your life.
So Jabbers, you've given up on the Red Sea nonsense. Good.
the Red Sea article was based on scientific findings, that a crossing could
have happen. I guess you will discredit them because they were russians eh?
The observations you quote above fit in with a well defined physical
theory, but still aren't regarded as proof; merely as reason to
believe.
so.. you don't belive they may be planet the revolves around other stars..
ok.
There is no theory of God or (while I'm at it) ID. There is a
long-standing tradition of myths and stories etc, but this in no way
helps us learn about the universe we inhabit. In fact it has mislead;
it made Newton believe that there was such a thing as absolute time
and space, and his authority was enough to delay relativity for
centuries.
Similarly, ID postulates a Designer, but this tells us nothing about
why the world is as it is, because it is equally good at explaining
any scenario.
really, and yet PHI is about found in all living things.. coincidence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
14 Feb 2004 09:16:21 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message news:<KadXb.8347322$Of.1358742@news.easynews.com>...
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:53ad390d.0402130743.7a73ddc8@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:<iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com>...
So Jabbers, you've given up on the Red Sea nonsense. Good.
the Red Sea article was based on scientific findings, that a crossing could
have happen. I guess you will discredit them because they were russians eh?
No, I have nothing against Russians, but as was pointed out by another
poster, the winds necessary would mean ther would have to be a
hurricane; something which is unknown in that part of the world.
Also, my objections weren't directly applicable to the Russian
scientists' finding, but to the ability of coral to withstand the
punishment Exodus would have given it and to the total lack of
coroborative evidence supporting Jewish slavery in Egypt.
The fact is that archeaology has failed to coroborate Exodus and it
should have. Where for instance are the mass graves for all those
first-born sons?
The observations you quote above fit in with a well defined physical
theory, but still aren't regarded as proof; merely as reason to
believe.
so.. you don't belive they may be planet the revolves around other stars..
ok.
Actually, I do. However, I don't count it as a established fact. I'm
sure it will be proven in the next few years and it will be an
important step forward in humans' understanding of their place in the
universe.
There is no theory of God or (while I'm at it) ID. There is a
long-standing tradition of myths and stories etc, but this in no way
helps us learn about the universe we inhabit. In fact it has mislead;
it made Newton believe that there was such a thing as absolute time
and space, and his authority was enough to delay relativity for
centuries.
Similarly, ID postulates a Designer, but this tells us nothing about
why the world is as it is, because it is equally good at explaining
any scenario.
really, and yet PHI is about found in all living things.. coincidence?
PHI? Please explain.
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
14 Feb 2004 01:02:16 PM |
|
|
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:53ad390d.0402140716.5caeee23@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:<KadXb.8347322$Of.1358742@news.easynews.com>...
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:53ad390d.0402130743.7a73ddc8@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:<iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com>...
So Jabbers, you've given up on the Red Sea nonsense. Good.
the Red Sea article was based on scientific findings, that a crossing
could
have happen. I guess you will discredit them because they were russians
eh?
No, I have nothing against Russians, but as was pointed out by another
poster, the winds necessary would mean ther would have to be a
hurricane; something which is unknown in that part of the world.
that part of the wolrd is subject to strong winds..
Also, my objections weren't directly applicable to the Russian
scientists' finding, but to the ability of coral to withstand the
punishment Exodus would have given it and to the total lack of
coroborative evidence supporting Jewish slavery in Egypt.
uh.. tey were not jews.. no jews back then.. hebrews yes.. jews no.
The fact is that archeaology has failed to coroborate Exodus and it
should have. Where for instance are the mass graves for all those
first-born sons?
why would they have to be mass graves? and you assume they all had to be the
same age?
The observations you quote above fit in with a well defined physical
theory, but still aren't regarded as proof; merely as reason to
believe.
so.. you don't belive they may be planet the revolves around other
stars..
ok.
Actually, I do. However, I don't count it as a established fact. I'm
sure it will be proven in the next few years and it will be an
important step forward in humans' understanding of their place in the
universe.
There is no theory of God or (while I'm at it) ID. There is a
long-standing tradition of myths and stories etc, but this in no way
helps us learn about the universe we inhabit. In fact it has mislead;
it made Newton believe that there was such a thing as absolute time
and space, and his authority was enough to delay relativity for
centuries.
Similarly, ID postulates a Designer, but this tells us nothing about
why the world is as it is, because it is equally good at explaining
any scenario.
really, and yet PHI is about found in all living things.. coincidence?
PHI? Please explain.
(-: Ian :-)
the golden ratio = 1.61803399
http://goldennumber.net/life.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
15 Feb 2004 02:35:56 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message news:<YguXb.8314477$Id.1378507@news.easynews.com>...
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:53ad390d.0402140716.5caeee23@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:<KadXb.8347322$Of.1358742@news.easynews.com>...
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:53ad390d.0402130743.7a73ddc8@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:<iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com>...
So Jabbers, you've given up on the Red Sea nonsense. Good.
the Red Sea article was based on scientific findings, that a crossing
could
have happen. I guess you will discredit them because they were russians
eh?
No, I have nothing against Russians, but as was pointed out by another
poster, the winds necessary would mean ther would have to be a
hurricane; something which is unknown in that part of the world.
that part of the wolrd is subject to strong winds..
Of the required strength? We are talking _really_ violent.
Also, my objections weren't directly applicable to the Russian
scientists' finding, but to the ability of coral to withstand the
punishment Exodus would have given it and to the total lack of
coroborative evidence supporting Jewish slavery in Egypt.
uh.. tey were not jews.. no jews back then.. hebrews yes.. jews no.
As I said elsewhere: A rose by any other name...
The fact is that archeaology has failed to coroborate Exodus and it
should have. Where for instance are the mass graves for all those
first-born sons?
why would they have to be mass graves? and you assume they all had to be the
same age?
I would expect mass graves, because we are talking about the sudden
deaths of litterally thousands - perhaps hundereds of thousands - of
people. The climate would dictate that the bodies would have to be
disposed of quickly, because of putrification causing disease.
I didn't stipulate that all the victims were of the same age, merely
that they all died at the same time as stated in Exodus, Chapter 11,
paragraph 5:
"And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the
firstborn of Pharoah that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the
firstborn of the maidservent that is behind the mill; and all the
firstborn of beasts."
That is an _awful_ lot of death and includes daughters and cattle:
Chapter 30:
"And Pharoah rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all
the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not
one house where there was not one dead."
Even if there were no mass graves, there would have been a huge number
of hasty burials, so where are all those graves?
There is no theory of God or (while I'm at it) ID. There is a
long-standing tradition of myths and stories etc, but this in no way
helps us learn about the universe we inhabit. In fact it has mislead;
it made Newton believe that there was such a thing as absolute time
and space, and his authority was enough to delay relativity for
centuries.
Similarly, ID postulates a Designer, but this tells us nothing about
why the world is as it is, because it is equally good at explaining
any scenario.
really, and yet PHI is about found in all living things.. coincidence?
PHI? Please explain.
(-: Ian :-)
the golden ratio = 1.61803399
http://goldennumber.net/life.htm
Thanks, I shall take a look, but I notice that even this web site
dosn't claim that Phi (It's a name, so only the first letter should be
capitaised - otherwise people think PHI are initials.) is universal. I
don't see how it can be applied to earthworms, for instance.
Even if Phi were true, why would that be a sign of divinity?
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
15 Feb 2004 06:04:42 PM |
|
|
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:53ad390d.0402151235.6f05a58b@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:<YguXb.8314477$Id.1378507@news.easynews.com>...
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:53ad390d.0402140716.5caeee23@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:<KadXb.8347322$Of.1358742@news.easynews.com>...
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:53ad390d.0402130743.7a73ddc8@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:<iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com>...
So Jabbers, you've given up on the Red Sea nonsense. Good.
the Red Sea article was based on scientific findings, that a
crossing
could
have happen. I guess you will discredit them because they were
russians
eh?
No, I have nothing against Russians, but as was pointed out by another
poster, the winds necessary would mean ther would have to be a
hurricane; something which is unknown in that part of the world.
that part of the wolrd is subject to strong winds..
Of the required strength? We are talking _really_ violent.
Also, my objections weren't directly applicable to the Russian
scientists' finding, but to the ability of coral to withstand the
punishment Exodus would have given it and to the total lack of
coroborative evidence supporting Jewish slavery in Egypt.
uh.. tey were not jews.. no jews back then.. hebrews yes.. jews no.
As I said elsewhere: A rose by any other name...
The fact is that archeaology has failed to coroborate Exodus and it
should have. Where for instance are the mass graves for all those
first-born sons?
why would they have to be mass graves? and you assume they all had to be
the
same age?
I would expect mass graves, because we are talking about the sudden
deaths of litterally thousands - perhaps hundereds of thousands - of
people. The climate would dictate that the bodies would have to be
disposed of quickly, because of putrification causing disease.
hundreds of thousands of people, died every day just due to old age and
illness.
part of life. in any case, most cultures when mass deaths occur do not have
mass graves.. they burn the corpse.
I didn't stipulate that all the victims were of the same age, merely
that they all died at the same time as stated in Exodus, Chapter 11,
paragraph 5:
"And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the
firstborn of Pharoah that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the
firstborn of the maidservent that is behind the mill; and all the
firstborn of beasts."
That is an _awful_ lot of death and includes daughters and cattle:
it is..
Chapter 30:
"And Pharoah rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all
the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not
one house where there was not one dead."
Even if there were no mass graves, there would have been a huge number
of hasty burials, so where are all those graves?
fire?
There is no theory of God or (while I'm at it) ID. There is a
long-standing tradition of myths and stories etc, but this in no
way
helps us learn about the universe we inhabit. In fact it has
mislead;
it made Newton believe that there was such a thing as absolute
time
and space, and his authority was enough to delay relativity for
centuries.
Similarly, ID postulates a Designer, but this tells us nothing
about
why the world is as it is, because it is equally good at
explaining
any scenario.
really, and yet PHI is about found in all living things..
coincidence?
PHI? Please explain.
(-: Ian :-)
the golden ratio = 1.61803399
http://goldennumber.net/life.htm
Thanks, I shall take a look, but I notice that even this web site
dosn't claim that Phi (It's a name, so only the first letter should be
capitaised - otherwise people think PHI are initials.) is universal. I
don't see how it can be applied to earthworms, for instance.
Even if Phi were true, why would that be a sign of divinity?
(-: Ian :-)
not a sign, a mathematical equation written onto life forms...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
16 Feb 2004 12:14:29 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message news:<uOTXb.8491942$Of.1383956@news.easynews.com>...
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:53ad390d.0402151235.6f05a58b@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:<YguXb.8314477$Id.1378507@news.easynews.com>...
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:53ad390d.0402140716.5caeee23@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:<KadXb.8347322$Of.1358742@news.easynews.com>...
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:53ad390d.0402130743.7a73ddc8@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:<iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com>...
<SNIP>
Chapter 30:
"And Pharoah rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all
the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not
one house where there was not one dead."
Even if there were no mass graves, there would have been a huge number
of hasty burials, so where are all those graves?
fire?
I'm sorry Jabbers, but I just don't find your position credible. That
a cataclysm of this scale should be inflicted upon the Egyptians and
yet there be no evidence of it at all is simply pushing credulity too
far. To my mind Exodus is clearly a myth and nothing more.
PHI? Please explain.
(-: Ian :-)
the golden ratio = 1.61803399
http://goldennumber.net/life.htm
Thanks, I shall take a look, but I notice that even this web site
dosn't claim that Phi (It's a name, so only the first letter should be
capitaised - otherwise people think PHI are initials.) is universal. I
don't see how it can be applied to earthworms, for instance.
Even if Phi were true, why would that be a sign of divinity?
(-: Ian :-)
not a sign, a mathematical equation written onto life forms...
As you wish, but what makes you think this is devine, rather than an
epiphenomenon? For instance, snail shells are well understood in terms
of how the mantle, which excretes the shell material, grows along with
the rest of the snail. See:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/Mollusks/Schnecken/morphologie/schale.html
Here is another interesting site, which even has a Java appelet, so
you can model the shells yourself. (Great fun. :-)
http://www.ams.org/new-in-math/cover/shell1.html
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dummie" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
13 Feb 2004 09:08:43 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message news:<iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com>...
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what they
concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
Okay I give up.
What's irrational in thinking a planet could orbit a star?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
12 Feb 2004 09:39:17 PM |
|
|
"jabtrol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com...
Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
scientists to accept what was yet invisible. Many who believe in a Creator
conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what they cannot
see.
First off, did they really "claim" them to be planets or was it the theory?
Second, when strange things happen in your brain and you cant see it its
most likely you should see a doctor.
That said if you happen to perceive something weird at some time doesnt mean
your really insane, everybody has its ups and downs nobody is perfect
neither is your mind, ofcourse the mere mension that someone's mind may have
had flaws now and then will be denied by the person in question asap thus
where back where we started. i.e. a g.o.d. must exist... :-P
-Stranger
To truthfully believe in a doctrine such as after life, without questioning.
Is to base it on "naivety / ignorance" and "fear / arrogance".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SReeseMe" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
13 Feb 2004 06:19:16 AM |
|
|
Subject: Believe Only What You See?
From: "jabriol"
Date: 02/12/2004 7:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com>
Dear Troll,
You seem more than a bit confused. Let's see if I can't help you out.
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see.
And many irrational fundies accept the existance of an invisible sky pixie.
In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what they
concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
Yes damn that astronomy. Proving that your OT vision of a flat, 4 cornered
Earth with a dome of stars above it is not only incorrect, but laughable.
Also, the discovery of planets beyond our solar system demonstrates there isn't
anything special or unique about the all of rock and metal we call home.
"So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity perturbs
the motion of the parent stars.
Correct. And?
Yes, for the astronomers, the visible
effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence of
unseen heavenly bodies.
Correct again. As gravity is well understood from the effects of the planet's
gravitational pull the existance of these planets was easily deduced.
Related evidence-not direct observation-was an adequate basis for
scientists to accept what was yet invisible.
Correct yet again.
Many who believe in a Creator
conclude that they have a similar basis for accepting what they cannot see.
Sanctimonious weasel!
The difference is the astronomers had every strong evidence based of
observation and an understanding of gravity.
Fundies have no evidence whatsoever to support the idea of the existance of
their imaginary friend. Furthermore, that collection of of myths, ***** and
cruelity that fundies use as the basis for the belief in their imaginary friend
is completely scientifically inaccurate.
As I said many times over. it is not the evidence per se. It is how the
evidence is interpreted and by whom and his level of authority and how it
affects your life.
WHAT THE ***** IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN?!?!?!?!?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Makohin" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
13 Feb 2004 08:18:45 AM |
|
|
In article <iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com>,
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote:
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what they
concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
[snip]
As the good folks on alt.atheism are likely to tell you, you are
merely expressing a common theist myth. The vast majority of atheists
do not adopt an existential belief in something whose alleged
existence cannot be tested nor validated through the use of any means
known to Mankind, using the most stringent critical thinking and
testing methodologies. This includes indirect observation, as you cite
in your "distant planets" example.
If we temporarily put aside the absolute lack of proof that the
alleged thing exists, we may also want to look at viable theories that
the alleged thing _may_ exist. My use of the word "theory" applies
only to legitimate and viable theories that are supported by a
mountain of valid data, and are able to withstand the harshest of
scrutiny, such as Einstein's Theory Of Relativity, which was sound
mathematically even though it could only be proven physically many
years later. Theistic "theories" are not, in truth, theories. They are
notions, speculation, blind faith, questions ("how else do you explain
it if not for god?") or at best, exercises in convoluted "reasoning",
or other such similar things.
In short, there is not one iota of proof, direct or indirect, that a
deity exists, nor is there to suggest that a deity *may* exist. There
isn't even a viable and plausible theory (not "theory") for deistic
existence. These are outstanding reasons for a critical thinker not to
adopt a belief that such a thing does exist.
(Note: Cross-posting to irrelevant groups has been omitted)
-Steve Makohin | Reply to
| (hotmail acct is spam catcher)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
14 Feb 2004 07:59:20 AM |
|
|
"Steve Makohin" <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:smakohin-60D749.09184513022004@news.newsguy.com...
In article <iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com>,
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote:
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what
they
concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
[snip]
As the good folks on alt.atheism are likely to tell you, you are
merely expressing a common theist myth. The vast majority of atheists
do not adopt an existential belief in something whose alleged
existence cannot be tested nor validated through the use of any means
known to Mankind, using the most stringent critical thinking and
testing methodologies.
Never has anyone provided scientific evidence of the existence of God, but
if God appears to you personally, or "changes your heart", then that would
be subjective evidence. The problem occurs when someone conflates this
subjective experience with science.
This includes indirect observation, as you cite
in your "distant planets" example.
If we temporarily put aside the absolute lack of proof that the
alleged thing exists, we may also want to look at viable theories that
the alleged thing _may_ exist. My use of the word "theory" applies
only to legitimate and viable theories that are supported by a
mountain of valid data, and are able to withstand the harshest of
scrutiny, such as Einstein's Theory Of Relativity, which was sound
mathematically even though it could only be proven physically many
years later.
Certainly, no one has provided a reasonable scientific theory of the
existence of God. However, there are other legitimate avenues of inquiry.
The only problem occurs when people conflate these methods by, for instance,
claiming that there is no human knowledge except for scientific knowledge;
or conversely claiming they have scientific evidence of the existence of God
when this is clearly not true.
Theistic "theories" are not, in truth, theories.
Certainly that is true (assuming by theory you mean scientific theory).
They are
notions, speculation, blind faith, questions ("how else do you explain
it if not for god?") or at best, exercises in convoluted "reasoning",
or other such similar things.
In short, there is not one iota of proof, direct or indirect, that a
deity exists, nor is there to suggest that a deity *may* exist. There
isn't even a viable and plausible theory (not "theory") for deistic
existence. These are outstanding reasons for a critical thinker not to
adopt a belief that such a thing does exist.
There is no scientific evidence of the existence of God. Then again, there
is no scientific evidence that He does not exist either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Makohin" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
14 Feb 2004 02:55:57 PM |
|
|
In article <iRpXb.26618$sr1.2684737586@twister2.starband.net>,
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Steve Makohin" <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:smakohin-60D749.09184513022004@news.newsguy.com...
In article <iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com>,
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote:
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected what
they
concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
[snip]
As the good folks on alt.atheism are likely to tell you, you are
merely expressing a common theist myth. The vast majority of atheists
do not adopt an existential belief in something whose alleged
existence cannot be tested nor validated through the use of any means
known to Mankind, using the most stringent critical thinking and
testing methodologies.
Never has anyone provided scientific evidence of the existence of God, but
if God appears to you personally, or "changes your heart", then that would
be subjective evidence. The problem occurs when someone conflates this
subjective experience with science.
Correctly stated. It would be "subjective evidence" which may not end
up being proof at all. For example, if I take your scenario of god
appearing before me personally, if I were not a critical thinking, I
would conclude that that was proof of god's existence. But as a
critical thinker, I would diligently document my observations and
perceptions, I would be suspect of the apparent event, I would want to
proof that it was real, I would want proof that it was what it alleged
to be, and so on. Suffice it to say, I would not be as easily duped as
a "believer" who was predisposed to a certain conclusion (god appeared
before me) before the facts proved that to be the case.
This includes indirect observation, as you cite
in your "distant planets" example.
If we temporarily put aside the absolute lack of proof that the
alleged thing exists, we may also want to look at viable theories that
the alleged thing _may_ exist. My use of the word "theory" applies
only to legitimate and viable theories that are supported by a
mountain of valid data, and are able to withstand the harshest of
scrutiny, such as Einstein's Theory Of Relativity, which was sound
mathematically even though it could only be proven physically many
years later.
Certainly, no one has provided a reasonable scientific theory of the
existence of God. However, there are other legitimate avenues of inquiry.
Such as? Keep in mind that debate, Bible study, and philosophy are all
"legitimate avenues of inquiry", however none of them can hold a
candle to science when it comes to determining what is true, and what
is not.
The only problem occurs when people conflate these methods by, for instance,
claiming that there is no human knowledge except for scientific knowledge;
or conversely claiming they have scientific evidence of the existence of God
when this is clearly not true.
I agree with you, mostly. I am just unclear as how you define
"knowledge". If you use the term broadly to include such information
as the dialog from the television series Gilligan's Island, or the
juicy details of Aunt Maybel's recipe book, then yes, there are
mountains of "knowledge" that live beyond the scope of science.
If, however, we are referring to the understanding of reality, and the
human desire (in some cases) to know the truth about reality, then we
can safely say that science has, by far, provided us with the most
effective tools for achieving those goals most consistently. The "non
science" stuff, like psychic healing, pyramid power, etc., are much,
much lower on the "understanding reality" scale.
Theistic "theories" are not, in truth, theories.
Certainly that is true (assuming by theory you mean scientific theory).
True. I use the word "theory" in a very different context than the
words "notion", "speculation" or "guessing."
They are
notions, speculation, blind faith, questions ("how else do you explain
it if not for god?") or at best, exercises in convoluted "reasoning",
or other such similar things.
In short, there is not one iota of proof, direct or indirect, that a
deity exists, nor is there to suggest that a deity *may* exist. There
isn't even a viable and plausible theory (not "theory") for deistic
existence. These are outstanding reasons for a critical thinker not to
adopt a belief that such a thing does exist.
There is no scientific evidence of the existence of God. Then again, there
is no scientific evidence that He does not exist either.
Yup. But any visitor to alt.altheism has done the "no proof of
non-existence" dance a dozen times. Critical thinkers do not assume
that something exists because it has not been proven that it does not.
-Steve Makohin | Reply to
| (hotmail acct is spam catcher)
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
14 Feb 2004 04:59:23 PM |
|
|
"Steve Makohin" <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:smakohin-C7756D.15555714022004@news.newsguy.com...
In article <iRpXb.26618$sr1.2684737586@twister2.starband.net>,
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Steve Makohin" <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:smakohin-60D749.09184513022004@news.newsguy.com...
In article <iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com>,
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote:
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see.
In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected
what
they
concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
[snip]
As the good folks on alt.atheism are likely to tell you, you are
merely expressing a common theist myth. The vast majority of atheists
do not adopt an existential belief in something whose alleged
existence cannot be tested nor validated through the use of any means
known to Mankind, using the most stringent critical thinking and
testing methodologies.
Never has anyone provided scientific evidence of the existence of God,
but
if God appears to you personally, or "changes your heart", then that
would
be subjective evidence. The problem occurs when someone conflates this
subjective experience with science.
Correctly stated. It would be "subjective evidence" which may not end
up being proof at all. For example, if I take your scenario of god
appearing before me personally, if I were not a critical thinking, I
would conclude that that was proof of god's existence. But as a
critical thinker, I would diligently document my observations and
perceptions, I would be suspect of the apparent event, I would want to
proof that it was real, I would want proof that it was what it alleged
to be, and so on.
And once this is done, and assume that thru your method, God stood before
you
and you verified yes this is God. then God walks away and just left you with
the evidence.
How you will present the evidence? And if you present the evidence; do you
know for certain the evidence would be accepted by your peer's?
I think you once you presented you evidence.. your peers will tackle you to
the floor... and off you go the funny farm.
truth is.. the issue is not about evidence. the evidence can stare you in
the eye, and dance around your head. A Critical Thinker needs the approval
of his peers.. more than evidence from God. And if your peers already have a
preconcieved idea and prejudice against God.... your evidence is useless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
15 Feb 2004 07:18:32 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message
news:fLxXb.254853$9p3.46324@news.easynews.com...
"Steve Makohin" <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:smakohin-C7756D.15555714022004@news.newsguy.com...
In article <iRpXb.26618$sr1.2684737586@twister2.starband.net>,
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
"Steve Makohin" <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:smakohin-60D749.09184513022004@news.newsguy.com...
In article <iLUWb.110185$9p3.20460@news.easynews.com>,
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote:
Many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot
see.
In
January 1997, Discover magazine reported that astronomers detected
what
they
concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distant stars.
[snip]
As the good folks on alt.atheism are likely to tell you, you are
merely expressing a common theist myth. The vast majority of atheists
do not adopt an existential belief in something whose alleged
existence cannot be tested nor validated through the use of any means
known to Mankind, using the most stringent critical thinking and
testing methodologies.
Never has anyone provided scientific evidence of the existence of God,
but
if God appears to you personally, or "changes your heart", then that
would
be subjective evidence. The problem occurs when someone conflates this
subjective experience with science.
Correctly stated. It would be "subjective evidence" which may not end
up being proof at all. For example, if I take your scenario of god
appearing before me personally, if I were not a critical thinking, I
would conclude that that was proof of god's existence. But as a
critical thinker, I would diligently document my observations and
perceptions, I would be suspect of the apparent event, I would want to
proof that it was real, I would want proof that it was what it alleged
to be, and so on.
And once this is done, and assume that thru your method, God stood before
you
and you verified yes this is God. then God walks away and just left you
with
the evidence.
Well, you are actually getting close with this comment. The "evidence" in
this case is strictly subjective and is therefore non-scientific. So, even
if you have a personal experience of God, you cannot claim to have
scientific evidence of his existence. To state otherwise would be dishonest,
or to grossly misunderstand the nature of science.
It is important to remember that when most people refer to "evidence", they
are referring to scientific evidence. If you purposefully conflate the two,
then you are either dishonestly trying to confuse people, or are merely
confusing yourself.
How you will present the evidence? And if you present the evidence; do you
know for certain the evidence would be accepted by your peer's?
Gee whiz! It would generally not be accepted as scientific evidence for the
simple fact that it is not scientific evidence.
I think you once you presented you evidence.. your peers will tackle you
to
the floor... and off you go the funny farm.
truth is.. the issue is not about evidence. the evidence can stare you in
the eye, and dance around your head. A Critical Thinker needs the
approval
of his peers.. more than evidence from God. And if your peers already have
a
preconcieved idea and prejudice against God.... your evidence is useless.
Well, there you go conflating again. It has nothing to do with a
"preconceived idea and prejudice against God". Scientific peers know the
difference between subjective experience and scientific evidence. If you
want to make a valid scientific assertion, it must be validated by the
scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat.
It is you that is confused on this point. In one of my previous posts I used
the example of this assertion, "Beauty exists." If someone has no experience
of beauty and finds the world to be wholly ugly, there is no objective
method, scientific or otherwise, to convince him otherwise. It is perfectly
logical and scientific (though exceedingly sad) to live in a world without
beauty.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Makohin" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
15 Feb 2004 02:51:56 PM |
|
|
In article <fLxXb.254853$9p3.46324@news.easynews.com>,
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote:
"Steve Makohin" <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:smakohin-C7756D.15555714022004@news.newsguy.com...
In article <iRpXb.26618$sr1.2684737586@twister2.starband.net>,
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
[snip]
if God appears to you personally, or "changes your heart", then
that would be subjective evidence. The problem occurs when
someone conflates this subjective experience with science.
Correctly stated. It would be "subjective evidence" which may not end
up being proof at all. For example, if I take your scenario of god
appearing before me personally, if I were not a critical thinking, I
would conclude that that was proof of god's existence. But as a
critical thinker, I would diligently document my observations and
perceptions, I would be suspect of the apparent event, I would want
to proof that it was real, I would want proof that it was what it
alleged to be, and so on.
And once this is done, and assume that thru your method, God stood
before you and you verified yes this is God. then God walks away and
just left you with the evidence.
How you will present the evidence? And if you present the evidence;
do you know for certain the evidence would be accepted by your peer's?
Thanks for asking! This a wonderful opportunity for us to both analyze
what "proof" a theist would need to support his predisposed belief,
versus that of a critical thinker who is only concerned with the
facts, and with learning the truth. So, at a high level, I'll show you
how I (critical thinker) would proceed:
1. Alleged deity will make itself available to a team of 500
international, cross-disciplinary scientists, in rigidly
controlled laboratory conditions, for an extended period of
time, say one human year (a mere "blink of an eye" to a god).
2. These scientists would devise and execute any and all tests
that they wanted, with the full co-operation of the deity.
Of course, these tests and events would be extremely well
recorded and documented.
3. After the tests were completed, the team would proceed using
scientific methodology to review the available mountain of
data, and draw a conclusion. One such conclusion may be that
the alleged deity is in fact a bona fide deity which has been
established to be the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. Another
possible conclusion could be that it is merely a biological
life-form with advanced technology that has deceived us (a la
Star Trek). There may be even simpler conclusions.
I think you once you presented you evidence.. your peers will
tackle you to the floor... and off you go the funny farm.
If you read my three points above, this would not be the case! You
see, I would set up the event in a way that would allow the deity to
prove its case based on scientific grounds. I would not make the
mistake of thinking that I, a suboptimal person for this task, could
take on an assignment of such gargantuan proportions and significance
single-handedly. By the time the findings were presented to the
scientific community at large, I would already have the buy-in and
support of over 500 of the greatest and most skeptical minds on the
planet. That would carry a lot of weight.
On the other hand, if I was to think that I alone could gather up what
*I* believe is sufficient "evidence" to be established as valid proof
of deistic existence, I open up a whole world of unfortunate
possibilities, such as flawed process on my part, delusions on my
part, flawed data gathering on my part, or even the prospect of being
accused of being an outright fabricator. You see, by being a critical
thinker, I was able to avoid all that. The team of scientists were
able to gather all the evidence, data, and proof to their
satisfaction, and then to come to their own conclusions. Chalk another
one up for critical thinking, foresight, and planning! :-)
truth is.. the issue is not about evidence. the evidence can stare
you in the eye, and dance around your head. A Critical Thinker needs
the approval of his peers.. more than evidence from God. And if your
peers already have a preconcieved idea and prejudice against God....
your evidence is useless.
My response to you has shown your opinion to be incorrect. The issue
is indeed about evidence, and the ability to establish the evidence as
proof of a hypothesis. I outline how deists are far less critical with
respect to what they call "evidence" than are critical thinkers (see
"lone observer" example). That's easy to understand, because desists
are not actually looking for proof to determine if deistic existence
is a reality, they are simply noting things that _appear_ to be
consistent with their preconceived notion that deities exist.
I have shown you a way in which it would be *easy* to conclusively
establish deistic existence, and to have it accepted within the
scientific community! Wow! Clearly, the shortcoming is not on the part
of science for failing to detect the existence of the alleged deity.
Rather, the shortcoming is on the part of the alleged deity for
creating a universe in which science can so consistently and
thoroughly conclude that no deity is necessary to make it work, and
for not providing science with a single iota of proof that it exists.
The most plausible explanation for why science has not found any proof
of deistic existence is that there isn't any.
-Steve Makohin | Reply to
| (hotmail acct is spam catcher)
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Believe Only What You See? |
15 Feb 2004 07:16:49 PM |
|
|
"Steve Makohin" <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:smakohin-CF05BE.15515615022004@news.newsguy.com...
In article <fLxXb.254853$9p3.46324@news.easynews.com>,
"jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote:
"Steve Makohin" <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:smakohin-C7756D.15555714022004@news.newsguy.com...
In article <iRpXb.26618$sr1.2684737586@twister2.starband.net>,
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote:
[snip]
if God appears to you personally, or "changes your heart", then
that would be subjective evidence. The problem occurs when
someone conflates this subjective experience with science.
Correctly stated. It would be "subjective evidence" which may not end
up being proof at all. For example, if I take your scenario of god
appearing before me personally, if I were not a critical thinking, I
would conclude that that was proof of god's existence. But as a
critical thinker, I would diligently document my observations and
perceptions, I would be suspect of the apparent event, I would want
to proof that it was real, I would want proof that it was what it
alleged to be, and so on.
And once this is done, and assume that thru your method, God stood
before you and you verified yes this is God. then God walks away and
just left you with the evidence.
How you will present the evidence? And if you present the evidence;
do you know for certain the evidence would be accepted by your peer's?
Thanks for asking! This a wonderful opportunity for us to both analyze
what "proof" a theist would need to support his predisposed belief,
versus that of a critical thinker who is only concerned with the
facts, and with learning the truth. So, at a high level, I'll show you
how I (critical thinker) would proceed:
1. Alleged deity will make itself available to a team of 500
international, cross-disciplinary scientists, in rigidly
controlled laboratory conditions, for an extended period of
time, say one human year (a mere "blink of an eye" to a god).
2. These scientists would devise and execute any and all tests
that they wanted, with the full co-operation of the deity.
Of course, these tests and events would be extremely well
recorded and documented.
3. After the tests were completed, the team would proceed using
scientific methodology to review the available mountain of
data, and draw a conclusion. One such conclusion may be that
the alleged deity is in fact a bona fide deity which has been
established to be the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. Another
possible conclusion could be that it is merely a biological
life-form with advanced technology that has deceived us (a la
Star Trek). There may be even simpler conclusions.
I think you once you presented you evidence.. your peers will
tackle you to the floor... and off you go the funny farm.
If you read my three points above, this would not be the case! You
| | | | | | |
