Discussion for AronRa and OFNF exclusive thread

[dandan]

INFERNO

Trevor D. Lamb, Shaun P. Collin & Edward N. Pugh (2007) Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8, 960-976 (December 2007) wrote:
Subsequent studies have shown how the roles of several key sites have altered during evolution (94–97), and have defined the molecular characteristics of the different classes of opsin (98–105).

Are you saying that that portion of the article proves that the eye could have been build by Darwinian mechanisms?
I read the article and it doesn’t even attempt to prove that Darwinism was responsible for building the eye, there is a big difference between proving something and assuming something. There is nothing wrong with making assumption,but you can´t assume the very thing that you are supposed to prove

 

[Miracles4Real]

sheesh! then why knit pick?
What they DID believe is that they had discovered evidence for God. Though I'm not sure we agree with that.

Hold up the wrong train here. My problem with your assertion was that you were assuming the motivations for scientists, not if they had found evidence for a god, which none of the quotes support either. That you would conflate a scientist saying, “I believe that what I perceive to be order in the universe is evidence that it was created by a god,” with “My motivation for studying science is to understand the mind of my god,” is very telling. You are doing the same thing you asked me not to do:

Lets do eachother a favor and try not to make assumptions about one another by reading between the lines.

You’ve done just that with these scientists. You’re assuming things they have not said, and you don’t even have the basis of their actions, like I did for you, to justify your assumptions. Can you honestly read any of those quotes and tell me they speak to motivation? That a theist has deluded himself to ignore what evidence he does have in order to hold onto the beliefs he was raised with is not motivation. Furthermore, that they think “order” is evidence for a designer does not make it evidence. It’s the same as if I came across a beach and said that sand is constructed too orderly to be random chance, thus the order of sand is evidence for a designer. I wouldn’t be making such an unsupported and dubious claim if I didn’t start from the position that there must be a designer and then use whatever I can to support that belief.

Again I said I know I've seen scientists speak on their motivations for pursuing science being a search for the mind of God. I said I could hunt for more but you said it would be moot- so I stopped.
They are scientests who believe in God and they say that the order in the universe is what causes them to believe in this. When British astrophysicist Paul Davies says:
"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"

What I think he means by that is that he believes there is powerful evidence that something is going on behind it all, that somebody has fine tuned natures numbers to make the universe. That he believes that the impression of design is overwhelming. But maybe I'm reading between the lines. Can you tell me what that quote actually means?

I never realized that our current understanding of the universe included God not being real.

It’s not the inclusion of god not being real, but that a god is not necessary. Our current understanding of all of these fields of science is that all of their subjects occurred naturally without the need for a designer. You are saying that understanding is wrong because you feel it is wrong.

The understanding is that they occurred naturally with the use of an understandable comprehensible and ordered system of natural laws. The natural laws that I, and many scientists too, attribute to a God. I'm not saying that our understanding of all these fields is wrong at all. If you think I do (because you seem to know my mind better than I do) can you please tell me what aspect of science I am saying is wrong?

It still seems like you're making an unfounded assertion that God does not exist simply because invoking him is not necessary to do science.
I agree that invoking God is not necessary for scientists. You are mixing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. One is science, the other is an unfounded assertion.

I feel like there is a designer- yes. This cannot be totally scientifically verified. Many important questions are unfalsifiable and untestable and unscientific.
What is more important, the rights of the individual or the rights of the society?
What is the best use of your time on earth?
What does it feel like to be a cow, a bat, an onion?
You can't scientifically verify questions like these, so is coming to conclusion on these questions by using other means at our disposal (philosophy, epistomoloigy, noetics, intuition, logic, empathy.) "dishonest"?

These are not scientific questions, they are philosophical. You are saying that because science can’t answer philosophical questions, we can interject philosophy, specifically theology, into science. It’s a non sequitur. Science isn’t concerned with the best use of our time. It concerns itself with endeavors like ending diseases, which if we had allowed theology to answer that question, we would still be treating schizophrenia with exorcisms.

Where science ends you engage in philosophy yes. How is that a non sequitur? Isn't that kind of what is done? isn't philosophy's job to help us know what questions to ask before sicking our science on it? Don't assume answers, falsify! Don't say there's no evedence for it so it must not be real (a positive claim) falsify! prove me wrong as I believe in a designer. I'm asking the question by using philosophy: Is there a designer? Is science capable of answering this?
Maybe it is, but I don't think it is. I'm convinced there is a designer by using my intuition, my personal judgement- its all I have left because I have no science for this one!

logical positivism, philosophical naturalism and scientism do not seem to be helpful worldviews, or even functional. I don't think anyone really uses them if they are honest with themselves. We do use intuition and feelings to learn things all the time and they are often right even if they are not as perfect and verifiable as science. Science doesnt have all the answers. it is incapable of having all the answers. Even answers that you need in order to function as a healthy conscious soul.

Your understanding of science is lacking. As has been pointed out to before, scientists are not automatons. We can experiment. Often, when we think of doing something by intuition and then do it, we are experimenting. If we keep track of the results of our actions and use prior results to influence future actions, we are using a form of methodological naturalism. If you know that taking a certain route to your workplace is faster than the other ones because you have driven them, and not because of car-enhancing pixies that only operate on a certain road, you are using naturalism. Not all science is done in sterilized laboratories by old men in lab coats. The only reason these may seem to be unhelpful for you is that you don’t realize that you utilize them in your day-to-day life.

These worldviews that you deem unhelpful are the reason why we can get clean water to drought-stricken parts of Africa, find cures for diseases, launch satellites into space that allow us to use GPS directions, and yes, even have discussions online using electricity and computers.

We are talking past eachother and there is rampent misundersanding and I don't think you are the only one to blame for that. There does seem to be some misunderstandings with definitions.

I'm all for methodological naturalism. Just not philosophical naturalism, which you seem to be endorsing (though you don't seem like you are aware of it)
Scientism is a pejorative term. It means someone who believes that science can be used to answer all questions- furthermore all important questions are scientific questions, anything unscientific is not valuable. Positivism is also a philosophy that has been given some pretty painful blows throughout history, I recommend you look it up.

I realize we all do lesser forms of experements in our own lives and take into account veriables and statistics to try and make the best choices. How we figure out what "best" means, that's outside the realm of science.

Also, please explain, in unambiguous terms, what a soul is, what it does for us, and how you know this.

I'll try but this would be hard for someone who espouses complete scientism, to grasp.
What I'm calling a soul here is the consciousness of a person. The unique experience that it is to be you. To be in your own head.
You cannot prove it, it cannot be scientifically verified. You think therefore you are. You can use logic to discover this- You think because you can even ask the question of whether or not you do.
We use intuition and feeling alone (including empathy) to discover (even know) that others must also have this too, but we cannot demonstrate it. not at all.
Even though we cannot quantify it, we all value it highly. And we value the souls of others too. It may be supernatural, that is, beyond nature. I think it is, some people think it isn't. Some reductionists have said that we have a soul but a soul made of little robots.
Science needs consciousness to function but it cannot explain consciousness.

Some scientists will say that dogs are not conscious but when we see them sleeping and twitching we imagine that they must be dreaming that they are running along beaches or chasing cats. We treat them as conscious. We even give them anesthetic before operating on them- why knock them out if they are already unconscious? Because we know it though intuition and empathy, not scientific verification.

I'm not saying "yeah that's good enough" I'm here to learn. I don't know how you missed this as I've said it many times. I just have the courage to state my current opinion (an opinion which I admit could be wrong)

Yet you’re fighting science at every step. This is talking out of both sides of your mouth. You may say you are here to learn, but you are actively fighting against our current understanding of science so that you can keep your god. You have shown no intention to learn in your posts, other than just asserting that you are. If you are here to learn, may I suggest that you stop asking leading questions, read what others have said, and stop trying to force a philosophical view of god into science?

My God isn't even in jeopardy with this particular evolution conversation. I am wondering how much background tweaking a God may be making or if he just created evolution to take care of this whole living organism thing. You aren't ripping apart my theology with this one I'm afraid. The most you could do is show that God used evolution, yet another incredibly robust and ordered system, and taught me another lesson.

I won't pretend to know what God's goals are or why he creates a universe with warts and all.
one that includes suffering, beauty, morality and parasitic microbes.
Maybe a few different spiritual gurus had something of an insight into Gods plan. If I had to speculate (again not 100% scientifically peer reviewed on this) I'd say it has something to do with loving one another, not taking anything for granted and being free to express ourselves. Maybe Jesus was onto something, maybe Gandhi and Buddha were too.

You have an issue where you say a lot, but don’t actually engage with what is being said. I don’t care about what guru have to say about “god’s plan.” You, Miracles4Real, are positing that everything in the universe is designed. I’m telling you that a consequence of this assertion is that this designer created pain and violence, where neither were needed, as the only means for creating new life for dozens of life forms. These consequences must be justified if your feelings are true. That you would push this responsibility onto someone else, and won't fully explore what your feelings lead to screams to me that you don’t actually care about learning about the evidence, just putting science down.

Are you kidding? I even GAVE you this one. I'm willing to accept that God is sadistic and violent and complicated and not all powerful maybe even limited to only creating within some kind of framework that we do not understand. My evidence for God is similar to the evidence I have for being conscious.
You think I need a god who is some Christian God who is an all good loving all powerful bearded man. When all I am talking about is some organizer force beyond our understanding.
You refuse not to read between the lines, you hold me to believing in demons and biblical prophesies and maybe hexes and curses too.
I'm not the enemy you think I am.

Maybe no one has any insight into it at all, but it sure seems designed. at least, to me.

Do you have anything to back up your assertion? You keep making it, but you never justify it. It the equivalent of my saying “I think the universe is made of pudding, and all biological life forms are just different kinds of pudding. Why do I think this? It’s just seems to be made of pudding to me, and any evidence presented to the contrary I’ll dismiss out of hand and accuse others of being lifeless husks for not feeling the world is made of pudding either, but I’m here to learn!”

Do you have anything to back up the assumption you're making that I'm conscious?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I can post them again, but you won't read them and dismiss them without thought.

So can you please copy-paste the exact portion of any of the articles where the author proves that the eye (or the ATP MOTOR) was build trough Darwinian mechanisms?

Nice prediction Inferno.

Dandan it seems to me you've skipped the latest batch of replies to you, from me and a few others.

You must have missed it. After you and Master_Ghost_Knight exposed dandan’s ignorance on yet another subject, he responded with:

dandan[/url]"]I feel like this discussion is becoming circular, I already provided my arguments and responded to most of your objections; you may or may not think that my arguments are valid, but in any case I would have to repeat my same answers.

Essentially, he is ignoring your corrections and trying to move on so he does not have to admit to his ignorance or defend his indefensible position.

Well, I would not say that you need to know the mind of a god(s), but it would be nice to have evidence for one before you proposed it as an explanation. One cannot posit something as an answer without first showing it exists.

As I said earlier, you are answering an unknown with another unknown and believing that it solves the problem. However, the difference is that the unknown you are proposing is infinitely more complex than the phenomenon you are trying to explain. Thus, your answer is not elegant, nor does it have any explanatory power. You are simply answering a question with an “I do not know”, but making the mistake of believing you have actually answered it. Essentially, sitting back and saying GodDidIt, as you are proposing is not a real answer.

Does proposing "Dark energy" without knowing what it is exactly, in order to account for the expansion rate of the universe- have all the same "problems" you mentioned?

No, not at all. In fact, “dark energy” is just a place holding term for the fact that the universe is still expanding. Beyond that, dark energy actually describes an observable phenomenon, so what exactly are you claiming a god(s) describes? Now, if you want to place a god(s) as a place holding term, like dark energy, than be ready to abandon the place holding term when we actually find out the cause behind the phenomenon.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I mean CAN if you can prove that it can do it i will accept evoluton

Then you are in denial. Because we have shown to dead that it can, and you even admitted it.
Are you an evolutionist yet?

 

[Darkprophet232]

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"

What I think he means by that is that he believes there is powerful evidence that something is going on behind it all, that somebody has fine tuned natures numbers to make the universe. That he believes that the impression of design is overwhelming. But maybe I'm reading between the lines. Can you tell me what that quote actually means?

I interpret the quote to say, “As I have been brainwashed since birth to accept that there is a divine creator of the universe, and as I do not wish to stop believing this, I will cling to anything I can interrupt to support this claim even as I do research that proves that such a belief is unnecessary.” The idea of heavily religious scientists having to compartmentalize their beliefs, not holding them to the same scrutiny they would any other claim about the natural world, has been well explored.

It only appears fine-tuned because he wants it to be so. He has no evidence that the universe is actually designed, so he has to put a disclaimer on his assertion that “There is for me powerful evidence…” If his evidence is subjective, then it’s not evidence. He’s dressing up his feelings with science-y sounding language, but it is still just his feelings.

The understanding is that they occurred naturally with the use of an understandable comprehensible and ordered system of natural laws. The natural laws that I, and many scientists too, attribute to a God. I'm not saying that our understanding of all these fields is wrong at all. If you think I do (because you seem to know my mind better than I do) can you please tell me what aspect of science I am saying is wrong?

Now that you’ve explained it better, I realize I was mistaken. You’re not saying our understanding is wrong, you’re adding another layer to our understanding that is meaningless. If instead you attributed these natural laws to leprechauns or pixies or your right foot, it would add exactly the same amount to our understanding of these sciences. You are positing a creator with nothing better than, “I feel like there is one.” When you have evidence of a god, you may posit one. To do so at any other time before that is a waste of effort, on everyone’s part.

Where science ends you engage in philosophy yes. How is that a non sequitur?

Because you’re not at the end of science when you’re positing a creator must have created the universe. You’re cutting science short and not allowing it to progress. Claiming “Goddidit” is like posting a road block in front of an entry ramp of a highway. Some of us would like to continue on and see where this road leads us.

Don't say there's no evedence for it so it must not be real (a positive claim) falsify! prove me wrong as I believe in a designer.

Burden of proof, do you understand it?! And this is an entire misunderstanding of the situation. I’m saying you’ve presented no evidence, not that there is none. My proof of this is your failure to provide evidence. You’ve called emotional attachments to a deity evidence, but that is not evidence. You are making a positive claim that there is a designer, and are now asking me to disprove it. How about we turn the tables and you try to prove that this universe isn’t just a dream of a dead god? See how absurd that sounds? You’re doing the same thing.

Maybe it is, but I don't think it is. I'm convinced there is a designer by using my intuition, my personal judgement- its all I have left because I have no science for this one!

You’ve already been shown why believing in something when you have no evidence for it is a bad idea and leads to wrong conclusions.

How we figure out what "best" means, that's outside the realm of science.

I didn’t quote the rest because I understand now that I misinterpreted what you meant and generally agree with you.

What I'm calling a soul here is the consciousness of a person. The unique experience that it is to be you. To be in your own head.

The consciousness of a person is a consciousness. Why are you adding words and baggage to a concept that are unneeded?

Some scientists will say that dogs are not conscious…

Those scientists are idiots.

...but when we see them sleeping and twitching we imagine that they must be dreaming that they are running along beaches or chasing cats.

If a creature dreams (which we know dogs can do thanks to MRI machines), it is conscious. If a creature can experience pain, then it is conscious. Who is arguing that only humans are conscious? And what does this have with a soul? You’ve gone on another irrelevant tirade. If you think a soul is the only explanation for empathy (I say “if” because you didn’t even try to make a case for what a soul is and how we know that) then please hunt down a read a copy of Sam Harris’s The Moral Landscape. You’ll learn a lot in this book about just how much science can account for.

My God isn't even in jeopardy with this particular evolution conversation. I am wondering how much background tweaking a God may be making or if he just created evolution to take care of this whole living organism thing. You aren't ripping apart my theology with this one I'm afraid. The most you could do is show that God used evolution, yet another incredibly robust and ordered system, and taught me another lesson.

Thank you again for making my point that you aren’t here to learn. You’re looking for ways to confirm your belief in your god, the facts be damned. Secondly, you've proven that your god is a meaningless concept because it is ever-changing with the new evidence. As you have not given, and I suspect don't have, a firm definition of what this god is, it can be anything and account for anything, which means it is as relevant as nothing.

My evidence for God is similar to the evidence I have for being conscious.

Would you mind sharing either, because you haven’t done so yet?

You think I need a god who is some Christian God who is an all good loving all powerful bearded man. When all I am talking about is some organizer force beyond our understanding.

If it is beyond our understanding that why even posit it? If it can’t be understood, than it is a road block, and anything ascribed to it is necessarily meaningless and unverifiable.

You refuse not to read between the lines, you hold me to believing in demons and biblical prophesies and maybe hexes and curses too.

When have I ever mentioned any of those things?

I'm not the enemy you think I am.

You’re an enemy to reason and the pursuit of understanding the world around us. That is enemy enough.

Do you have anything to back up the assumption you're making that I'm conscious?

[sarcasm]Nice dodge[/sarcasm], now please answer the question.

 

[dandan]

I mean CAN if you can prove that it can do it i will accept evoluton

Then you are in denial. Because we have shown to dead that it can, and you even admitted it.
Are you an evolutionist yet?

No you haven´t please provide a source and copy´paste the portion where the autor proves that darwinian mechanisms can build complex eyes form "simple" Photosensitive nerves

 

[Miracles4Real]

No, not at all. In fact, “dark energy” is just a place holding term for the fact that the universe is still expanding. Beyond that, dark energy actually describes an observable phenomenon, so what exactly are you claiming a god(s) describes? Now, if you want to place a god(s) as a place holding term, like dark energy, than be ready to abandon the place holding term when we actually find out the cause behind the phenomenon.

I suppose you could think of it as a place holding term for the order we see in the universe. A "for now" answer to the mystery as to why there are the laws and constants. Why everything seems so finely tuned like it does. So, in that, God is a useful term to describe an observable phenomenon.
If science is able to discover why the universe seems so ordered, I will handily discard the placeholder.
For now it is pretty helpful though.

(edit: fixed a quote bracket)

 

[Darkprophet232]

I suppose you could think of it as a place holding term for the order we see in the universe. the mystery as they why there are the laws and constants that there are. So God is a useful term to describe an observable phenomenon.
If science is able to discover why the universe seems so ordered, I will handily discard the placeholder.
For now it is pretty helpful though.

(edit: fixed a quote bracket)

So then you ascribe nothing else to this term "god"? Say, like miracles? And if so, why use the term god for a placeholder, knowing there is so much more baggage (rules for living one's life, qualifications for entry to an afterlife, reincarnation, a soul, salvation, tithing, punishments, doctrines) included with it?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

What I think he means by that is that he believes there is powerful evidence that something is going on behind it all, that somebody has fine tuned natures numbers to make the universe. That he believes that the impression of design is overwhelming. But maybe I'm reading between the lines. Can you tell me what that quote actually means?

If it's not a quote mine, it means that he is talking out of his ass.

The natural laws that I, and many scientists too, attribute to a God.

Not any scientist that I know of. And why attribute it to God, why not attribute it to the cosmic pudding?

can you please tell me what aspect of science I am saying is wrong?

For one the "laws of science" are descriptive, not prescriptive.

It still seems like you're making an unfounded assertion that God does not exist simply because invoking him is not necessary to do science.
I agree that invoking God is not necessary for scientists.

It is not only not necessary, it is also an absurd concept dreamed up by people who had very little knowledge of the world.
Replace "God" with "gnomes", "fairies" or "unicorns", and you have exactly the same thing, except that the later is at least coherent, but I don't see you drop a beat when you say that those certainly do not exist. The way you see fairies is the way we see God.
To claim that an evolved ape like being, who talks. thinks and cares about thinks that an ape like being does, but for some reason is not made of the same thing that ape like creatures does, and does not even exit like an ape like being does, is no more random than to say that there is a cosmic pudding that farts universes into existence.

Where science ends you engage in philosophy yes.

No.

How is that a non sequitur?

Because science is a method that consists of carefully observing the real world to learn about the real world. If you are doing philosophy and not science, then you are not doing that. And philosophy alone is completely and utter useless to tell you anything about the real world.
It's not just a different league, it's not event the same sport.
It's impossible for pure philosophy to make valid conclusions about reality either you realize it or not, even if you think you have the most brilliant waterproof argument, I don't even have to hear it before telling that you are wrong.

Isn't that kind of what is done?

No.

isn't philosophy's job to help us know what questions to ask before sicking our science on it?

No.

I'm asking the question by using philosophy: Is there a designer?

Then you are using the wrong tool for the Job.

Is science capable of answering this?

Yes.

I'm convinced there is a designer by using my intuition, my personal judgement- its all I have left because I have no science for this one!

And as I have explained to you. Intuition is useless source of knowledge.

What I'm calling a soul here is the consciousness of a person. The unique experience that it is to be you. To be in your own head.

So when people suffer brain damage. Is it the soul malfunctioning. What about split brain patients do they have 2 souls? If so does this mean that if someone becomes a split brain patient in life does it mean that you can carve a soul in 2? If not, how can a soul forget about what it know when controlling the left part that otherwise is knows when it is controlling the right? How can it have 2 set of beliefs, tastes, personalities and so on?

You cannot prove it, it cannot be scientifically verified.

Well, actually we can. One does not simply state how they want the world to work without consequences.
If you claim that the soul is a thing that it is capable of influencing your body to move (the atoms and the molecules), by the principle of symmetry it means that is also possible for atoms and molecules to influence your soul to move, which means that if there something there, we can measure it. And so far we have never seen any phenomena that would even hint at a soul, everything that is going on in your brain is completely describable by chemistry and physics, and a soul is not a part of it.
If it makes a difference, it exerts and influence and we can measure that, if it doesn't, then it doesn't make a difference.
If you claim that you cannot measure or you say that it is outside of the scope of science, then you can't claim that it influences things or even makes any sort of difference to reality what so ever. And if you can't really tell if it is real, it makes no difference what so ever, why would you even think that it is there? I will tell you how:

You can use logic to discover this-

No, you can't.

Science needs consciousness to function but it cannot explain consciousness.

Nope. Science can explain consciousness.

Some scientists will say that dogs are not conscious

No scientist has ever said that. Actually science tells us that they are capable of suffering pretty much as we do.

The most you could do is show that God used evolution,

Wrong, he cannot show that God is involved anywhere, and that is your problem. What you have done is to just assume that God is true by default, that whatever science can explain you can sneak in God. Sorry that is not the way it works, if you want to say that "X" is responsible for "Y" (X here being God) then you have to demonstrate "X".

My evidence for God is similar to the evidence I have for being conscious.

Which is none at all. Actually God is even in a worst situation, because it is not even a coherent concept.

When all I am talking about is some organizer force beyond our understanding.

And may I ask you why you would be talking about that if you weren't a christian?

You refuse not to read between the lines, you hold me to believing in demons and biblical prophesies and maybe hexes and curses too.

Which would be the consistent thing to do, because the only source you for the concept of God is none other than the same.

 

[Rumraket]

No you haven´t please provide a source and copy´paste the portion where the autor proves that darwinian mechanisms can build complex eyes form "simple" Photosensitive nerves

We have already given you enough information to rationally justify tentatively accepting that it can. The problem is that you want something more than this, you want a degree of certainty science simply can't offer. This is not a flaw with science, this is a problem with a double-standard held for reasons of religious emotions and personal pride, or whatever socio-psychological phenomenon might be at play in an online discussion like this.

In every other area of inquiry you would have accepted the same level of evidence offered and you'd be rational to do so, but when it comes to evolution the rules and standards for you are for some reason different. Well tough shit, it takes a certain amount of willingness on behalf of the one to be convinced to let themselves be convinced by the evidence. Every idiot can just shut off their mind and refuse to connect the dots, we can't make you do it.

So we take our snapshots (different types of eyes in different organisms), build a model for their evolution that takes the simple mechanisms of mutation, drift and selection as the basics and test it's predictions against our phylogenies from genetics and morphology,

This really is no different than, for example, theories of star and solar system formation.

We can only show you snapshots of what we infer must be a long process, make inferences from observed mechanisms operating in the here and now (gravity makes stuff clump together) and build models that make observationally testable predictions (distribution of gases, temperature, angular momentum and so forth).

That's the best we can do, whether in astronomy or in evolutionary biology. If this isn't good enough for you, if you want something more than this with a "proof"(whatever the hell people who use that word mean, and yeah that goes for AronRa too), then you will be disappointed. All we can do now then, is to point out the double standard. That you are accepting other things on way less evidence than you demand from evolution.

Take it or leave it.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

No, not at all. In fact, “dark energy” is just a place holding term for the fact that the universe is still expanding. Beyond that, dark energy actually describes an observable phenomenon, so what exactly are you claiming a god(s) describes? Now, if you want to place a god(s) as a place holding term, like dark energy, than be ready to abandon the place holding term when we actually find out the cause behind the phenomenon.

I suppose you could think of it as a place holding term for the order we see in the universe. A "for now" answer to the mystery as to why there are the laws and constants. Why everything seems so finely tuned like it does. So, in that, God is a useful term to describe an observable phenomenon.
If science is able to discover why the universe seems so ordered, I will handily discard the placeholder.
For now it is pretty helpful though.

(edit: fixed a quote bracket)

I disagree with your claim that the universe seems finely tuned. If anything, the universe appears to have emergent properties. For example, a snowflake appears highly ordered, but we do not claim a god created every snowflake. Thus, you are positing your placeholder, god, as an answer to something that actually does not exist. However, feel free to demonstrate that the universe is finely tuned.

Furthermore, why even posit a god as the placeholder? It appears that there already is a term for that, i.e. “finely tune”. Until this fine-tuning is actually demonstrated to exist, there is no reason to give it any extra title or speculate about what caused it. You are placing the cart before the horse.

EDIT.

In addition, dark energy is not a “for now” answer. Dark energy is the title given to the phenomenon of the universe still expanding. It does not answer anything; it simply describes what we observe. It still needs to be answered.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This really is no different than, for example, theories of star and solar system formation.

We can only show you snapshots of what we infer must be a long process, make inferences from observed mechanisms operating in the here and now (gravity makes stuff clump together) and build models that make observationally testable predictions (distribution of gases, temperature, angular momentum and so forth).

:lol:

Dandan is a young earth creationist, thus he would not accept this either.

However, this does highlight your double-standards point. Dandan will accept Noah’s flood and the whole universe poofing into existence over a week based on, one can only guess, the bible and nothing else (because there is not anything else for this ideas). Yet, when it comes to drawing conclusions based on actual evidence, he rejects it outright because of his preconceived notions.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

No you haven´t please provide a source and copy´paste the portion where the autor proves that darwinian mechanisms can build complex eyes form "simple" Photosensitive nerves

Which of this you do not accept:
1. The development of the eye in mammals is controlled by DNA.
2. DNA is plastic.
3. Mutations can accumulate.
4. There is a different then zero probability that the accumulation of mutations could form the same sequence that encode an eye for mammals.

If you accept all of this. (which you already did). Then you have already admitted that it can, either you realize that or not, Your claims that it is to unprobable isn't a matter of either it can but a matter of either it did.

 

[Miracles4Real]

What I think he means by that is that he believes there is powerful evidence that something is going on behind it all, that somebody has fine tuned natures numbers to make the universe. That he believes that the impression of design is overwhelming. But maybe I'm reading between the lines. Can you tell me what that quote actually means?

If it's not a quote mine, it means that he is talking out of his ass.

so anytime any scientest has ever said that order in the universe is, for them, evedence for a designer- it must be a quote mine or else he was talking out his ass. Got it.

The natural laws that I, and many scientists too, attribute to a God.

Not any scientist that I know of. And why attribute it to God, why not attribute it to the cosmic pudding?

I've done all I'm willing to do to convince you that some scientists are theists. That some of them believe in God because of their discoveries. You'll have to write letters to Francis Collins or something and get it right from the horses mouth. Then I couldn't be quote mining. But maybe he would just be talking out his ass.
Actually I don't think it would be possible to change your mind. You seem determined to think the scientific world is made up entirely of atheists no matter how wrong that is.

can you please tell me what aspect of science I am saying is wrong?

For one the "laws of science" are descriptive, not prescriptive.

They are descriptive of things we are seeing at work in the universe. Remarkably understandable and ordered things.
This causes me (and I would usually say "and many scientists" here but I don't think I'm capable of having you absorb that) to think there is a God behind it.

It still seems like you're making an unfounded assertion that God does not exist simply because invoking him is not necessary to do science.
I agree that invoking God is not necessary for scientists.

It is not only not necessary, it is also an absurd concept dreamed up by people who had very little knowledge of the world.
Replace "God" with "gnomes", "fairies" or "unicorns", and you have exactly the same thing, except that the later is at least coherent, but I don't see you drop a beat when you say that those certainly do not exist. The way you see fairies is the way we see God.
To claim that an evolved ape like being, who talks. thinks and cares about thinks that an ape like being does, but for some reason is not made of the same thing that ape like creatures does, and does not even exit like an ape like being does, is no more random than to say that there is a cosmic pudding that farts universes into existence.

This is an entirely emotional argument based on an appeal to consequences. I sure don't want to be like someone that believes in faries! Maybe it is a cosmic pudding that farts universes into existence. I'll call it that if you want. eesh!
I'm calling it God because that is an appropriate word. it evokes awe and denotes planning and consciousness. Einstein said "I'd like to know if God had a choice in creating the universe." and so would I.

Where science ends you engage in philosophy yes.

No.

What do you think the role of philosophy is then?
Is just a totally useless thing and science is all that is important.
If so, how do you function? Do you have political opinions?

How is that a non sequitur?

Because science is a method that consists of carefully observing the real world to learn about the real world. If you are doing philosophy and not science, then you are not doing that. And philosophy alone is completely and utter useless to tell you anything about the real world.
It's not just a different league, it's not event the same sport.
It's impossible for pure philosophy to make valid conclusions about reality either you realize it or not, even if you think you have the most brilliant waterproof argument, I don't even have to hear it before telling that you are wrong.

And how did you come to the conclusion that radical scientism was the best philosophy?
Philosophy is useless to tell us anything about the real world? What branch of science is telling you what is ethical? What branch of science is telling you what laws we should pass? What type of political system is the best? Science is all you got because its the only thing that matters!
Are you kidding me with this stuff?

I'm asking the question by using philosophy: Is there a designer?

Then you are using the wrong tool for the Job.

If it's sciences job then lets go for it.
The universe appears designed with laws and constants.
Let me know how we can falsify this and we can move on to step 2- experiment.
Maybe if creating a universe were a repeatable thing, something we could do in a lab. but we would be doing all of this inside of a universe, one with ordered laws and constants. Drat!
Oh science has failed us in this question! whatever will we dooOOOo! It was supposed to be omnipotent! NooOOoo!
Sweet science, why have you forsaken us!

Is science capable of answering this?

Yes.

Then lets do the experiment!

I'm convinced there is a designer by using my intuition, my personal judgement- its all I have left because I have no science for this one!

And as I have explained to you. Intuition is useless source of knowledge.

I don't know God exists in the way you are demanding. In the all or nothing way. In the scientifically verified way. God is not scientifically verified- there, I said it...*sob* you sure showed me.
If you don't use your intuition ever in your life, I don't know how you function. I think you're just disagreeing with me because you see me as some kind of enemy.

What I'm calling a soul here is the consciousness of a person. The unique experience that it is to be you. To be in your own head.

So when people suffer brain damage. Is it the soul malfunctioning. What about split brain patients do they have 2 souls? If so does this mean that if someone becomes a split brain patient in life does it mean that you can carve a soul in 2? If not, how can a soul forget about what it know when controlling the left part that otherwise is knows when it is controlling the right? How can it have 2 set of beliefs, tastes, personalities and so on?

You cannot prove it, it cannot be scientifically verified.

Well, actually we can. One does not simply state how they want the world to work without consequences.
If you claim that the soul is a thing that it is capable of influencing your body to move (the atoms and the molecules), by the principle of symmetry it means that is also possible for atoms and molecules to influence your soul to move, which means that if there something there, we can measure it. And so far we have never seen any phenomena that would even hint at a soul, everything that is going on in your brain is completely describable by chemistry and physics, and a soul is not a part of it.
If it makes a difference, it exerts and influence and we can measure that, if it doesn't, then it doesn't make a difference.
If you claim that you cannot measure or you say that it is outside of the scope of science, then you can't claim that it influences things or even makes any sort of difference to reality what so ever...

I'm not using the word soul the way you are strawmanning. It isn't another thing that gets plucked out of you and goes to heaven where you eat pizza and get free cable after you die. I am using it as almost a synonym for the subjective experience of consciousness. Something that I think even you believe is real. If you used the word the way that I am using the word you would say that the soul is an emergent property of evolution or some such thing. You agree with me that there is a soul in the way I'm using the word.
I would love for you to try and prove to me scientifically and verifiably that you are having a subjective conscious experience. That will be a riot.
Maybe when you're doing this you will realize how limited your radical scientism is.

You can use logic to discover this-

No, you can't.

Finish the quote. after the "-" I explained how philosophers use logic to prove they are conscious. To say "I am not real" is a logical contradiction because of the "I" in the sentence. This is classic Decarte reasoning man. It is true because of the impossibility of the opposite. again you are so keen on disagreeing with me that you don't even know when we are in agreement.

Science needs consciousness to function but it cannot explain consciousness.

Nope. Science can explain consciousness.

Wow! science really does have all the answers!
what experiment have they done that can get you inside of someone else mind and prove that it is real? Not just inside of their brain but inside of their mind?
Can science prove we are not all living in a computer simulated Matrix too!

Some scientists will say that dogs are not conscious

No scientist has ever said that. Actually science tells us that they are capable of suffering pretty much as we do.

This is just wrong.
a simple Google search on the subject of animal consciousness will enlighten you here. Animal awareness is still debated, though thankfully those who do not believe animals are at all aware, are in the minority. Even René Descartes argued that only humans are conscious and other animals are not.

The most you could do is show that God used evolution,

Wrong, he cannot show that God is involved anywhere, and that is your problem. What you have done is to just assume that God is true by default, that whatever science can explain you can sneak in God. Sorry that is not the way it works, if you want to say that "X" is responsible for "Y" (X here being God) then you have to demonstrate "X".

God is responsible for Y because it's the best answer I have right now to explain the ordered complexity in the universe, I'm open and looking for something better.

My evidence for God is similar to the evidence I have for being conscious.

Which is none at all. Actually God is even in a worst situation, because it is not even a coherent concept.

To you it's "none at all" because you don't think philosophy or instinct are at all useful tools. You demand all or nothing answers, maybe not from everyone but at least from a theist. I don't know how you even relate to other people with this kind of outlook, I suspect you don't actually hold it. I suspect you use philosophy and instinct everyday to great effect all the time.

When all I am talking about is some organizer force beyond our understanding.

And may I ask you why you would be talking about that if you weren't a christian?

Why did Einstein say "I want to know the mind of God"
He wasn't a christian.
He was not any denomination.
He didn't believe in a personal God.
I wonder if you would be jumping down his throat every time he used the word. Because he used it a great deal. I think his use of it was appropriate.

You refuse not to read between the lines, you hold me to believing in demons and biblical prophesies and maybe hexes and curses too.

Which would be the consistent thing to do, because the only source you for the concept of God is none other than the same.

The only concept of God is from the bible?
Screw that. I'm taking the word back. Along with words like spiritual and soul. They are the best words to express the emotional impact of what I mean.
Maybe you'd prefer cosmic pudding that farted out a universe though. It doesn't seem to fill me with quite the same idea.

 

[Miracles4Real]

I disagree with your claim that the universe seems finely tuned. If anything, the universe appears to have emergent properties. For example, a snowflake appears highly ordered, but we do not claim a god created every snowflake. Thus, you are positing your placeholder, god, as an answer to something that actually does not exist. However, feel free to demonstrate that the universe is finely tuned.

If I saw a snowflake and didn't know how ice crystals form so that they look like such perfectly symetrical little sculptures- Then I don't think it would be totally senseless and incoherent for me to say "Given the available information, I think this snow flake was made by very creative little fairy people"
Sure I'd be wrong, but who could fault me for that?
As long as I am wiling to change my mind when ice formation is explained to me.

Furthermore, why even posit a god as the placeholder? It appears that there already is a term for that, i.e. “finely tune”. Until this fine-tuning is actually demonstrated to exist, there is no reason to give it any extra title or speculate about what caused it. You are placing the cart before the horse.

If you want I'll use the word "fine tuner" but it just doesn't really evoke the thing I'm trying to express. If I said "I believe in a fine tuner" I think people might say something like "oh you mean, like a God" and I'd have to go "uh yeah."

In addition, dark energy is not a “for now” answer. Dark energy is the title given to the phenomenon of the universe still expanding. It does not answer anything; it simply describes what we observe. It still needs to be answered.

The universe is a big unknown phenomenon that we all experience and observe. God is a title given to address the apparent (snowflake like) symmetry in the universe.

 

[Darkprophet232]

so anytime any scientest has ever said that order in the universe is, for them, evedence for a designer- it must be a quote mine or else he was talking out his ass. Got it.

Correct. Any time a scientist makes a non-scientific claim he has no actual evidence to support, he is making things up.

I've done all I'm willing to do to convince you that some scientists are theists.

This isn’t an either/or argument. No one is saying there are no theist scientists. We’re saying they’re theists for nonscientific reasons. Stop trying to force this into a zero-sum discussion.

Remarkably understandable and ordered things.

Dandan would disagree with you on just how understandable the universe is. In fact, all young earth creationists have a problem of not being able to understand most of the universe. How does this fit in to how you observe the universe to be remarkably understandable? And what does that even mean? Are you saying that if the universe weren’t designed, then we would have no way of understanding what was going on around us? Do you have anything to back that up with?

This causes me (and I would usually say "and many scientists" here but I don't think I'm capable of having you absorb that) to think there is a God behind it.

You have it exactly backwards. You believe in a god, so anything you don’t understand (in this case the “order” of the universe), you will attribute to it.

This is an entirely emotional argument based on an appeal to consequences.

You don’t know what appeal to consequences means. An example would be saying “I believe a god exists. I want a god to exist because it is preferable than the belief there is no god. Thus the order of the universe can only be proof of this god.” Saying a god did it is exactly as accurate as saying a universe-farting pudding is behind it.

I'm calling it God because that is an appropriate word. it evokes awe and denotes planning and consciousness.

I’m calling bullshit. You just said:

I suppose you could think of it as a place holding term for the order we see in the universe. A "for now" answer to the mystery as to why there are the laws and constants. Why everything seems so finely tuned like it does. So, in that, God is a useful term to describe an observable phenomenon.
If science is able to discover why the universe seems so ordered, I will handily discard the placeholder.
For now it is pretty helpful though.

So which is it, a placeholder waiting to be supplanted by a better explanation, or a consciousness?

God is responsible for Y because it's the best answer I have right now to explain the ordered complexity in the universe, I'm open and looking for something better.

God is not an answer, it’s a bigger question, and no you’re not, as you said previously:

The most you could do is show that God used evolution, yet another incredibly robust and ordered system, and taught me another lesson.

To you it's "none at all" because you don't think philosophy or instinct are at all useful tools.

It’s “none at all,” because you haven’t given any. Not any. Not a smidgeon. Not even an inkling.

Screw that. I'm taking the word back. Along with words like spiritual and soul. They are the best words to express the emotional impact of what I mean.
Maybe you'd prefer cosmic pudding that farted out a universe though. It doesn't seem to fill me with quite the same idea.

So you were lying when you earlier said:

I suppose you could think of it as a place holding term for the order we see in the universe. A "for now" answer to the mystery as to why there are the laws and constants. Why everything seems so finely tuned like it does. So, in that, God is a useful term to describe an observable phenomenon.
If science is able to discover why the universe seems so ordered, I will handily discard the placeholder.
For now it is pretty helpful though.

Please stop changing your beliefs based on who you’re talking to.

"Given the available information, I think this snow flake was made by very creative little fairy people"
Sure I'd be wrong, but who could fault me for that?

I could, and so could any other rational person. Immediately assigning responsibility of a natural occurrence to a supernatural fairy tale is a sign of a damaged mind. If you had evidence of little fairy people, then it would be an interesting hypothesis that creating snowflakes is one of their powers. Without that evidence, you’re just making things up.

As long as I am wiling to change my mind when ice formation is explained to me.

But you wouldn’t. I’d imagine you’d say something similar to this:

“My idea of little fairy people isn't even in jeopardy with this particular snow-based conversation. I am wondering how much background tweaking little fairy people may be making or if they just created snowflakes to take care of this whole snow on the ground thing. You aren't ripping apart my theology with this one I'm afraid. The most you could do is show that little fairy people used snowflakes, yet another incredibly robust and ordered system, and taught me another lesson.”

If you want I'll use the word "fine tuner" but it just doesn't really evoke the thing I'm trying to express. If I said "I believe in a fine tuner" I think people might say something like "oh you mean, like a God" and I'd have to go "uh yeah."

You’re misunderstanding, HWIN didn’t say “fine tuner,” he said “finely tune.” That you would still need to bend this to say a fine tuner shows that you start from the base that god exists, and then look at the evidence.

The universe is a big unknown phenomenon that we all experience and observe. God is a title given to address the apparent (snowflake like) symmetry in the universe.

[/quote]

But that’s not all he is to you, is it? Will you just be honest about your beliefs, just once?

 

[Darkprophet232]

Ugh, can't believe I missed this:

I'm not using the word soul the way you are strawmanning. It isn't another thing that gets plucked out of you and goes to heaven where you eat pizza and get free cable after you die.

I find it hysterical that you keep shoehorning Christian beliefs in the topic when no one else has brought them up, and then use them as if its proof we're not reading what you're saying. It's okay to admit that you're a Christian and ascribe to many of that churches doctrines. What's not okay is keeping up this facade of not being a Christian or using Christian theology but then obviously point to your desire to maintain those ideas.

I am using it as almost a synonym for the subjective experience of consciousness. Something that I think even you believe is real.

We already have a word for consciousness, it's consciousness. The word soul has a lot of baggage attached to it, that you obviously ascribe to, yet try to hide from the repercussions of such baggage. You aren't fooling anyone, except maybe yourself.

If you used the word the way that I am using the word you would say that the soul is an emergent property of evolution or some such thing.

You're saying we've evolved a soul. Then, just like with everything else that has evolved, we should have evidence of it. We don't, it didn't evolve with us, because it doesn't exist, at least not with how you believe in it. [/quote]

You agree with me that there is a soul in the way I'm using the word.

They way you are disingenuously using the word right now? As is it's just another word for consciousness? Sure, if you believe souls can change based on brain damage, but again, why bring in another word that has its own baggage?

I would love for you to try and prove to me scientifically and verifiably that you are having a subjective conscious experience. That will be a riot.
Maybe when you're doing this you will realize how limited your radical scientism is.

The thing is, you can't prove philosophically or logically prove that either. Or theologically for that matter. "I think, therefore I am," only works for the "I" in the statement.

 

[Miracles4Real]

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"

What I think he means by that is that he believes there is powerful evidence that something is going on behind it all, that somebody has fine tuned natures numbers to make the universe. That he believes that the impression of design is overwhelming. But maybe I'm reading between the lines. Can you tell me what that quote actually means?

I interpret the quote to say, “As I have been brainwashed since birth to accept that there is a divine creator of the universe, and as I do not wish to stop believing this, I will cling to anything I can interrupt to support this claim even as I do research that proves that such a belief is unnecessary.” The idea of heavily religious scientists having to compartmentalize their beliefs, not holding them to the same scrutiny they would any other claim about the natural world, has been well explored.

So when people talk to you, you don't actually listen to the words that they are saying. I mean this not to be mean, but I honestly think that maybe we shouldn't talk anymore. I don't know what it will get us. This is a very bad way to start a post.

The understanding is that they occurred naturally with the use of an understandable comprehensible and ordered system of natural laws. The natural laws that I, and many scientists too, attribute to a God. I'm not saying that our understanding of all these fields is wrong at all. If you think I do (because you seem to know my mind better than I do) can you please tell me what aspect of science I am saying is wrong?

Now that you’ve explained it better, I realize I was mistaken. You’re not saying our understanding is wrong, you’re adding another layer to our understanding that is meaningless. If instead you attributed these natural laws to leprechauns or pixies or your right foot, it would add exactly the same amount to our understanding of these sciences. You are positing a creator with nothing better than, “I feel like there is one.” When you have evidence of a god, you may posit one. To do so at any other time before that is a waste of effort, on everyone’s part.

I'm not on a quest to convince anyone that the god I believe exists, does exist. I don't believe in a God that wants worshipers. I was only giving my opinion. Like many opinions it cannot be verified by science.

Where science ends you engage in philosophy yes. How is that a non sequitur?

Because you’re not at the end of science when you’re positing a creator must have created the universe. You’re cutting science short and not allowing it to progress. Claiming “Goddidit” is like posting a road block in front of an entry ramp of a highway. Some of us would like to continue on and see where this road leads us.

My Goddidit isnt a road block because I'm not claiming absolute certanty. I'm willing to have my mind changed, arn't you?
I hate to break this to you but even all the answers from science are not certan forever answers like that. Science changes and adapts to new information, so should any rational person and so would I.

Don't say there's no evedence for it so it must not be real (a positive claim) falsify! prove me wrong as I believe in a designer.

Burden of proof, do you understand it?! And this is an entire misunderstanding of the situation. I’m saying you’ve presented no evidence, not that there is none. My proof of this is your failure to provide evidence. You’ve called emotional attachments to a deity evidence, but that is not evidence. You are making a positive claim that there is a designer, and are now asking me to disprove it. How about we turn the tables and you try to prove that this universe isn’t just a dream of a dead god? See how absurd that sounds? You’re doing the same thing.

Because it's based on my intuition, a subjective feeling, I couldn't prove it to you. In the same way you couldn't prove to me that you are conscious.
However, if I learn that it is more likely that order in the universe actually is an emergent property, and not at all due to any kind of conscious design, then I will change my mind. I have an opinion that can be changed with evidence.

Maybe it is, but I don't think it is. I'm convinced there is a designer by using my intuition, my personal judgement- its all I have left because I have no science for this one!

You’ve already been shown why believing in something when you have no evidence for it is a bad idea and leads to wrong conclusions.

Yeah, I reject that wrong conclusions are some horrible thing or that they are "roadblocks" as you say. I think wrong conclusions are part of human experence. Sometimes they turn out to be right too.

How we figure out what "best" means, that's outside the realm of science.

I didn’t quote the rest because I understand now that I misinterpreted what you meant and generally agree with you.

cool. But if the situation is that whenever I say something you reinterpret it to mean something else, I don't know what we can say to each other.

What I'm calling a soul here is the consciousness of a person. The unique experience that it is to be you. To be in your own head.

The consciousness of a person is a consciousness. Why are you adding words and baggage to a concept that are unneeded?

Some scientists will say that dogs are not conscious…

Those scientists are idiots.

...but when we see them sleeping and twitching we imagine that they must be dreaming that they are running along beaches or chasing cats.

If a creature dreams (which we know dogs can do thanks to MRI machines), it is conscious. If a creature can experience pain, then it is conscious. Who is arguing that only humans are conscious? And what does this have with a soul? You’ve gone on another irrelevant tirade. If you think a soul is the only explanation for empathy (I say “if” because you didn’t even try to make a case for what a soul is and how we know that) then please hunt down a read a copy of Sam Harris’s The Moral Landscape. You’ll learn a lot in this book about just how much science can account for.

I'll check out the Moral Landscape book. I hope I learn a lot from it.
I thought I did make an account for what a meant when I used the word "soul"
I think you were just demanding that I give some kind of account for a genie like ghost that lives inside of our bodies and refused to accept it as just a poetic synonym for subjective conscious experience.
You actually agree with me that we have a soul, if you understood what I meant when I defined it. You chose instead to think of what I said as an irrelevant tirade because it wasnt addressing the ghost you wanted to hear about.
Communication is hard, it's made even harder if you are trying to give me a position I don't hold.

My God isn't even in jeopardy with this particular evolution conversation. I am wondering how much background tweaking a God may be making or if he just created evolution to take care of this whole living organism thing. You aren't ripping apart my theology with this one I'm afraid. The most you could do is show that God used evolution, yet another incredibly robust and ordered system, and taught me another lesson.

Thank you again for making my point that you aren’t here to learn. You’re looking for ways to confirm your belief in your god, the facts be damned. Secondly, you've proven that your god is a meaningless concept because it is ever-changing with the new evidence. As you have not given, and I suspect don't have, a firm definition of what this god is, it can be anything and account for anything, which means it is as relevant as nothing.

You're wrong. I am learning. I've learned even more about how robust evolution is. I'm also willing to learn that I'm wrong, outright about the whole God idea, but that is not the place where this thread is even aimed.
To think otherwise is to believe that athiesm and evolution are connected and as AronRa has pointed out and clearly proven, they are not.
You are impossible to talk to.

My evidence for God is similar to the evidence I have for being conscious.

Would you mind sharing either, because you haven’t done so yet?

They are both subjective experences, jeez!
I can't prove my God to you because it comes from my own intuition.
I also don't care to prove my God to you. My God doesnt demand worshipers. I have no quest to save your (ghost like) soul.

You think I need a god who is some Christian God who is an all good loving all powerful bearded man. When all I am talking about is some organizer force beyond our understanding.

If it is beyond our understanding that why even posit it? If it can’t be understood, than it is a road block, and anything ascribed to it is necessarily meaningless and unverifiable.

I believe it is outside of the realm of current science at the moment but I don't know if it will always be. Things that are unverifiable are not meaningless!

You refuse not to read between the lines, you hold me to believing in demons and biblical prophesies and maybe hexes and curses too.

When have I ever mentioned any of those things?

You haven't, I apologize. It's weird that you actually listen to the exact quote when it is meant hyperbolicly but when it is meant in erst you reinterpret it. Is that compartmentalization?

I'm not the enemy you think I am.

You’re an enemy to reason and the pursuit of understanding the world around us. That is enemy enough.

You're the one saying that anything that is unverifiable is meaningless, what a philosophically indefensible position that you couldn't possibly live by. You're the one who thinks that any answer must be the total and complete answer with no way to advance beyond it or correct it- I don't. You think that having a feeling is akin to positing it to a peer review board and if you can't do that then the thing you feel must be meaningless.
A regular champion for reason.

Do you have anything to back up the assumption you're making that I'm conscious?

[sarcasm]Nice dodge[/sarcasm], now please answer the question.

It isn't a dodge. It was trying to be cute and give you the answer at the same time but because I see how difficult it is to get you to see me as anything other than a schemer trying to con people into believing in some heavenly father God then I guess I'll need to refrain from linguistic flourishes.
Here it is:
I have no evidence for a God that you can look at and I don't care to convince you. I see no reason why you should be convinced given my total lack of evidence. However I feel like there is a God. I wonder if others feel the same. The awesome order and majesty and beauty in the universe seems to tell me that there is a God. But maybe I'm wrong. To me (and to many scientists who I guess are just compartmentalized in their thoughts because they were brainwashed at birth because a theist scientist is a total impossibility) the order in the universe is actual evidence for God. But maybe it isn't, maybe it's just emergent symmetry, like that which forms in a snowflake.

I promise you, I value having my mind changed and learning. Everyone I've known for long enough, knows this about me. That I have changed my entire outlook many times.

 

[Mugnuts]

I'm going to agree that Miracles posts his speculations, intuitions, etc yes, but only because it is his current position and is looking for some other explanations and he's trying to have a discussion. He seems to be testing these thoughts on us and getting feedback, and it's not like he is ignoring everything. It does kinda seem like something is underlying but that is probably due to text format and not being able to get the 'tones' right for the speech involved.

I don't think he deserves the level of criticism he is getting for each comment. Just my opinion though (move topic to new forum)

 

[Darkprophet232]

So when people talk to you, you don't actually listen to the words that they are saying. I mean this not to be mean, but I honestly think that maybe we shouldn't talk anymore. I don't know what it will get us. This is a very bad way to start a post.

You asked me what my interpretation of the quote was. I interpret a scientist making a nonscientific observation, which is not based on any evidence, as making things up, especially when he has a biased reason to maintain it. If you are uncomfortable with my answers, perhaps you should stop asking questions.

I'm not on a quest to convince anyone that the god I believe exists, does exist. I don't believe in a God that wants worshipers. I was only giving my opinion. Like many opinions it cannot be verified by science.

Then please stop bringing up this god as an answer. If you don’t wish to engage in a conversation about the existence of this god, then you should cease using it. It has no explanatory power, the term is utterly meaningless as you won’t define your god and keep changing how you want to use it, and it is a road block to your learning if you demand that the rest of us have to explain how it this unverifiable and unevidenced feeling of yours didn’t created the universe.

My Goddidit isnt a road block because I'm not claiming absolute certanty. I'm willing to have my mind changed, arn't you?
I hate to break this to you but even all the answers from science are not certan forever answers like that. Science changes and adapts to new information, so should any rational person and so would I.

Then what is your point? You aren’t adding anything to the conversation if you only wish to posit a god and then not defend it. Either commit to your god and argue for it, or stop posting and just read what’s been given. And yes, I am willing to have my mind changed. But only by evidence, not by your feelings or intuitions.

Because it's based on my intuition, a subjective feeling, I couldn't prove it to you. In the same way you couldn't prove to me that you are conscious.
However, if I learn that it is more likely that order in the universe actually is an emergent property, and not at all due to any kind of conscious design, then I will change my mind. I have an opinion that can be changed with evidence.

Your prior words betray you:

My God isn't even in jeopardy with this particular evolution conversation. I am wondering how much background tweaking a God may be making or if he just created evolution to take care of this whole living organism thing. You aren't ripping apart my theology with this one I'm afraid. The most you could do is show that God used evolution, yet another incredibly robust and ordered system, and taught me another lesson.

Anything we present you, any proof you are given or arguments made, you will just change your god concept to fit.

Yeah, I reject that wrong conclusions are some horrible thing or that they are "roadblocks" as you say. I think wrong conclusions are part of human experence. Sometimes they turn out to be right too.

You just said sometimes the wrong conclusions are right. I… what? If they’re right, then they’re not wrong. We aren’t existing in some quasi-dimension where the law of noncontradiction is on hold. Do you now see why it’s so hard to have this conversation with you? And yes, a lot of the time, wrong conclusions lead to bad things, such as unnecessary death. The recent vaccination scare is proof enough of that.

cool. But if the situation is that whenever I say something you reinterpret it to mean something else, I don't know what we can say to each other.

This is part of having a conversation! If someone misunderstands what is being said, it is perfectly all right to correct the misunderstanding. That I admitted it, and you are now trying to hold it against me, causes me no end to being flabbergasted by your childishness about this. And stop trying to paint the entire conversation as me just not understanding you. I misread one thing you said and admitted it.

I thought I did make an account for what a meant when I used the word "soul"

All you said was that soul equals consciousness and nothing else. And then you added a good deal of nothing about dogs. That means you use the word soul as no other person does. You might as well have replaced the word consciousness with jetliner for how much sense it now makes. A soul is an understood concept with minor variations across beliefs. You are trying to give it an entirely new meaning, and not deal with the questions such a new meaning gives it. Does brain damage effect the soul, like we know it does with consciousness? Why are you so against answering this question?

I think you were just demanding that I give some kind of account for a genie like ghost that lives inside of our bodies and refused to accept it as just a poetic synonym for subjective conscious experience.

I was looking for an actual explanation of what you meant by soul, not just a repurposing of a word (consciousness) we already understand.

You actually agree with me that we have a soul, if you understood what I meant when I defined it.

This line of thinking is pointless. If I defined a soul to mean bread, then you would understand me when I said that I ate a piece of turkey between two souls for lunch. That doesn’t mean I’ve added anything to the conversation.

You chose instead to think of what I said as an irrelevant tirade because it wasnt addressing the ghost you wanted to hear about.

I thought of it as a tirade because it didn’t answer my questions.

Communication is hard, it's made even harder if you are trying to give me a position I don't hold.

And made even harder when your position constantly changes, you won’t define it, and have now stopped even trying to defend it.

You are impossible to talk to.

And yet here we are, having a conversation where it appears you have a strong dislike of dealing with the consequences of the things you assume and refuse to defend your assertions with evidence as if your feelings and intuitions are good enough for the rest of us to answer.

They are both subjective experences, jeez!

God is a subjective experience now?! How many other things are you going to make your god before you're willing to define it? A soul is a subjective experience!? I thought you said a soul was consciousness. Consciousness is not only subjective! And that still doesn’t answer the question.

I can't prove my God to you because it comes from my own intuition. I also don't care to prove my God to you. My God doesnt demand worshipers. I have no quest to save your (ghost like) soul.

Then why should anyone care? You’ve just admitted that you have the exact same reason for believing in a god as children do for Santa Claus.

I believe it is outside of the realm of current science at the moment but I don't know if it will always be.

So this god is not beyond our understanding, we just don’t have the tools to measure it yet. It would make this a lot easier if you would just say what you mean the first time.

Things that are unverifiable are not meaningless!

I agree that things that are unverifiable are not necessarily meaningless, but then again that’s not what I said. Your god, as you’ve explained it so far, is BOTH unverifiable and meaningless. And you accuse me of “reinterpreting” your words…

It's weird that you actually listen to the exact quote when it is meant hyperbolicly but when it is meant in erst you reinterpret it. Is that compartmentalization?

You just can’t let a mistake (that I admitted to) go, can you? How do you plan on having an honest conversation with someone if you hold every mistake against them. And read what I’m quoting again. And read my response again. Do you understand what being hyperbolic means?

You're the one saying that anything that is unverifiable is meaningless

Haha, you misread something I wrote, now I’ll ignore everything else said in this paragraph just to gripe about that. Pretty damn childish attitude, don’t you think?

You're the one who thinks that any answer must be the total and complete answer with no way to advance beyond it or correct it- I don't.

Since you’re putting words in my mouth, again, I’ll assume you’re being hyperbolic, again. All I ask for is that if someone posits an explanation, the explanation has some bearing in reality.

It isn't a dodge. It was trying to be cute…

So it was a dodge.

I have no evidence for a God that you can look at and I don't care to convince you.

So then stop positing it as an explanation. If you can’t and won’t argue for it, just accept that it is a meaningless addition to the conversation and MOVE ON.