Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology?
christian atheist
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 112 (184967)
02-13-2005 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
02-13-2005 6:24 PM


Re: Bleh.
That really brighten up my day Jar. Now when my workplace asks me why my project is going so slow, I'll blame the Fall for creating the Spherical Coordinate system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 02-13-2005 6:24 PM jar has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 32 of 112 (184976)
02-13-2005 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mike the wiz
02-13-2005 3:01 PM


quote:
Only the difference is - that these events (NDE's)are inherently supernaturalistic and not invoked.
No, you are missing the point.
Near-death experiences are not inherently supernatural.
The parts we understand about them are explainable by natural means.
The parts we are unclear on are parts we do not understand.
Plugging Godidit into the parts we do not understand is the fallacy of God of the Gaps, mike.
It could be the case that the parts we do not understand have a natural cause that we do not understand, and may never understand.
Just because we do not understand something does not mean that it doesn't have a purely natural cause.
quote:
The only conclusion which seems to be plausible, is that there is life after death, as the patients are brain-dead at the time and therefore we aren't invoking anything that they aren't already claiming.
Are you positive that these people are brain dead? Or, had only their hearts and breathing stopped and they were being brought back?
I don't think you can say exactly when these near death experiences are happening, anyway, because it isn't like the people experiencing the phenomena are aware of the time, and any observers have no idea what is being cognitively experienced by them, either.
quote:
So if - as you say, we will never have an answer, why do you ideologically claim that God/supernatural can't be that answer,
I don't say that, and never have.
Science cannot tell us if God is the cause. If you would like to insert God into that gap, be my guest.
quote:
or that it is invoked?
The invocation of "Godidit" into a gap in our knowledge is a logical fallacy that you should be extremely familiar with by now, mike.
quote:
It sounds like you just dismiss these claims because of stubborn pre-conception and atheistic inclinations.
Well, there must be a problem with your hearing.
quote:
If someone said that ligtning was because of God - then that would be invoking Goddidit. But when someone meets God how are we invoking him? Is he not already in the picture?
Let's say I am able to stick an electrode in your brain without your knowledge and I stimulate a particular part of your brain. You suddenly have a deeply profound religious experience in which you feel connected with the divine.
Your explanation of this experience is that you were in the presence of God.
My explanation is that I tweaked your brain to induce a particular emotional state.
Just because you have a powerful emotional experience doesn't mean that the experience has any basis in reality.
Just ask any schizophrenic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 02-13-2005 3:01 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 112 (185026)
02-14-2005 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Electron
02-13-2005 2:57 PM


for example the term 'reality' must be defined in some manner
I find nothing troubling with the colloquial definition of reality; that which is real independant of our knowledge of what is real.
I'll settle for 'accurate models that explain what I observe'
Absolutely, and I will too. But it serves no purpose to conflate that with universal truth, as you did.
Science develops models that make accurate predictions about what we will observe. That's more than sufficient for me and I'm glad it is for you, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Electron, posted 02-13-2005 2:57 PM Electron has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 34 of 112 (185034)
02-14-2005 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nator
02-13-2005 10:04 AM


God Did It
quote:
Just because we do not understand something, and may never understand it, does not mean that any supernatural means must be invoked.
Isn't "God did it" pretty much the SOP since ancient times?
When ancient man didn't know what the sun, moon, planets, and stars were; they were the gods.
When droughts or other natural disasters occurred, the gods were displeased or had left them.
As mankind starts to understand the world around us, god changes. He is no longer the sun, the stars are no longer the angels, tornadoes and earthquakes are no longer tools of punishment, and many diseases are curable and not a curse from a god.
Today, religions still use God to explain what we don't understand.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 02-13-2005 10:04 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 02-14-2005 8:58 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 112 (185066)
02-14-2005 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by purpledawn
02-14-2005 5:53 AM


Re: God Did It
quote:
Isn't "God did it" pretty much the SOP since ancient times?
Absolutely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by purpledawn, posted 02-14-2005 5:53 AM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 9:51 AM nator has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 36 of 112 (185075)
02-14-2005 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by nator
02-14-2005 8:58 AM


Re: But God Did do it !!!!
God isn't invoked. He is the simplest explanation according to the principle of parsimony.
Infact, you use this "Goddidit" term, when anything comes along, in order that you try and make the suggestion so that it's not a real possibility.
But that's a silly term. The fact is that multiple big bangs is an infinitely more complex and invoked suggestion, and also - it is a big number compared to 1.
God is one explanation, and indeed, he answers many problems. But m,ultiple big bangs play off of a huge number of events, - a much bigger number, and indeed - an addage which does not meet Occam's criteria. 1 compared with an infinite number, in order to comply with a silly chance/unbelieving ideology.
So when people say God did it - just remember how many questions that answers. Especially when NDE's do not invoke God - but rather, they claim to speak to God and meet him when their brains are dead.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-14-2005 10:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 02-14-2005 8:58 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 02-14-2005 12:29 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 38 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-14-2005 1:26 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 37 of 112 (185116)
02-14-2005 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by mike the wiz
02-14-2005 9:51 AM


Re: But God Did do it !!!!
"He is the simplest explanation according to the principle of parsimony."
God is not a "simple" explanation, God is a "simplistic" explanation. A "simple" explanation makes few untested assumptions. A "simplistic" explanation is so unspecified that there's nothing to test.
"m,ultiple big bangs play off of a huge number of events, - a much bigger number, and indeed - an addage which does not meet Occam's criteria."
Occam stated that explanations should not "posit unnecessary entities". In other words, if A,B and C explain all the available evidence, there is no need to explain the evidence with "A,B,C and D".
Occam did not say at all that all explanations must be simple, or that simpler explanations that lack explanatory power are to be preferred.
Indeed, there's no reason at all to think that all the phenomena of the universe have a "simple" explanation. Science often deals with great complexity, and "Godidit" works in practice as simply a way of avoiding trying to understand this complexity.
"So when people say God did it - just remember how many questions that answers."
Actually you're right, Godidit does answer many questions. More importantly, it answers all possible questions, even logically contradictory ones.
Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating?
Godidit.
Why is the expansion of the universe NOT accelerating?
Godidit.
Any explanation that can explain ALL possibilities, and is contradicted by none, is no explanation at all.
Especially when NDE's do not invoke God - but rather, they claim to speak to God and meet him when their brains are dead.
What is your evidence that NDE's occur simultaneously with brain death? That is, assuming you have cases of brain death and NDEs occuring in the same person, how do you know WHEN the NDE occurred?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 9:51 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 3:30 PM nator has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 38 of 112 (185143)
02-14-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by mike the wiz
02-14-2005 9:51 AM


one infinite explanation
God is one explanation, and indeed, he answers many problems. But m,ultiple big bangs play off of a huge number of events, - a much bigger number, and indeed - an addage which does not meet Occam's criteria. 1 compared with an infinite number, in order to comply with a silly chance/unbelieving ideology.
God is infinite, is He not? Than invoking Him as an explanation invokes not a value of "1", as you claim, but a value of infinity.
Just as "multiple big bangs" is a single explanation with "a huge number of events", so is "God" a single explanation[/i] with "an infinite number of events".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 9:51 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 39 of 112 (185193)
02-14-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by nator
02-14-2005 12:29 PM


Re: But God Did do it !!!!
Wow, I find it amazing how you think God would be so incapable pertaining to his own creation.
If it got past you, my point is that it's NOT that it is just a simple explanation. It's that the explanation is an incredibly good one. I have shown this with my Hypothesis of consciousness - which shows just how logical and plausible God is, as an intelligent conscious agency of order.
Occam stated that explanations should not "posit unnecessary entities". In other words, if A,B and C explain all the available evidence, there is no need to explain the evidence with "A,B,C and D".
Multiple big bangs are unnecessary entities, multiple orgasms may not be.
No seriously, one big bang is A, two Big bangs is B, and infinitely so.
Why? Because it's only invoked because of numbers. It's only invoked because they know that chance needs many numbers in order to work. So you invoke all that - or one singular explanation, that is far more plausible - that a Creator fine-tuned the universe.
What is your evidence that NDE's occur simultaneously with brain death?
Well, Ian McCormack, whom was stung by the box jellyfish - recalled his time of death because he said he fell asleep (gave up), and this coincided with his time of death also - as he was taken to the morgue. He then thought he wole up in a dark room but couldn't find any walls. What's certain is that he died, and that his brain was therefore not conscious enough to induce anything other than gaseous emmisions.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-14-2005 15:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 02-14-2005 12:29 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 02-15-2005 8:40 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 112 (185468)
02-15-2005 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by mike the wiz
02-14-2005 3:30 PM


Re: But God Did do it !!!!
quote:
Wow, I find it amazing how you think God would be so incapable pertaining to his own creation.
I've made no claims whatsoever regarding God's capabilities.
quote:
If it got past you, my point is that it's NOT that it is just a simple explanation.
No, it is a simplistic explanation.
It is so unspecified and vague that it's assumptions cannot be tested.
quote:
It's that the explanation is an incredibly good one.
No, it is the opposite of a good explanation.
Please explain how "Godidit" will lead to better understanding of various phenomena.
quote:
I have shown this with my Hypothesis of consciousness - which shows just how logical and plausible God is, as an intelligent conscious agency of order.
What are the potential falsifications for your hypothesis?
What evidence, if found, would falsify your hypothesis?
Occam stated that explanations should not "posit unnecessary entities". In other words, if A,B and C explain all the available evidence, there is no need to explain the evidence with "A,B,C and D".
quote:
Multiple big bangs are unnecessary entities, multiple orgasms may not be.
No seriously, one big bang is A, two Big bangs is B, and infinitely so.
Why? Because it's only invoked because of numbers. It's only invoked because they know that chance needs many numbers in order to work. So you invoke all that - or one singular explanation, that is far more plausible - that a Creator fine-tuned the universe.
But your "explanation" that "a Creator fine-tuned the universe" is neither explanatory nor falsafiable.
What is your evidence that NDE's occur simultaneously with brain death?
quote:
Well, Ian McCormack, whom was stung by the box jellyfish - recalled his time of death because he said he fell asleep (gave up), and this coincided with his time of death also - as he was taken to the morgue. He then thought he wole up in a dark room but couldn't find any walls. What's certain is that he died, and that his brain was therefore not conscious enough to induce anything other than gaseous emmisions.
Nothing you say here indicates that McCormack's NDE happened simultaneously, or after, brain death.
Actually, nothing in that account mentions any medical person reporting any reading of brain activity at all, so all we are left with is a person's own subjective account while he was under the influence of a neurotoxin.
Mike, what you are indulging in is the God of the Gaps fallacy. You point to the gaps in our knowledge of brain activity surrounding death, and highly speculative cosmological hypothese and conclude that because science doesn't have all the answers, your personal conception of a single all-powerful, omnipresent God must be present and active in those places.
Have you considered that there might be bajillions and bajillions of individual gods which are each responsible for a single particle of matter, and that there are as many gods as there are particles in the universe?
That fits with the evidence as well as your one God, and explains just as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 3:30 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by mike the wiz, posted 02-21-2005 6:48 PM nator has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 41 of 112 (187297)
02-21-2005 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by nator
02-15-2005 8:40 AM


Re: But God Did do it !!!!
(I read that you required an answer to this)
It's the simplest explanation. Not simplistic.
Shraff - you're assuming I am looking at this from your own ideological position. That of looking at everything scientifically, including God. (arrogance of man).
If I was guilty of the God of the gaps fallacy, then the inexplicable event would not involve any specific deity.
For example, thunder and lightning, a previously inexplicable event, misconstrued as being supernatural.
The difference is that a specific deity is involved in the experience. If someone was clinically dead and claims that
they met with God, then there is no "gap" to fill with God. He is already in the picture. These events are decidedly and inherently pertaining to the supernatural. WHereas one can attribute thunder to any god, or pixies.
So I HAVE the knowledge. The real gap is that someone died, and when they re-awoken their experience ended.
This means that logically, if we know they were clinically dead by record, and the experience ends with them waking up then it follows therefore, that they MUST have been dead when it was happening.
If you don't get what I mean I'll explain; If someone wakes up in the morgue, immediately after their experience, and they were certainly dead, then that experience must have happened, or atleast be happening precedingly to their re-awakening. This means that they were dead while having this experience. OR, another logical pathway is that they started having it when they were alive but certainly they were still having it when dead.
My question to you, as you are a freethinker; is that, how can you explain these events from the standpoint that a person can be consciously aware of things while brain dead? Even if the brain dying causes hallucinations, why would a person go through such conscious and extravagent experiences, being clearly aware?
It therefore seems plausible that a more logical explanation is that they died, (we already know this) and that their conscious mind continued after death, and because these experiences include God, heaven and hell, then that also is true. If one has exhausted all explanations, surely the remaining explanation - however inprobable - is the correct one. lolmyazzoff....
Shraff, you said you can't explain it. So that means science can't. But this IS an explanation. Atleast I have one.
What on earth makes you think that there must be a scientific answer, to a supernatural event? The science indicates the brain is dead, and I've shown how it is logical that people are atleast dead at the end of their experience.
So here's what we have;
1. They are dead while some of the event is happening (atleast)
2. They experience "reality" - as real as life on earth, which no induced experience can match.
3. We know that there are scriptures about being alive after being dead, and that we have a soul, and are
uniquely different from the animals.
Seek knowledge from a higher source!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 02-15-2005 8:40 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Parasomnium, posted 02-22-2005 5:29 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 43 by ohnhai, posted 02-22-2005 5:44 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 42 of 112 (187426)
02-22-2005 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by mike the wiz
02-21-2005 6:48 PM


Re: But God Did do it !!!!
mike the wiz writes:
If someone was clinically dead and claims that they met with God, then there is no "gap" to fill with God. He is already in the picture.
So, if they instead claim they met with Ganesha, the Hindu elephant god, that would be proof of the existence of said god? I suspect you don't accept that, so why do you accept the christian God on these grounds? Is it perhaps because you were born and raised in a christian environment instead of a Hindu one?
mike the wiz writes:
It therefore seems plausible that a more logical explanation is that they died, (we already know this) and that their conscious mind continued after death, and because these experiences include God, heaven and hell, then that also is true.
Their experience could include a number of other exotic elements, but surely that isn't enough to accept any of them as true.
mike the wiz writes:
If one has exhausted all explanations, surely the remaining explanation - however inprobable - is the correct one.
You clearly haven't "exhausted" all explanations. For instance, have you considered that they could be lying? Or hallucinating? Both would explain a lot, even how it's possible that the particulars of NDE's are different in different religions.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by mike the wiz, posted 02-21-2005 6:48 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 43 of 112 (187429)
02-22-2005 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by mike the wiz
02-21-2005 6:48 PM


Re: But God Did do it !!!!
As has been said elsewhere ‘clinically dead’ doesn’t mean ‘brain dead’. OK in effect it does, but in actuality there can still be brain activity in ‘clinically dead’ patients, but no where near enough to keep the patient running if they weren’t on machines. So there is a good chance that someone classified as ‘clinically dead’ might still have a few neurons firing in their head and who knows what that will be perceived as?
If you have a bonfire and in the morning you survey the ashes you would say it was out, or dead, no more fire. But if you give the ashes a poke and look in side there can frequently be a few glowing embers yet remaining.
Unless you scan the brain of a dead/clinically dead patient with CT and MRI scanning you can’t say for sure absolutely ALL activity has ceased. So if you can’t say for sure that there is absolutely no brain activity you can’t make a claim for this kind of experience.
Even if you do manage to accurately ascertain there is absolutely no brain activity at all for any period of time, you can’t prove that the experiences remembered by the patient were actually experienced during the period of recorded total inactivity.
Human perception of time flow and events can become distorted and confused, especially under extreme stress and I would be hard pressed to identify a bigger stress than death.
The only way you cold prove that humans can perceive events post actual death (zero brain activity, not just ‘clinical death’) is to scan a patient to see if there is even the slightest activity, if not, if there is absolutely no brain activity, at any level then try reading them a unique piece of text. If they re-awaken and can recall the text there might be a case for OoBE and NDE experiences. Otherwise you can’t rule out the chance that there is still an extremely low level of activity that is giving rise to these perceived experiences.
My money would be on there still being some level of brain activity however slight in all cases where patients came back and reported an experience. And if there is any level of activity then they are not totally dead and thus you can’t claim a consciousness separate from the brain/mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by mike the wiz, posted 02-21-2005 6:48 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
peddler
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 112 (187615)
02-22-2005 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by nator
02-13-2005 10:04 AM


Logic
Believing there is no God is a belief.
It is only with that axiom that you can convince yourself you are making sense.
Science has decided to accept the religion of atheism. The belief that there is no God is a religion.
All of the available evidence is the same for both sides. Without the pre-supposition that God does not exist and the world is billions of years old the data from radiometric testing would be interpreted in a completely different way.
This is just as prejudiced as allowing Creationist to decide the interpretation for everybody else.
What is illogical about this is thinking ones belief system can be separated from the way data is interpreted. No one is neutral.
Because some data demands an interpretation it would make much more sense to stop trying to impose a belief system on any scientist and let them do experiments based on their belief system.
The present situation that only allows the belief their is no Creator almost cost the world the benefit of the M.R.I. The struggle to get funding was uphill because the evolutionist scientist were convinced that its use would entail turning people at 10k rpm.
Why limit the benefits of technology to one belief system?
As far as scientific conclusions there are some things that will never have a naturalistic answer.
Logic tells you that mass, time and space had to come into existence simultaneously. That is where the word Universe came from.
One verse -Let there be.
If you don't like that answer so be it. To insist that no answer is better is absurd.
If you want to believe that nothing created itself that is a religion. I
t will not stop you from preforming scientific experiments either way.
By maintaining the present system of religious persecution you are denying the public all of the science it is paying for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 02-13-2005 10:04 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by AdminNosy, posted 02-22-2005 10:28 PM peddler has replied
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2005 1:09 AM peddler has replied
 Message 50 by Parasomnium, posted 02-23-2005 4:53 AM peddler has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 45 of 112 (187618)
02-22-2005 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by peddler
02-22-2005 10:15 PM


W e l c o m e !
Welcome to EvC Peddler.
There are a few things you might do to get more out of your stay here:
You could read over some of the existing threads to find out what has already been said on various topics for one thing. For example, the idea of different interpretations of dating results has been brought up.
For this have a look over The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview. This would be a chance for you to offer a different interpretation on dating.
If not there then perhaps you can explain:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.
You might also want to check the definition of atheist and the place where the supernatural fits with science.
Message 31
is just one of 100's of places where the meaning of atheist is discussed and the whole thread is about the lack of correlation between evolution and atheism.
The other thing you should note from the forum guidelines is that if you make statements you have agreed to support them. If you intend to hang around you may find this frustration.
A third thing is that we request you attempt to stay on topic. It is not clear that very much of your first post is actually on the topic of this thread. Thanks.
There is much to learn. We all like to discuss things. It is not any easy place if you don't like to think and work at it. Welcome.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by peddler, posted 02-22-2005 10:15 PM peddler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 02-23-2005 1:10 AM AdminNosy has replied
 Message 79 by peddler, posted 02-27-2005 8:39 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024