Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 196 of 693 (710100)
11-01-2013 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by New Cat's Eye
11-01-2013 1:11 PM


Re: It's All In your Mind
CS writes:
I chimed in to explain to you how you could test some of the non-empirical claims to figure out if they're likely to be true or not.
And instead you ended up talking about things like 'personal fulfilment' which don't require any testing beyond one's own wholly internal subjective feelings as to whether one feels fulfilled or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-01-2013 1:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-01-2013 2:27 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 693 (710102)
11-01-2013 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Straggler
11-01-2013 1:57 PM


Re: It's All In your Mind
CS writes:
I chimed in to explain to you how you could test some of the non-empirical claims to figure out if they're likely to be true or not.
And instead you ended up talking about things like 'personal fulfilment' which don't require any testing beyond one's own wholly internal subjective feelings as to whether one feels fulfilled or not.
Oh I'm sorry, I thought when you were talking non-empirical things that you were talking about things that were, you know, not empirical.
All experiences, whether empirical or not, involve the brain.
Total nitpick, but experiencing the patellar reflex doesn't involve the brain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 1:57 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2013 2:58 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 199 by Omnivorous, posted 11-01-2013 3:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 198 of 693 (710104)
11-01-2013 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by New Cat's Eye
11-01-2013 2:27 PM


Re: It's All In your Mind
CS writes:
Oh I'm sorry, I thought when you were talking non-empirical things that you were talking about things that were, you know, not empirical.
That your contributions be relevant to the statement "I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity" were somewhat implicit (given the topic)
That I had explicitly differentiated between feelings like comfort and fulfilment that religious texts might induce and the veracity of those texts was a more explicit clue.
But I forgive you anyway.
CS writes:
Total nitpick, but experiencing the patellar reflex doesn't involve the brain.
Dead bodies and even amputated limbs will twitch and move given the right physical stimuli. But that isn't being experienced is it?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-01-2013 2:27 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 199 of 693 (710105)
11-01-2013 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by New Cat's Eye
11-01-2013 2:27 PM


Re: It's All In your Mind
CS writes:
Total nitpick, but experiencing the patellar reflex doesn't involve the brain.
The mechanism of the elicited patellar refelex doesn't involve the brain; the experience of an elicited patellar reflex certainly does.
That is a nitpick; yours was merely an error.
Just sayin'.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-01-2013 2:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-01-2013 3:24 PM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 201 by jar, posted 11-01-2013 3:31 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 693 (710108)
11-01-2013 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Omnivorous
11-01-2013 3:17 PM


Re: It's All In your Mind
CS writes:
Total nitpick, but experiencing the patellar reflex doesn't involve the brain.
The mechanism of the elicited patellar refelex doesn't involve the brain; the experience of an elicited patellar reflex certainly does.
That is a nitpick; yours was merely an error.
Just sayin'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Omnivorous, posted 11-01-2013 3:17 PM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 201 of 693 (710109)
11-01-2013 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Omnivorous
11-01-2013 3:17 PM


Re: It's All In your Mind
Jess saying;

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Omnivorous, posted 11-01-2013 3:17 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Omnivorous, posted 11-01-2013 4:01 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 202 of 693 (710110)
11-01-2013 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by jar
11-01-2013 3:31 PM


Re: It's All In your Mind
In my mind, I'm not doin' all the work.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by jar, posted 11-01-2013 3:31 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 203 of 693 (710143)
11-02-2013 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by jar
11-01-2013 10:27 AM


Why would it necessarily be impossible to observe evidence of a creator God?
jar writes:
I know of no possible way you could test a real GOD.
Is your definition of a "real GOD" one who necessarily does not, has not, and never will have any effect on the observable world?
The sentence I've quoted above seems to be a follow up to this unsupported claim:
jar writes:
Only a fool, a charlatan or con-man would think the scientific method would be of any value or worth in examining the Super Natural.
Is your definition of "Super Natural" something like: "That which cannot have any effect on the observable world"? That's certainly nothing like the meaning of "supernatural".
Have you identified some force which would constrain a "real GOD" in such a way that it could not possibly affect the material world? Is a "GOD" not a supreme being?
If you haven't identified such a force, why do you make the above claim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 11-01-2013 10:27 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 11-02-2013 7:54 AM bluegenes has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 204 of 693 (710144)
11-02-2013 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by bluegenes
11-02-2013 7:48 AM


Re: Why would it necessarily be impossible to observe evidence of a creator God?
Nope to all of that.
I believe the supernatural can and does have an effect on the natural world but that I see no way that effect could be distinguished from a natural effect or directly attributable to a supernatural intervention.
My definition of GOD is that which created all that is, seen and unseen.
We can examine natural things but how could we determine a natural event originated from some supernatural intervention?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by bluegenes, posted 11-02-2013 7:48 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by bluegenes, posted 11-02-2013 8:58 AM jar has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 205 of 693 (710146)
11-02-2013 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by jar
11-02-2013 7:54 AM


Re: Why would it necessarily be impossible to observe evidence of a creator God?
jar writes:
I believe the supernatural can and does have an effect on the natural world but that I see no way that effect could be distinguished from a natural effect or directly attributable to a supernatural intervention.
I don't know what you mean by "directly attributable", but science doesn't require directness in order to reasonably establish cause, anyway. So, if the Great Lakes were suddenly turned into wine, empirically identified as a fine Bordeaux Red of a specific year, and all our observations tell us that such a quantity of that specific wine (or any other) could not have been produced naturally, couldn't we reasonably infer supernatural interference of some kind? Or, if all Muslims suffering from cancer were suddenly cured, wouldn't the selective nature of the mass curing lead us to some reasonable supernatural inferences?
jar writes:
We can examine natural things but how could we determine a natural event originated from some supernatural intervention?
It wouldn't be a "natural event" if it had a supernatural cause, would it? Perhaps you meant something more like "observable event", or "material phenomenon". And there's no reason to suppose that a god would be constrained to be so subtle that his effects could never be measurable.
The point I'm making is that it's only if we declare that the supernatural can have no effect whatsoever on the observable world that we could say that it is not (at least hypothetically) possible to identify its existence via observation and reasoning from observation, which is science.
As you agree, of course, we can clearly test (and sometimes falsify) specific supernatural hypotheses, like the YEC model, for example.
There's no reason for the a priori exclusion of supernatural hypotheses from science, and those who declare that they should be automatically excluded are often making the worst argument against "Intelligent Design" around. The only reason that the actions of supernatural beings aren't currently included in the observation based exploration of reality that is science is the same as the reason that flat planets aren't currently included; none have ever been discovered, nor is there any evidence that such things can exist, let alone do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 11-02-2013 7:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by jar, posted 11-02-2013 9:19 AM bluegenes has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 206 of 693 (710147)
11-02-2013 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by bluegenes
11-02-2013 8:58 AM


Re: Why would it necessarily be impossible to observe evidence of a creator God?
I don't know what you mean by "directly attributable", but science doesn't require directness in order to reasonably establish cause, anyway. So, if the Great Lakes were suddenly turned into wine, empirically identified as a fine Bordeaux Red of a specific year, and all our observations tell us that such a quantity of that specific wine (or any other) could not have been produced naturally, couldn't we reasonably infer supernatural interference of some kind? Or, if all Muslims suffering from cancer were suddenly cured, wouldn't the selective nature of the mass curing lead us to some reasonable supernatural inferences?
You might believe it was supernatural but if you are honest you'd need to put it into the "Unexplained" folder.
As you agree, of course, we can clearly test (and sometimes falsify) specific supernatural hypotheses, like the YEC model, for example.
Yes, as I have said repeatedly we can say "that is not supernatural".
We might believe something is the result if supernatural intervention, even believe it very strongly, but I can see no way we could ever say "that was supernatural".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by bluegenes, posted 11-02-2013 8:58 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by bluegenes, posted 11-02-2013 9:41 AM jar has replied
 Message 208 by bluegenes, posted 11-02-2013 9:49 AM jar has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 207 of 693 (710149)
11-02-2013 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by jar
11-02-2013 9:19 AM


Re: Why would it necessarily be impossible to observe evidence of a creator God?
jar writes:
You might believe it was supernatural but if you are honest you'd need to put it into the "Unexplained" folder.
Or the "inexplicable naturally" folder. Remember that we actually have positive evidence (essential proof) that that amount of Bordeaux can't be produced naturally, and Muslims are a group defined by their religious beliefs alone.
I find it odd that you believe that your GOD affects the observed world, but that there could never be observation based evidence for his existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by jar, posted 11-02-2013 9:19 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by jar, posted 11-02-2013 9:52 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 208 of 693 (710150)
11-02-2013 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by jar
11-02-2013 9:19 AM


Re: Why would it necessarily be impossible to observe evidence of a creator God?
jar writes:
We might believe something is the result if supernatural intervention, even believe it very strongly, but I can see no way we could ever say "that was supernatural".
Who's expecting strict 100% proofs from science. I strongly believe that the Great Lakes as they are now formed naturally, but don't ask me or any geologists for a 100% proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by jar, posted 11-02-2013 9:19 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by jar, posted 11-02-2013 10:07 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 209 of 693 (710151)
11-02-2013 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by bluegenes
11-02-2013 9:41 AM


Re: Why would it necessarily be impossible to observe evidence of a creator God?
Or the "inexplicable naturally" folder. Remember that we actually have positive evidence (essential proof) that that amount of Bordeaux can't be produced naturally, and Muslims are a group defined by their religious beliefs alone.
Well not exactly. We have positive evidence that that amount of Bordeaux can't be produced naturally by any means we know now.
I find it odd that you believe that your GOD affects the observed world, but that there could never be observation based evidence for his existence.
I have no problem with you believing that. I find it odd that you find my position odd too.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by bluegenes, posted 11-02-2013 9:41 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by bluegenes, posted 11-02-2013 10:37 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 210 of 693 (710152)
11-02-2013 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by bluegenes
11-02-2013 9:49 AM


Re: Why would it necessarily be impossible to observe evidence of a creator God?
Yawn.
Of course not nor have I ever suggested that.
However "God did it" is content free. Even if true we know no more than if we said "I have no idea how that happened."
As long as I'm alive and just human, I see no way to ever show that something really is supernatural. I might believe something is supernatural, even believe very strongly that something is supernatural but if pressed and honest I would have to stick it in the "Unexplained" folder.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by bluegenes, posted 11-02-2013 9:49 AM bluegenes 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