My Beliefs- GDR

This thread is just about done. Why? Well, after 930 post you still don't know what our position is and continue to either not understand or you're being deliberately obtuse.Here are a few examples: We have not said that! You have plenty of posts to read, how are you still confused? This is frustrating to keep having to repeat.We can consider, and not just limited to, god, the matrix, being a computer generated creation, etc...All we're saying is there is no evidence for these considerations. If there ever was then fuck yes! we'd be all over it. It would be great to know. But so far no such luck. For fuck sakes! We have not concluded anything. Stop trying to spin your logical failures onto us. We have not concluded that we are the result of anything, we simply look at the evidence and make no further assumptions about the nature of reality. Certainly not any subjective ones.You're being an asshole at this point. You're not paying attention to what's being said to you, either because you just can't understand what you read (and I don't think that's the case because you can write so you're not an idiot) or you're just doing it deliberately because you have no way of justifying your piss poor logic.Which is it? Wow, that's just...fucking nuts.All you've done is said you believe it is and tried to give a few examples that were quickly refuted. You have not shown anything objectively about the external information outside of the brain (whatever the hell that even means! Frankly it shocks me that some of these terms actually make sense to you). You have no fucking clue what entangled particles (or rather quantum entanglement) even is. Why are you trying to use science words so infuriatingly out of context?And the fact the we perceive the world outside of our bodies is of course the function of our light sensitive ocular devices.Sorry for the language and frustrated attitude but, fuck dude, it's like you've not read one word we've written down. What a waste of time, seriously.- Oni

Hi,
I don't think we have to jump on GDR. He's trying you know and he's a much more reasonable conversation partner than many.He does, however, seem to have trouble "getting it".

quote:

---

Your position seems to be that as there is no scientific evidence for Tom then there is no need to even consider his existence.
  —GDR

---

He does seem to be a bit confused by this. But in spite of what you say in fact, we don't consider 'his' existence. Not for any logical, philosophical, subjective, anti it mindset but just for practical reasons.At any given time there are very, very, very limited resources available to support further inquiry. An art of the better researcher is to judge where those resources are best spent for the most likely pay off.And ALL researchers make the judgement that Tom isn't likely to be a productive target for those scarce resources. And I do mean ALL. You don't see the ID folks or any of the Tom supporters pouring money into this. They can't even suggest where any one should spend money from any source.In fact, can we harbor a sneaking suspicion that they don't want any research at all? After all if too much is done and Tom stills remains hidden (effectiveness of prayer anyone?) it could get a bit difficult couldn't it?

930 posts! Many of which I have CALMLY said, "Hey, buddy, friend, pal, you have misunderstood, that is not our position. You have it wrong. Here is the correct position." To which he's responding with, "Oh, ok, I see that now" but then goes on to misrepresent us again. I CALMLY say agin, "No, no, you misunderstand. Here is the correct position, again." To which he again replies with, "Oh, ok, I see that now" but fuck if he doesn't misrepresent us again.So, after 930 posts of us correcting him and him acknowledging it but then forgetting it somehow and misrepreseting us again, and really, he does it just so our logic seem as piss poor as his, I can't be calm anymore.Reasonable, yes, he is. Which is why I added the apology. I never do that.Added by edit:Just thought I'd explain further... He said because of scientific evidence we don't need to consider him. He said that is our position. Which is not our position, at least not mine, and from what I've read Straggler to write, not his either.It's not because of scientific evidence that we don't consider 'him' - It's because of the lack of objective evidence for him that we don't consider him.Further more, I can consider anything you want. But first, you have to have evidence to support your 'thing' that I'm to consider.Those two are different positions.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

I do not see where I am using a GotG argument. I don’t deny that all we have objectively been able to find are natural causes. I even assume that we can identify natural causes for the BB or whatever else they discover. The question at this point is how did the natural causes themselves come into existence regardless of how far back we go. Are the natural causes that we do observe part of a plan or something that just happened to have happened? We all have formed an opinion about that, but that is all it is. It isn’t evidenced in what you guys seem to consider evidence one way or the other. It is simply my view in that when we consider the number of natural processes that are require to bring about life as we know that the likelihood of it being part of an intelligent plan is more likely than not.I just don’t see why that is so hard to get across.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Just for the record I'm very pro scientific research. I am interested in the truth whether it agrees with my pre-conceived ideas or not. I frankly doubt that science can ever prove or disprove Tom but I don't think that should be the focus of research anyway. The research should go where ever the evidence leads. I can't imagine how, but if science can disprove Tom then by all means it should. The truth is the truth whether it is what I want to hear or not.

Can you tell me what objective evidence is there that isn't scientific? I assume that it is only empirical or scientific evidence that you would consider objective. For example if I say that I consider that morality is evidence for Tom I acknowledge that it isn't scientific or objective. I believed I was agreeing with you as I agree that there is no scientific evidence which, from what I understand from yours and others posts, is that you would say that there is no evidence at all. So again what evidence is there that isn't scientific?

I think we agree on everything here.

You're all over the place here.1) Stories about history for example are one good source of evidence that isn't scientific. Many stories are confirmed fact because there is enough written evidence from many different, unrelated sources that confirm said event.2) Empirical evidence can be like my example above, so that's different from scientific evidence. I will accept both.3) And your beliefs about the nature of morality are subjective and don't trump the rigorous methods used in science that explain morality through a Darwinian evolution. You've done zero testing of your hypothesis. Not just scientific, but it does have to be objective.- Oni

We have an evolutionary account of morality which explains human moral behaviour as observed in terms of entirely natural processes. A scientific account where "Tom" and his influence is entirely superfluous.And we have your account of morality in which human behaviour as observed cannot be accounted for by natural processes alone and in which "Tom" is thus a necessary requirement.The sceintific view of morality and your view of morality are obviously completely at odds in terms of moral behaviours that can and cannot be accounted for by natural processes and how superfluous or necessary "Tom" thus is. Really...?So do you now accept that risking one's life to save a puppy (as per your example) can be perfectly well accounted for by an entirely natural evolutionary account of morality without any need for "Tom" and his influence at all? As I said before: "Other than the patently flawed "You cannot disprove what I choose to believe" position the second most frequently cited argument in these sorts of discussions is the "We are just applying equally valid world views to come to equal but opposite conclusions" position.Both are equally flawed. Firstly - I thought we had got past this "first cause" stuff....

quote:

---

Straggler - "If time is reversible, causality is an internal property of our physical universe and notions of cause and effect are just the result of macroscopic anthopocentrci experience where does God fit in?"

​

GDR - "The first part of that sentence really helped me to think my previous paragraph through in understanding that we really don't need a creative intelligence for our universe to exist if it always existed. Thank you."

---

Message 167Secondly - There is evidence. Evidence of things which do exist (e.g. the universe). Can you explain why are you invoking the existence of things for which their is no evidence?For that, rather than any subjective conclusions on my part, is the real difference betwen us is it not? Not really, no. If we are to claim something more than baseless belief we need to do so on the basis of some method of knowledge acquisition that has a demonstrable record of success.Subjectively concluding that invisible agents are responsible for the things we subjectively find too incredible to have occurred without such influence is the very opposite of this. This approach has a truly woeful track record that is all failure and no success at all. No. Some of us seek to apply methods of knowledge acquisition that have a record of success and others of us insist on applying methods of knowledge acquisition whose track record is worse than that of random guessing. On what basis can your "Tom" belief be considered accurate or reliable such that it is deserving of any other label than "invented"....?

You continue to misrepresent my point of view, or don’t read what I post. I am not arguing against the Darwinian evolution of morality. My point is that we can’t know objectively whether or not the evolutionary process is part of an intelligent plan or that it is simply one more mindless process in addition to the many others that produced life as we know it. We also don’t know whether or not in addition to the natural evolutionary forces Tom sparks our conscience.Out of curiosity what role does DNA play in promoting a higher moral standing in people as opposed to cultural memes? When it comes to things that aren’t scientific no one’s view is objective and certainly not when it comes to the issue the existence of Tom, his nature and involvement in our lives. That doesn’t mean our beliefs are cast in stone but we all have our biases. That is not to say that all view points are equally valid.

I think frustration is creeping in because you keep asserting that we must all come to some sort of subjective conclusion about "Tom, his nature and involvement in our lives" despite everyone you are talking to emphatically telling you that they most definitely are not drawing these subjective conclusions.And the reason we are not subjectively deciding anything about Tom is because in the absolute absence of any objective evidence of "Tom" we can be certain that "Tom" is entirely a subjective invention no more worthy of sensible consideration than any other evidentially baseless but unfalsifiable concept one can imagine.It's not about some subjective decision to be pro or anti "Tom". It is all about invoking unevidenced entities Vs not invoking unevidenced entities.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well, this may be a false dichotomy. You would have a hard time transmitting these cultural memes to a lobster or a watermelon. The reason for this is clearly genetic.

Really? You need evidence of this intelligence before you can say it has a plan and a hand in anything. You can't put the cart before the horse.All we have is evidence of natural processes. Anything else you care to imagine exists and might be at play is just your own personal belief. We don't have evidence for Tom. You can't put the cart before the horse. Before we are to consider Tom as the spark of our conscience we need evidence for Tom. We explained this in detail for you already.Before you consider Tom you should have objective evidence that Tom exists. None, I would say. However I'm no expert on how DNA functions. That's all fine and good. But when you claim Tom has any involvement in reality, you must first have evidence for Tom. You can't put the cart before the horse. That is logically wrong.I started this thread arguing that we only have evidence for one thing, and that is that everything works naturally. It isn't that "we don't know what else might be at play." It's that there is no evidence for anything else at play so we don't draw any further conclusions for now.- Oni

quote:

---

One study in particular that seemed to have a close connection to morality was one done by Professors Rhee and Waldman at Emory University. They conducted a meta-analysis of several studies and compared the data against antisocial behavior (aka Psychopaths). They were able to show that 42% of the antisocial behavior can be attributed to the genes that are inherited from one or both parents.

​

They also reference a study of Swedish adoptees that showed criminality of the adoptees in the following percentages:

​

Neither birth nor adoptive parents having a criminal history: 2.9%

​

Criminal history in the adoptive parents only: 6.7%

​

Criminal history in the biological family only: 12.1%

​

Criminal history in both adoptive and biological families: 40%

---

lifted from: http://www.examiner.com/...the-genetic-component-of-morality

In an effort to sort out both sides of this I went on the internet and found this debate, ( Science and Faith ) between Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet on the atheistic side Francis Collins and Benjamin Carson as theists. None made the case that morality was the result of genetics but Dawkins claim that it was language and culture, which although he didn’t use the terms I would think would be synonymous with his cultural memes.The point was actually made that Darwinian evolution mitigates against selfless altruism but that from the atheistic POV language and culture raised us above our selfish genes.Frankly as a theist I was embarrassed when Carson brought up Pascal’s Wager as a reason to believe. Dawkins made mince meat of him on that point and was right on the money in that it makes faith all about self interest.In the end though it does make the point that on scientific grounds there is no reason to accept or reject Tom. So,I don’t agree that science tells us that Tom’s input is superfluous.We can then make observations regarding human behaviour and we can’t tell what percentage is inherited and how much of human morality is socialization. So let’s just look at the socialization aspect. How scientifically can you differentiate between your Mom telling you to be good and Tom sparking your conscience and for that matter did Tom influence your mother and your grandmother before that. That is my subjective non-scientific view. I disagree as the scientific view does not rule Tom out. Absolutely we can observe the effects of language and culture on our morality however but that cannot rule out additional inputs such as Tom. What do you mean by a natural evolutionary account? Do you mean genetics or language and culture? But I also agree that I can’t disprove what you choose to believe. As to whether the views are equally valid or not is also just a subjective belief. Both of us believe our views to be more valid. This was a discussion about of life. The discussion about a first cause for the universe is a separate discussion. After our earlier discussion I no longer argue for a first cause to the universe as it seems to me that there is a reasonably strong theoretical case to be made for an eternal universe of which our particular aspect of it had a point at which T=0.The argument for the origin of life is a different discussion. What do you mean by success? I agree that my theistic beliefs are not going to be successfully proven, at least in the immediate future. I have accumulated knowledge about what I believe so that my views have evolved but they are still my subjective beliefs and they form my world view. We all have a world view based on things that can’t be proven. If you believe that there is no absolute moral code you still live by a moral code of your own that you have faith in.In my own life the Christian moral code has changed me and brought me joy that I wouldn’t have known otherwise and yet I fully agree that you have joy in your life without theistic beliefs. Maybe some things are too incredible to be believed because they aren’t true. Presumably you find Tom too incredible to be believed but so what. Actually my beliefs have had a very good track record in my own life.Well, it isn’t an invention in a vacumn. There are quite a number of us, which of course doen’t prove anything. However, that being said it is a faith borne out of what I have thought out and experienced in the world, out of what many others far brighter and more knowledgeable than myself have thought out and experienced and it makes sense to me of my life in a way that non-theism just doesn’t. In the end though it still does require a leap of faith.