The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

You have spent three years telling us your position is not based upon emotion, but funny how labs scare the shit out of you, well, independent labs at least.

labs scare who?  You've asked me to send you some God DNA.  I've asked you for a method of retrieving it and sending it so that I might be able to do that be it that you're so convinced that this is the sure fire verifiable way of studying God and yet you ran.  If you didn't run, then give me your methodology.  

Brian37 wrote:

You, "yea you could use that tire gauge to check the PSI of the tire , but this Harry Potter Broom will magically make it never go flat if you just "believe" my bullshit before it is tested independently."

heh. you're getting confused... that's the perspective you're trying to sell me.

Brian37 wrote:

I am quite sure you believe what you claim, but you are a fool to think out of human history that humanity could be saved, by you, by listing to you, instead of collectively using something beyond personal bias, something say like SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

I have offered the scientific method... you again ran when confronted with your methodology.

Brian37 wrote:

You have no method. you have a pet claim, like some people like Star Trec and some people like Star Wars.

Right... and you like Spaceghost right?

Brian37 wrote:

If what you had was credible, it would be taught along side mitosis and thermodynamics and could be universally understood beyond personal bias. What you have is a wish, a desire, and rooted in the worst book ever concocted by humans.

Must be.  It's the only way you can sleep at night, right?  Strange that it is taught along side those topics in many schools around the world.... but of course not in your reality Brain.  What was I thinking

Cap, get over it, this is a lousy argument and you know it.

It is not my job to do your homework for you. We both know that a god or your God does not have material. So my challenge to you to find God's DNA is SARCASTIC because I know you damned well cannot do it. You are the one who believes in a fictional non material god, not me.

I challenge you to labs because I know damned well you cant do it. You know damned well you cant do it.

THAT SHOULD GIVE YOU A BIG CLUE that it is all in your head.

Again, don't ask us for what we would accept as evidence if you are not going to put your claims to those rigors. You wont do it because you know damned well you dont have shit to bring to a lab in the first place.

There is no such thing as an invisible super brain with magical super powers. Your god is merely your own wishful thinking. The same wishful thinking that had the Egyptians believing that the sun was a god. You believe for the same delusional reasons Muslims believe in their fictional Allah.

I've been nothing but fair to you and would require the same standards of anyone else making a deity claim of any label. And I don't stop with god claims. If you claimed little green men planted us here, I would require the same universal method. If you claimed that Ouija Boards worked, I have the same attitude.

You know it is bullshit that you merely want to believe so badly so the only thing you can do is dodge the very universal method that has established things like entropy and miotosis, and evolution.

You have nothing but a claim, big whoopty doo. Give it up. I really hope someday you get it instead of wasting your entire life defending bullshit. It is all in your head, and no matter how real it may seem to you or how badly you want this fictional super hero to be real, it is all just in your head.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cap, the point was that

Cap, the point was that whenever we point out what we see as clear faults in your 'logic' and 'evidence' you just dance around it.

Funny that your comment then identifies the problem pretty well - we actually do go further and actually look at your presented 'evidence' more closely, and guess what, it doesn't stand up, at least as far as we can see, not without all kinds of preconceived assumptions and special pleading.

But don't feel too bad, you are a much more pleasant person to talk with about these things than Jean Chauvin, who has returned to do little more than ridicule and taunt us. You do at least try and respond to us as reasonably as you can.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cap, get over

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, get over it, this is a lousy argument and you know it.

yea, I know.  it is completely irrational to think you can get DNA from a metaphysical being.  I'm glad you finally see that.

Brian37 wrote:

It is not my job to do your homework for you. We both know that a god or your God does not have material. So my challenge to you to find God's DNA is SARCASTIC because I know you damned well cannot do it. You are the one who believes in a fictional non material god, not me.

Your case here isn't my God, it's the metaphysical existence altogether.  So this would then be your homework.  What reasoning do you have... (I ask this because you're the one who seems to be convinced beyond a doubt that there is no plane of existence other than the physical) that there is no metaphysical existence?  Now try to keep your answer away from physical means of detecting it because as we both agreed above, it's irrational to look for physical means of a metaphysical existence.  

I still feel like you have more going on than disbelief.  You have a grudge.  I've said that since day 1.  With that I can't do anything, I could tell you a snowflake is frozen crystalized water and you'd still deny it.  My point is you're not going to convince me with your rant.  I know that same approach would not work for you... nor most of the non-believing world.  

Brian37 wrote:

I challenge you to labs because I know damned well you cant do it. You know damned well you cant do it.

Of course I can't do it, because it's irrational and illogical, not because it's something you'd do in a lab.  Quantum physics is done in a lab and has proven quantum leaps, which as far as our physical realm is concerned is absolutely impossible, but it opens that door to the metaphysical... or at least a plane of existence outside what we can see.   

Brian37 wrote:

THAT SHOULD GIVE YOU A BIG CLUE that it is all in your head.

irrationality and sheer ignorance on the topic should be a big clue huh...  no wonder we can't have a conversation.  ...and this whole time I've been trying to keep it realistic.  

Brian37 wrote:

Again, don't ask us for what we would accept as evidence if you are not going to put your claims to those rigors. You wont do it because you know damned well you dont have shit to bring to a lab in the first place.

well... I just had a black bean burrito... so give me about 20 minutes.

You'd have to put something out there... excuse me (something rational and logical out there) for me to put claims on... How am I supposed to make a claim or support an idea that doesn't make any sense?  Take a 1 lb piece of marble and float it by itself.  When it sinks, I'll tell you that nothing can float on the water.  now tell me why you won't believe me when I tell you that.

Brian37 wrote:

There is no such thing as an invisible super brain with magical super powers. Your god is merely your own wishful thinking. The same wishful thinking that had the Egyptians believing that the sun was a god. You believe for the same delusional reasons Muslims believe in their fictional Allah.

The same wishful thinking that has you believing as you do.

Brian37 wrote:

I've been nothing but fair to you and would require the same standards of anyone else making a deity claim of any label. And I don't stop with god claims. If you claimed little green men planted us here, I would require the same universal method. If you claimed that Ouija Boards worked, I have the same attitude.

I like your attitude.  What's lacking is reasoning and rationality.  At least some out there have reasoning.  TGBaker and JPTS have years of research backing their belief.  What do you have other than an excuse?

Brian37 wrote:

You know it is bullshit that you merely want to believe so badly so the only thing you can do is dodge the very universal method that has established things like entropy and miotosis, and evolution.

interesting you mention entropy... what do you know about it?

Brian37 wrote:

You have nothing but a claim, big whoopty doo. Give it up. I really hope someday you get it instead of wasting your entire life defending bullshit. It is all in your head, and no matter how real it may seem to you or how badly you want this fictional super hero to be real, it is all just in your head.

I'm glad you're convinced of this... now convince me... I've been waiting for years with you... still waiting...


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Cap, the

BobSpence1 wrote:

Cap, the point was that whenever we point out what we see as clear faults in your 'logic' and 'evidence' you just dance around it.

not intentionally.  I respond just as you would to the problems I see with your claims to faults.  If you feel there's something specific I danced around, I challenge you to bring it back up.  Me confronting your logic is not dancing around, but me trying to either better understand why you feel the way you do or to explain why it doesn't make rational sense to me.  I have not once dropped a topic and I never intend to dance around anything.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Funny that your comment then identifies the problem pretty well - we actually do go further and actually look at your presented 'evidence' more closely, and guess what, it doesn't stand up, at least as far as we can see, not without all kinds of preconceived assumptions and special pleading.

I could say the same thing about all your claims.  The thing is, when I tell you that I'm on here to challenge what i know, that means that if I felt your case stood up, I'd take it seriously and research it.  I've learned a lot from talking to people like you on here.  The research I've done so far has only further confirmed what I know.  I've even taken suggestions from atheists as far as research.    I'm keeping my mind completely open and trying to keep the bias of my belief out of it.  Can you claim the same?

BobSpence1 wrote:

But don't feel too bad, you are a much more pleasant person to talk with about these things than Jean Chauvin, who has returned to do little more than ridicule and taunt us. You do at least try and respond to us as reasonably as you can.

Sure.  He's only a Christian version of many atheists I've come across on here.. but he backs himself up.  I try to present myself in a way that you can take me seriously.   I don't think I'd learn as much from you and others on here if I was more aggressive.  His approach is to put you in your place.. my approach is to come to an agreement if at all possible.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, get over it, this is a lousy argument and you know it.

yea, I know.  it is completely irrational to think you can get DNA from a metaphysical being.  I'm glad you finally see that.

Brian37 wrote:

It is not my job to do your homework for you. We both know that a god or your God does not have material. So my challenge to you to find God's DNA is SARCASTIC because I know you damned well cannot do it. You are the one who believes in a fictional non material god, not me.

Your case here isn't my God, it's the metaphysical existence altogether.  So this would then be your homework.  What reasoning do you have... (I ask this because you're the one who seems to be convinced beyond a doubt that there is no plane of existence other than the physical) that there is no metaphysical existence?  Now try to keep your answer away from physical means of detecting it because as we both agreed above, it's irrational to look for physical means of a metaphysical existence.  

I still feel like you have more going on than disbelief.  You have a grudge.  I've said that since day 1.  With that I can't do anything, I could tell you a snowflake is frozen crystalized water and you'd still deny it.  My point is you're not going to convince me with your rant.  I know that same approach would not work for you... nor most of the non-believing world.  

Brian37 wrote:

I challenge you to labs because I know damned well you cant do it. You know damned well you cant do it.

Of course I can't do it, because it's irrational and illogical, not because it's something you'd do in a lab.  Quantum physics is done in a lab and has proven quantum leaps, which as far as our physical realm is concerned is absolutely impossible, but it opens that door to the metaphysical... or at least a plane of existence outside what we can see.   

Brian37 wrote:

THAT SHOULD GIVE YOU A BIG CLUE that it is all in your head.

irrationality and sheer ignorance on the topic should be a big clue huh...  no wonder we can't have a conversation.  ...and this whole time I've been trying to keep it realistic.  

Brian37 wrote:

Again, don't ask us for what we would accept as evidence if you are not going to put your claims to those rigors. You wont do it because you know damned well you dont have shit to bring to a lab in the first place.

well... I just had a black bean burrito... so give me about 20 minutes.

You'd have to put something out there... excuse me (something rational and logical out there) for me to put claims on... How am I supposed to make a claim or support an idea that doesn't make any sense?  Take a 1 lb piece of marble and float it by itself.  When it sinks, I'll tell you that nothing can float on the water.  now tell me why you won't believe me when I tell you that.

Brian37 wrote:

There is no such thing as an invisible super brain with magical super powers. Your god is merely your own wishful thinking. The same wishful thinking that had the Egyptians believing that the sun was a god. You believe for the same delusional reasons Muslims believe in their fictional Allah.

The same wishful thinking that has you believing as you do.

Brian37 wrote:

I've been nothing but fair to you and would require the same standards of anyone else making a deity claim of any label. And I don't stop with god claims. If you claimed little green men planted us here, I would require the same universal method. If you claimed that Ouija Boards worked, I have the same attitude.

I like your attitude.  What's lacking is reasoning and rationality.  At least some out there have reasoning.  TGBaker and JPTS have years of research backing their belief.  What do you have other than an excuse?

Brian37 wrote:

You know it is bullshit that you merely want to believe so badly so the only thing you can do is dodge the very universal method that has established things like entropy and miotosis, and evolution.

interesting you mention entropy... what do you know about it?

Brian37 wrote:

You have nothing but a claim, big whoopty doo. Give it up. I really hope someday you get it instead of wasting your entire life defending bullshit. It is all in your head, and no matter how real it may seem to you or how badly you want this fictional super hero to be real, it is all just in your head.

I'm glad you're convinced of this... now convince me... I've been waiting for years with you... still waiting...

Cap, perhaps the irrationality is the concept of a metaphysical being? It seems as though when asked for proof of this metaphysical being's existence your response is "metaphysics". Metaphysics is a field of study not a proof of anything. Right now we're mired in your claim "God exists as a metaphysical being because I say so."

The people who have years of research backing their position you avoid like the plague. Don't bring them up unless you're taking them on.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cap, perhaps

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap, perhaps the irrationality is the concept of a metaphysical being?

Perhaps, but lack of means to study the subject in question is hardly a reason to assume it irrational.  

jcgadfly wrote:

It seems as though when asked for proof of this metaphysical being's existence your response is "metaphysics". Metaphysics is a field of study not a proof of anything. Right now we're mired in your claim "God exists as a metaphysical being because I say so."

My response is actually what are you looking for.  When what you're looking for is completely irrational, I will let you know.. case and point Brian.  

Beyond metaphysics, I have offered any approach using the scientific method that might be rational along with Quantum physics which uses laboratory studies.   I believe at this time it's hardly credible for you to claim my defense as "because I said so."  Unless you don't want anything more than that claim, but then I would have to say that's all you've given me as well.  

jcgadfly wrote:

The people who have years of research backing their position you avoid like the plague. Don't bring them up unless you're taking them on.

Like who exactly?  Let's see, the only ones who've claimed to have years of experience on here that have actually used it are... hmm... let's see.  JPTS... I'm avoiding him!... oh no wait.  He and I are doing a historical runthrough of the Bible as we speak... OH OH, but there's TGBaker... now he's someone to avoid becuase he not only has his atheistic studies, but also has a strong religious history and education to boot... Oh, but wait... I have a one on one thread with him as well....

So... who is it that I'm avoiding like the plague that has years of experience and has actually used it on here with me?  heh, wait... beyond that.. .who am I supposedly avoiding?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap, perhaps the irrationality is the concept of a metaphysical being?

Perhaps, but lack of means to study the subject in question is hardly a reason to assume it irrational.  

jcgadfly wrote:

It seems as though when asked for proof of this metaphysical being's existence your response is "metaphysics". Metaphysics is a field of study not a proof of anything. Right now we're mired in your claim "God exists as a metaphysical being because I say so."

My response is actually what are you looking for.  When what you're looking for is completely irrational, I will let you know.. case and point Brian.  

Beyond metaphysics, I have offered any approach using the scientific method that might be rational along with Quantum physics which uses laboratory studies.   I believe at this time it's hardly credible for you to claim my defense as "because I said so."  Unless you don't want anything more than that claim, but then I would have to say that's all you've given me as well.  

jcgadfly wrote:

The people who have years of research backing their position you avoid like the plague. Don't bring them up unless you're taking them on.

Like who exactly?  Let's see, the only ones who've claimed to have years of experience on here that have actually used it are... hmm... let's see.  JPTS... I'm avoiding him!... oh no wait.  He and I are doing a historical runthrough of the Bible as we speak... OH OH, but there's TGBaker... now he's someone to avoid becuase he not only has his atheistic studies, but also has a strong religious history and education to boot... Oh, but wait... I have a one on one thread with him as well....

So... who is it that I'm avoiding like the plague that has years of experience and has actually used it on here with me?  heh, wait... beyond that.. .who am I supposedly avoiding?

PJTS and TG are the only ones engaging the topic with any depth. Repeating yourself while ignoring what they say is avoiding them. Did you forget that I can read those threads?

How is asking for ANY proof of a metaphysical being irrational? I understand your view on physical proof but you haven't provided proof in the field that studies existence which you claim an expertise in. Oh, and please stop shifting your burden of proof onto me. Thanks.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cap,at best, your

Cap,

at best, your 'evidence', right from the beginning, seems to consist of finding events or observations or historical accounts that could possibly by interpreted as indicating some unknown intervention by some power or influence beyond our current non-supernatural understanding of reality.

You tend to ignore, or simply are unaware of many alternative explanations for these things, let alone actually test them as thoroughly as you try to verify the interpretations supporting your PoV.

It is critical in any attempt to verify a hypothesis that you test alternatives at least as thoroughly as your primary concept. Otherwise you are not using the scientific method.

Your failure to 'get' this was apparent right from the start with the fire scenario you described. Do you still consider that one of your best pieces of 'evidence'?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, get over it, this is a lousy argument and you know it.

yea, I know.  it is completely irrational to think you can get DNA from a metaphysical being.  I'm glad you finally see that.

Brian37 wrote:

It is not my job to do your homework for you. We both know that a god or your God does not have material. So my challenge to you to find God's DNA is SARCASTIC because I know you damned well cannot do it. You are the one who believes in a fictional non material god, not me.

Your case here isn't my God, it's the metaphysical existence altogether.  So this would then be your homework.  What reasoning do you have... (I ask this because you're the one who seems to be convinced beyond a doubt that there is no plane of existence other than the physical) that there is no metaphysical existence?  Now try to keep your answer away from physical means of detecting it because as we both agreed above, it's irrational to look for physical means of a metaphysical existence.  

I still feel like you have more going on than disbelief.  You have a grudge.  I've said that since day 1.  With that I can't do anything, I could tell you a snowflake is frozen crystalized water and you'd still deny it.  My point is you're not going to convince me with your rant.  I know that same approach would not work for you... nor most of the non-believing world.  

Brian37 wrote:

I challenge you to labs because I know damned well you cant do it. You know damned well you cant do it.

Of course I can't do it, because it's irrational and illogical, not because it's something you'd do in a lab.  Quantum physics is done in a lab and has proven quantum leaps, which as far as our physical realm is concerned is absolutely impossible, but it opens that door to the metaphysical... or at least a plane of existence outside what we can see.   

Brian37 wrote:

THAT SHOULD GIVE YOU A BIG CLUE that it is all in your head.

irrationality and sheer ignorance on the topic should be a big clue huh...  no wonder we can't have a conversation.  ...and this whole time I've been trying to keep it realistic.  

Brian37 wrote:

Again, don't ask us for what we would accept as evidence if you are not going to put your claims to those rigors. You wont do it because you know damned well you dont have shit to bring to a lab in the first place.

well... I just had a black bean burrito... so give me about 20 minutes.

You'd have to put something out there... excuse me (something rational and logical out there) for me to put claims on... How am I supposed to make a claim or support an idea that doesn't make any sense?  Take a 1 lb piece of marble and float it by itself.  When it sinks, I'll tell you that nothing can float on the water.  now tell me why you won't believe me when I tell you that.

Brian37 wrote:

There is no such thing as an invisible super brain with magical super powers. Your god is merely your own wishful thinking. The same wishful thinking that had the Egyptians believing that the sun was a god. You believe for the same delusional reasons Muslims believe in their fictional Allah.

The same wishful thinking that has you believing as you do.

Brian37 wrote:

I've been nothing but fair to you and would require the same standards of anyone else making a deity claim of any label. And I don't stop with god claims. If you claimed little green men planted us here, I would require the same universal method. If you claimed that Ouija Boards worked, I have the same attitude.

I like your attitude.  What's lacking is reasoning and rationality.  At least some out there have reasoning.  TGBaker and JPTS have years of research backing their belief.  What do you have other than an excuse?

Brian37 wrote:

You know it is bullshit that you merely want to believe so badly so the only thing you can do is dodge the very universal method that has established things like entropy and miotosis, and evolution.

interesting you mention entropy... what do you know about it?

Brian37 wrote:

You have nothing but a claim, big whoopty doo. Give it up. I really hope someday you get it instead of wasting your entire life defending bullshit. It is all in your head, and no matter how real it may seem to you or how badly you want this fictional super hero to be real, it is all just in your head.

I'm glad you're convinced of this... now convince me... I've been waiting for years with you... still waiting...

Cap, perhaps the irrationality is the concept of a metaphysical being? It seems as though when asked for proof of this metaphysical being's existence your response is "metaphysics". Metaphysics is a field of study not a proof of anything. Right now we're mired in your claim "God exists as a metaphysical being because I say so."

The people who have years of research backing their position you avoid like the plague. Don't bring them up unless you're taking them on.

Do not besmirch academics by calling metaphysics a "field of study". Only like studying crop circles is a "field of study". And just like studying religion. It is not the observation of scientific fact, it is the observation of cultural mental masturbation.

Please do not feed into cap's delusion by calling metaphysics a "field of study".

It is not taught like mitosis or entropy. It is sold like Scientology and pantheism and Islam. You could "study" those things just like you could have the hobby of knowing the history of the Star Wars series.

Metaphysics is not science, it is mental masturbation and wishful thinking.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:PJTS and TG

jcgadfly wrote:

PJTS and TG are the only ones engaging the topic with any depth. Repeating yourself while ignoring what they say is avoiding them. Did you forget that I can read those threads?

I didn't forget that you do, but now I'm convinced you don't... or at least you dont' read my replies.  You've basically just insulted their intelligence.. If I did as you say, I don't believe they'd stick with me.  If anything was repeated it would be in JPTS site because the issue is the same with the current story as in the last.  We are progressing if you actually read it.  With TG, it's obvious we don't speak on the same level, he's just as repetitive as I and I have told him many times that I'm not ignoring or misunderstanding what he's saying, only that I don't agree with his perspective nor do I believe what he thinks I do.  

that's not ignoring, that's addressing the problem.  

jcgadfly wrote:

How is asking for ANY proof of a metaphysical being irrational?

It's not.  The means by which someone might seek the proof when asked what they're looking for might be.  You're smarter than that.  Stop ignoring the obvious here.

jcgadfly wrote:

I understand your view on physical proof but you haven't provided proof in the field that studies existence which you claim an expertise in. Oh, and please stop shifting your burden of proof onto me. Thanks.

by doing what, asking you what you're looking for?  That's not shifting the burden, that's opening the floor to you so that you can effectively either put me in my place, or get a good conversation going.  If I was shifting the burden on you, i'd simply say, prove to me that God doesnt' exist... you and I both know that approach is irrational and you also know I don't do that, so stop ignoring the obvious again.  You're smarter than this... why was it again you stopped thinking?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Cap,at

BobSpence1 wrote:

Cap,

at best, your 'evidence', right from the beginning, seems to consist of finding events or observations or historical accounts that could possibly by interpreted as indicating some unknown intervention by some power or influence beyond our current non-supernatural understanding of reality.

AT least by what people have told me they were looking for so far.  That is "evidence", but what are you looking for?  Proof under a microscope?  It's like asking me to put a black hole on a slide for you.  It's just not a logical or rational means of understanding the subject.  

It sounds like you're referencing solely to this thread as well.  Other threads present and past cover more.  One historical thread that jcad claims to be following right now talks about each stories place in history and not necessarily historical accounts of unknown intervention.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

You tend to ignore, or simply are unaware of many alternative explanations for these things, let alone actually test them as thoroughly as you try to verify the interpretations supporting your PoV.

I've actually addressed the many alternative explanations and went as far as to say just because we can explain something doesnt' mean God isn't real.  There are many factors taken into account for events to consider beyond whether we can explain it or not.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is critical in any attempt to verify a hypothesis that you test alternatives at least as thoroughly as your primary concept. Otherwise you are not using the scientific method.

so far any atheists attempt at a study using the scientific method was of irrational means, e.g. studying God DNA, which wouldn't logically exist, at least not in the way we'd understand it.   

It's funny you said this because I know in one of the threads I said the same exact thing... I thought it might have been this one at some point.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your failure to 'get' this was apparent right from the start with the fire scenario you described. Do you still consider that one of your best pieces of 'evidence'?

Did I say that was my best piece of evidence?  I'd say it's pretty good seeing as the best defense anyone had on here is that it didn't really happen.  Do you have something else your'e looking for?  Shall we talk science?  Statistics?  Archaeology?  Sounds like all of that won't work, it's not good enough even combined, so what would be good enough?  As I've said, i can explain evidences and rationalities till I'm blue, but in the end, only a concentrated 1% of that is going to work for any given individual.  It's not my job to find your interest.  I'm here to challenge what I know.  Few atheists have actually done that.  The ones that are have started separate threads with me.  The rest keep thinking they have all the reasoning in the world and yet can't defend it.  

You seem to be smart, but fall in the way of Jcad.  If you have a 'means' by which you would consider true evidence, let me know.  If you have logical reasoning for your belief, let me know.  Otherwise, nothing's going to happen.  The scientific method is great, from there what approach... what case study or what direction do you want to go?  What would you take into consideration?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I've told you as others

I've told you as others have. We want to see evidence of your God. You use the excuse that he is a metaphysical being so he can't be proven physically. So i asked for metaphysical proof. You're such an expert in metaphysics and have such a good relationship with this being that this shouldn't be hard for you. You want me to provide an aspect of this metaphysical being for you so you can have a "frame of reference4" - actually that's worse than shifting the burden. That's asking me to accept that a metaphysical being exists before you can prove it does. Hell, you're asking me to prove it for you also.

Why have you been dodging this simple question? Is it because you settled for God instead of thought?

TG and PJTS have stuck with you because they are kind people and are more generous with second chances to the deceitful than I am. TG speaks on the level of reality - what level are you speaking on? You don't agree with his perspective but you don't say why - God stopped your thinking again? Scared of what you night find if you go deeper?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cap, perhaps

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, perhaps the irrationality is the concept of a metaphysical being? It seems as though when asked for proof of this metaphysical being's existence your response is "metaphysics". Metaphysics is a field of study not a proof of anything. Right now we're mired in your claim "God exists as a metaphysical being because I say so."

You're claim is no better "God doesn't exist because I say so".  you ask for proof, I ask you for focus of interest, namely a means of study, so I throw one out there.  Quantum is also a means of study and can feed to the topic at hand.  Field of study is used to study evidence or reasoning.   What field of study works for you?  

Brian37 wrote:

Do not besmirch academics by calling metaphysics a "field of study". Only like studying crop circles is a "field of study". And just like studying religion. It is not the observation of scientific fact, it is the observation of cultural mental masturbation.

What is your case other than mental masturbation?  Do you think you can actually handle a topic of discussion?  I've told you to walk away if in fact i"m as delusional as you say, but you're still here.  I've told you repetition doesn't get to me and you complain that I do the same as you and yet you think you doing it is more convincing.  

Serious question... do you think?  I mean really

Brian37 wrote:

Please do not feed into cap's delusion by calling metaphysics a "field of study".

who are you talking to?  You're the only one who has taken on metaphysics, I only threw it out there as an idea to focus on.  I see the other post that might support your point of view doesn't hold any water huh.  only what brian says goes right?  And you complain about religion.

Brian37 wrote:

It is not taught like mitosis or entropy. It is sold like Scientology and pantheism and Islam. You could "study" those things just like you could have the hobby of knowing the history of the Star Wars series.

Metaphysics is not science, it is mental masturbation and wishful thinking.

 

So you're going to ignore the fact that I have shut you down in any claim you've tried to make so far every time.  Why don't you stick to something for once and prove to me and everyone on here that I'm as delusional as you say.  If what you say is true, it should be easy to shut me down and make me leave.  Go for it.  Been waiting for this moment for 3 years.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I've told you

jcgadfly wrote:

I've told you as others have. We want to see evidence of your God. You use the excuse that he is a metaphysical being so he can't be proven physically. So i asked for metaphysical proof. You're such an expert in metaphysics and have such a good relationship with this being that this shouldn't be hard for you. You want me to provide an aspect of this metaphysical being for you so you can have a "frame of reference4" - actually that's worse than shifting the burden. That's asking me to accept that a metaphysical being exists before you can prove it does. Hell, you're asking me to prove it for you also.

Why have you been dodging this simple question? Is it because you settled for God instead of thought?

TG and PJTS have stuck with you because they are kind people and are more generous with second chances to the deceitful than I am. TG speaks on the level of reality - what level are you speaking on? You don't agree with his perspective but you don't say why - God stopped your thinking again? Scared of what you night find if you go deeper?

I've said that's not what I believe.  In other words, it doesn't coenside with the belief, faith, etc that I follow... what's so hard about that.

As far as metaphysics, do you want me to prove to you science exists?  it's broad.  Why have you been dodging lately?  you used to be smart... then you smoked something I think.

ok, let's start, I'll pick a metaphysical focus and you tell me whether it's something you'd consider.  We'll play this game for the next couple years until we can find a focus that actually works for you.

attempt number 1.

EVP's.  They have been studied and recorded and are understood to be real.  EVP is Electronic Voice phenomenon.  We can discuss what it is, why it happens and whether this is proof of ghosts or not.  

your move.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I've told you as others have. We want to see evidence of your God. You use the excuse that he is a metaphysical being so he can't be proven physically. So i asked for metaphysical proof. You're such an expert in metaphysics and have such a good relationship with this being that this shouldn't be hard for you. You want me to provide an aspect of this metaphysical being for you so you can have a "frame of reference4" - actually that's worse than shifting the burden. That's asking me to accept that a metaphysical being exists before you can prove it does. Hell, you're asking me to prove it for you also.

Why have you been dodging this simple question? Is it because you settled for God instead of thought?

TG and PJTS have stuck with you because they are kind people and are more generous with second chances to the deceitful than I am. TG speaks on the level of reality - what level are you speaking on? You don't agree with his perspective but you don't say why - God stopped your thinking again? Scared of what you night find if you go deeper?

I've said that's not what I believe.  In other words, it doesn't coenside with the belief, faith, etc that I follow... what's so hard about that.

As far as metaphysics, do you want me to prove to you science exists?  it's broad.  Why have you been dodging lately?  you used to be smart... then you smoked something I think.

ok, let's start, I'll pick a metaphysical focus and you tell me whether it's something you'd consider.  We'll play this game for the next couple years until we can find a focus that actually works for you.

attempt number 1.

EVP's.  They have been studied and recorded and are understood to be real.  EVP is Electronic Voice phenomenon.  We can discuss what it is, why it happens and whether this is proof of ghosts or not.  

your move.

Science is repeatable and demonstrable. Are you wanting the additional step of proving un-demonstrable metaphysics is science?

EVP's are understood to be real by who? "experts of the paranormal"? Randi had it right - scientists are easy to fool by magic. Pseudoscientists such as yourself must be easier still. EVP can be faked. Give me something that is undisputably real and can only be performed by the metaphysical being you call God. I've asked you this dozens of times and you keep not answering this.

Is your deceit so valuable to you that you have to go to such great lengths to keep it?

You have said that it doesn't coincide with your beliefs but you haven't the testicular fortitude to examine (or even state) what those beliefs actually are. All I know for sure is that you believe that there is such a thing as the paranormal and you believe that is caused by metaphysical beings you call "God" and "spirits". You claim to have a relationship with one of them yet you can't even describe it sufficiently. When you are called on this - you claim that it's our fault that we can't understand your lack of description and we should simply believe what you say and then you'll explain it.

Is this what makes you a "true Christian"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Cap,

at best, your 'evidence', right from the beginning, seems to consist of finding events or observations or historical accounts that could possibly by interpreted as indicating some unknown intervention by some power or influence beyond our current non-supernatural understanding of reality.

AT least by what people have told me they were looking for so far.  That is "evidence", but what are you looking for?  Proof under a microscope?  It's like asking me to put a black hole on a slide for you.  It's just not a logical or rational means of understanding the subject.

Our disagreement seems to be not so much over what constitutes "evidence", but how one properly uses it to support a proposition or argument.

"Proof under a microscope" betrays two fundamental misconceptions - first, we are not requiring 'proof', and second, that a microscope or equivalent is a necessary part of proper, ie 'scientific' 'proof'.

What a proper, ie scientific, approach to evidence involves, is a search for possible disconfirming evidence before accepting supporting evidence as demonstrating the strength of your position. IOW, a wider context needs to be examined.

Any kind of "evidence" will do, within reason, but where possible, a demonstration of what evidence would contradict the proposal, and that some search for such evidence has been conducted. Or at least a proper comparison with all vaguely plausible alternative explanations that would fit the same evidence.

You need to explain why there may be a lack of of corroborating evidence in a context where, if your conclusion is true, there would be expected to more than just an isolated example. This applies to your first example of a house apparently being 'miraculously' spared from the fires, assumed to be due to prayer. In that context, you didn't seem to consider why there were not many more such examples in a situation of widespread fires where surely there would have been many people who prayed to be spared from the fires.

Quote:

It sounds like you're referencing solely to this thread as well.  Other threads present and past cover more.  One historical thread that jcad claims to be following right now talks about each stories place in history and not necessarily historical accounts of unknown intervention. 

I don't see how this comment is relevant to anything - another frequent reaction I have when reading your responses.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You tend to ignore, or simply are unaware of many alternative explanations for these things, let alone actually test them as thoroughly as you try to verify the interpretations supporting your PoV.

I've actually addressed the many alternative explanations and went as far as to say just because we can explain something doesnt' mean God isn't real.  There are many factors taken into account for events to consider beyond whether we can explain it or not. 

As I already commented, I don't see you as doing this often enough or thoroughly enough. The point is that if there is a mundane explanation for something claimed as evidence for God, it really does mean that you really should not take that evidence as evidence for God, since God is by any reasonable standard, an 'extraordinary' assumption, since It is claimed to have attributes way beyond anything actually observed or positively detected has been found to have.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is critical in any attempt to verify a hypothesis that you test alternatives at least as thoroughly as your primary concept. Otherwise you are not using the scientific method.

so far any atheists attempt at a study using the scientific method was of irrational means, e.g. studying God DNA, which wouldn't logically exist, at least not in the way we'd understand it.  

It's funny you said this because I know in one of the threads I said the same exact thing... I thought it might have been this one at some point. 

Again you show this misunderstanding of 'scientific' evidence, thinking of it only in terms of something physical that can be put under a microscope of some kind. It applies to any evidence that can be examined and tested by more than one investigator, by more than one approach, if possible.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your failure to 'get' this was apparent right from the start with the fire scenario you described. Do you still consider that one of your best pieces of 'evidence'?

Did I say that was my best piece of evidence?  I'd say it's pretty good seeing as the best defense anyone had on here is that it didn't really happen.  Do you have something else your'e looking for?  Shall we talk science?  Statistics?  Archaeology?  Sounds like all of that won't work, it's not good enough even combined, so what would be good enough?  As I've said, i can explain evidences and rationalities till I'm blue, but in the end, only a concentrated 1% of that is going to work for any given individual.  It's not my job to find your interest.  I'm here to challenge what I know.  Few atheists have actually done that.  The ones that are have started separate threads with me.  The rest keep thinking they have all the reasoning in the world and yet can't defend it. 

Again, I addressed this earlier in this response. More misunderstanding on your part.

My response was not that it didn't happen, but why you only presented one example in a context where it should have happened many times, if it happened for the reasons you claimed. Again your reference to Archeology betrays your misconceptions. You are closer to the mark with Statistics, as long as you think of it simply in terms of comparing all the cases where houses were in similar situations. Otherwise you can be validly accused of 'cherry-picking', where at least one such occurence is not all that improbable among a large number of instances, by pure fortuitous chance.

Quote:

You seem to be smart, but fall in the way of Jcad.  If you have a 'means' by which you would consider true evidence, let me know.  If you have logical reasoning for your belief, let me know.  Otherwise, nothing's going to happen.  The scientific method is great, from there what approach... what case study or what direction do you want to go?  What would you take into consideration?

More demonstration of your misunderstanding. It is not so much about what I would consider 'true' evidence, let alone any 'means' for assessing what is 'true' evidence. It is about how widely and honestly you searched for any and all evidence relevant to the proposition, and how you evaluated whatever alternative explanations were available.

The indications of your limited grasp of scientific explanations and systems of analysis suggests you are not equipped to adequately understand alternatives when presented to you. The inadequacy of the 'God' explanation is often only apparent to people like myself who have a much better understanding of the background science involved, and it can be hard to convey this perspective to those such as yourself who lack that understanding, often requiring as it does long training and study. I am not trying to insult you, it is an issue that genuinely troubles me, that from the position of those not really understanding science, they are being asked to take the scientific explanation 'on trust', and do not see why.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I've told you as others have. We want to see evidence of your God. You use the excuse that he is a metaphysical being so he can't be proven physically. So i asked for metaphysical proof. You're such an expert in metaphysics and have such a good relationship with this being that this shouldn't be hard for you. You want me to provide an aspect of this metaphysical being for you so you can have a "frame of reference4" - actually that's worse than shifting the burden. That's asking me to accept that a metaphysical being exists before you can prove it does. Hell, you're asking me to prove it for you also.

Why have you been dodging this simple question? Is it because you settled for God instead of thought?

TG and PJTS have stuck with you because they are kind people and are more generous with second chances to the deceitful than I am. TG speaks on the level of reality - what level are you speaking on? You don't agree with his perspective but you don't say why - God stopped your thinking again? Scared of what you night find if you go deeper?

I've said that's not what I believe.  In other words, it doesn't coenside with the belief, faith, etc that I follow... what's so hard about that.

As far as metaphysics, do you want me to prove to you science exists?  it's broad.  Why have you been dodging lately?  you used to be smart... then you smoked something I think.

ok, let's start, I'll pick a metaphysical focus and you tell me whether it's something you'd consider.  We'll play this game for the next couple years until we can find a focus that actually works for you.

attempt number 1.

EVP's.  They have been studied and recorded and are understood to be real.  EVP is Electronic Voice phenomenon.  We can discuss what it is, why it happens and whether this is proof of ghosts or not.  

your move.

Science is repeatable and demonstrable. Are you wanting the additional step of proving un-demonstrable metaphysics is science?

EVP's are understood to be real by who? "experts of the paranormal"? Randi had it right - scientists are easy to fool by magic. Pseudoscientists such as yourself must be easier still. EVP can be faked. Give me something that is undisputably real and can only be performed by the metaphysical being you call God. I've asked you this dozens of times and you keep not answering this.

Is your deceit so valuable to you that you have to go to such great lengths to keep it?

You have said that it doesn't coincide with your beliefs but you haven't the testicular fortitude to examine (or even state) what those beliefs actually are. All I know for sure is that you believe that there is such a thing as the paranormal and you believe that is caused by metaphysical beings you call "God" and "spirits". You claim to have a relationship with one of them yet you can't even describe it sufficiently. When you are called on this - you claim that it's our fault that we can't understand your lack of description and we should simply believe what you say and then you'll explain it.

Is this what makes you a "true Christian"?

You forgot Cap's trump card. "I know what I know"

Yet he's spent the past three years trying to convince us rather than take his Nobel Prize winning epiphany to a lab and have the tires kicked independently.

I am sure he has high hopes, just like that ant and the rubber tree plant. The difference is that the song is real and his god is not. I only hope he wakes up and realizes before there it is too late that there is a difference between wishful thinking, ego and emotion, and harsh reality.

He doesn't want to face the fact that his "experiences" have answers in the mundane reality that humans are flawed in processing input. So he falls for the trap of the elaborate must constitute correct. He falls for "how can this be". Instead of saying to himself, "That was intense, but I don't have to default to a magical super brain to explain it".

He knows metaphysics is bullshit, otherwise the patent office would be flooded by his findings and world hunger and peace would be solved by now.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Our

BobSpence1 wrote:

Our disagreement seems to be not so much over what constitutes "evidence", but how one properly uses it to support a proposition or argument.

"Proof under a microscope" betrays two fundamental misconceptions - first, we are not requiring 'proof', and second, that a microscope or equivalent is a necessary part of proper, ie 'scientific' 'proof'.

So am I to understand that you're implying that microscope is metaphorical for scientific proof?  I think you can see how I could misunderstand that.  You do see where I'm coming from about using a microscope specifically in this case would be an irrational expectation for the subject at hand.  

I don't think we're in disagreement about how one properly uses it to support a proposition or argument.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

What a proper, ie scientific, approach to evidence involves, is a search for possible disconfirming evidence before accepting supporting evidence as demonstrating the strength of your position. IOW, a wider context needs to be examined.

Any kind of "evidence" will do, within reason, but where possible, a demonstration of what evidence would contradict the proposal, and that some search for such evidence has been conducted. Or at least a proper comparison with all vaguely plausible alternative explanations that would fit the same evidence.

I have offered many broad means of research and offered focused ideas as well.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

You need to explain why there may be a lack of of corroborating evidence in a context where, if your conclusion is true, there would be expected to more than just an isolated example. This applies to your first example of a house apparently being 'miraculously' spared from the fires, assumed to be due to prayer. In that context, you didn't seem to consider why there were not many more such examples in a situation of widespread fires where surely there would have been many people who prayed to be spared from the fires.

I have taken that into consideration.  That was one of many many examples out there.  You all seem to take that piece as if that's my only means of evidence for God.  Consider to that you must take into consideration that God can choose which prayers are answered and which aren't.  Why choose this house and not another one who prayed just as much for protection?  I couldn't answer that.  I'm not God.  I don't know the families or circumstances or future outcomes of a consuming fire on each family.  Many factors would need to be taken into consideration to understand the why in any given God sighting.  

there is more than just an isolated example... despite the fact that there are numerous "isolated" examples out there, there is reasoning behind believing in God sightings and creation.  Science explains some, history, etc.    I have explained this before as well.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

As I already commented, I don't see you as doing this often enough or thoroughly enough. The point is that if there is a mundane explanation for something claimed as evidence for God, it really does mean that you really should not take that evidence as evidence for God, since God is by any reasonable standard, an 'extraordinary' assumption, since It is claimed to have attributes way beyond anything actually observed or positively detected has been found to have.

Can you honestly follow this thread and tell me that I could present something on here thoroughly without deviations from people who find details to complicated to comprehend and dismiss without basis reasoning before questioning it?  There's a reason why on this thread you don't see me explaining thing thoroughly.  Anyone who has cared to hear my more detailed explanations has started another thread with me.  I think i can say with confidence most have not been disappointed.  JPTS has even commented how he's been surprised at my perspective and in many cases has agreed with me about historical accounts of scripture. This is from one who I'm willing to bet would not have said such a thing if I was neglecting to provide thorough detail in my responses.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Again you show this misunderstanding of 'scientific' evidence, thinking of it only in terms of something physical that can be put under a microscope of some kind. It applies to any evidence that can be examined and tested by more than one investigator, by more than one approach, if possible.

I get that... why then if it really comes down to evidence being tested and examined by more than one investigator does it have to be physical?  Granted we'd need physical results to study the subject in question, but that doesn't mean that if the subject in question is not physical then it can't exist.  If this was the case than no one really thinks and gravity is a figment of your imagination.    Using a microscope in this subject matter is illogical.  You're not studying bugs here.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Again, I addressed this earlier in this response. More misunderstanding on your part.

I think you think I'm talking about you.  You seem to be one of the rational thinking minds on here.  I'm referencing to people on this thread in general that have been following and communicating regularly.  Most don't accept a compilation of rational avenues, let alone one that I might pull out of a hat.  As far as you, it seems you're accusing me of not presenting in a way that I have many times in the past... many pages back at this point because I lost interest in actually trying on this thread.  though I keep it going because every once in a while, someone who actually wants to use their brain will come on and we'll end up having a good conversation.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

My response was not that it didn't happen, but why you only presented one example in a context where it should have happened many times, if it happened for the reasons you claimed. Again your reference to Archeology betrays your misconceptions. You are closer to the mark with Statistics, as long as you think of it simply in terms of comparing all the cases where houses were in similar situations. Otherwise you can be validly accused of 'cherry-picking', where at least one such occurence is not all that improbable among a large number of instances, by pure fortuitous chance.

I know there are occurences throughout the world and history with similar situations.  We'd just have to find all the documentation.  I referenced that situation because of its commonality in history and not because this was a rare unique case that doesn't happen.    Most people who are aware of the numerous historical accounts of such situations who are not believers dismiss them as tales or misinformation or (you name it).  I know there are no outlying reasons for this situation and as you know, i sincerely tried to find the maps that I was sure were still online to show that it did in fact happen, and also that there is no geological or meteorological reasoning for how the fire did not consume this house.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

More demonstration of your misunderstanding. It is not so much about what I would consider 'true' evidence, let alone any 'means' for assessing what is 'true' evidence. It is about how widely and honestly you searched for any and all evidence relevant to the proposition, and how you evaluated whatever alternative explanations were available.

which in turn would have to be a means by which you'd accept as reasonable.  I am currently and have been for years doing research.  i believe there's never an end to learning and therefore will continue researching until the day I die.  Be it that I have more than 15 years of general research under me, it's difficult for me to sit here and say, yea here's my portfolio.  Instead, it's easier for me to ask you what avenue of research you want to focus on and talk about so that we can go into the detail and thoroughness that you're complaining I never get into.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

The indications of your limited grasp of scientific explanations and systems of analysis suggests you are not equipped to adequately understand alternatives when presented to you.

...and your basis for me having limited grasp of scientific explanations is... hopefully beyond lack of detail right...I'm really hoping here, you're going to pull something out that I claimed that is wrong and that you can empirically correct me.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

The inadequacy of the 'God' explanation is often only apparent to people like myself who have a much better understanding of the background science involved, and it can be hard to convey this perspective to those such as yourself who lack that understanding, often requiring as it does long training and study.

what's funny to me about that statement is in my research, i have come across believers that have told me the same thing when I was still searching.  Honest question here, what step should I take at this point if both sides are telling me this exact thing?  e.g. that you both believers and not have a better understanding of the background of science involved and that it's hard to convey this perspective (being both there is a God and not) to me who lack such understanding?   

The step that I did take is to better understand the subject through science on my own using neutral means of research.   What would you suggest?

BobSpence1 wrote:

I am not trying to insult you, it is an issue that genuinely troubles me, that from the position of those not really understanding science, they are being asked to take the scientific explanation 'on trust', and do not see why.

I don't trust anyone's word.  I must see it for myself.  So many people try to categorize me that way.  i don't see it as an insult.. unfortunately it is what most people who claim to know that God does and does not exist do, trust what others have told them and accept it at face value.  They don't think for themselves.  I think for myself.  

I do believe you could have a better grasp of science than I do.   I'd love to learn what you know.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You forgot

Brian37 wrote:

You forgot Cap's trump card. "I know what I know"

ahh, Brian, it's nice to know that after responding to someone who makes me think I can take a little brain brake with you.

Brian37 wrote:

Yet he's spent the past three years trying to convince us rather than take his Nobel Prize winning epiphany to a lab and have the tires kicked independently.

or just mess around with you as I've told you I've been doing for quite a while now because I can't take you seriously.

Brian37 wrote:

I am sure he has high hopes, just like that ant and the rubber tree plant. The difference is that the song is real and his god is not. I only hope he wakes up and realizes before there it is too late that there is a difference between wishful thinking, ego and emotion, and harsh reality.

it will take empirical reasoning from you Brian.. i do believe at this time it is beyond your abilities.  You claim to want all this scientific evidence and just as I've been told, I'm going to tell you that I don't believe you can grasp science.

Brian37 wrote:

He doesn't want to face the fact that his "experiences" have answers in the mundane reality that humans are flawed in processing input. So he falls for the trap of the elaborate must constitute correct. He falls for "how can this be". Instead of saying to himself, "That was intense, but I don't have to default to a magical super brain to explain it".

since when have I said "I need God to explain X"  I believe that is your claim.  You were a gullible believer weren't you.  dispensationalism sucks doesn't it.  Glad you got out of that at least.

Brian37 wrote:

He knows metaphysics is bullshit, otherwise the patent office would be flooded by his findings and world hunger and peace would be solved by now.

 

why are you convinced they're my findings?  and how is hunger and peace solved by understanding metaphysics?  That's just a simple lesson in selfishness, one thing that most people with the means and power to end hunger and war will never grasp. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cap,Quote:So am I to

Cap,

Quote:

So am I to understand that you're implying that microscope is metaphorical for scientific proof?

That statement alone typifies and demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of what science involves. In short, no, not at all. You don't understand.

If you simply mean by referring to a 'microscope', to the idea of studying something in great detail, as in the common metaphor of putting something 'under the microscope', then that is fine. And also the idea of using the appropriate instruments and techniques for a particular area of study, but that is trivially true.

But you seem to go beyond that. That would not be metaphorical for 'scientific proof', but just for careful and detailed observation.

'Proof' in the scientific sense, is not quite 'proof' in the sense of logic or math, which shows that some conclusion is absolutely and unambiguously implied by some set of initial propositions.

It is an analysis of all available and relevant observations, whether gathered via instruments of any kind or not, to show how they may support, ie be highly consistent with, some hypothesis or theory. And acknowledging any apparent conflict with the evidence, the observational data, and attempting to explain why that is not necessarily fatal to the theory.

Quote:

I have offered many broad means of research and offered focused ideas as well.

That is not what I was asking for. I don't care that much about how you dig up the evidence, the data, or your ideas, in this context, but what they are based on.

In the case of the miracle of the house spared from the fire:

Quote:

 That was one of many many examples out there.  You all seem to take that piece as if that's my only means of evidence for God.

Then why did you not at least list all the other examples, and then give us the context, ie how many houses were faced with a broadly comparable situation, and what proportion of them were destroyed as would be expected, and how many 'miraculously' survived? That would be the way to support your argument.

In the absence of more examples, which we asked for, it began to look like that might indeed be your only evidence for God, or at least the only one you thought we might find a bit compelling. And again, it was not about 'means of evidence', whatever you mean by that, it was about the evidence itself.

"geological or meteorological reasoning"?? There is plenty of possible reasons for such events, none geological, and only having some general connection with meteorology, being much more local than that.

They involve the complex dynamics of air movement under such conditions, depending on the geometry of the house and the surrounding land, the distribution of flammable material, etc. One often gets things like vortices forming, like mini tornadoes, which can lead to the flames completely excluded from some areas within the general conflagration.

It would be very surprising if there were never any events that we could not easily explain in a non-supernatural manner, if you are going to look around teh world and throughout history, simply by the laws of chance and probability. Coupled with the well-established weaknesses of 'eye-witness' testimony, the fallibility of human recall, the common over-looking of, failure to notice, some key aspect of an event that would have made it far more understandable. That and the absence of time-machines.

I have pointed out in this post several examples of why I see you as lacking both an understanding of the current scientific knowledge on a subject, and more troubling, a failure to grasp the methodology of science.

Quote:

I get that... why then if it really comes down to evidence being tested and examined by more than one investigator does it have to be physical? 

There you go again - it DOES NOT HAVE TO BE 'PHYSICAL'!! You keep getting stuck on this. We are not asking you to present us with bleeding chunks of 'God' that we can put under a microscope or in a test-tube in a lab (I refer to something I think you said earlier in this or another thread).

It does have to be as objective as possible, ie not just based on internal mental experiences or 'feelings', no matter how intense or convincing. Such experiences are objective as experiences, but they cannot be taken as objective evidence for the reality of what they seem to indicate to the person experiencing them, without some strong and fairly unambiguous correlation with some external, independent observations.

We have vastly enhanced understanding these days of the workings of our own minds - I follow several podcasts on the mind and neuroscience - and much of this is based on cleverly designed test situations, or sometimes just following groups of people for sustained periods, where they have agreed to record specific aspects of their daily experiences, and so on, which reveal often surprising things about human behavior which are simply not apparent to our informal introspection and intuitions. Of course, we now have scanners which allow us to map the inner workings of the brain in increasing detail, to

What type of 'non-physical' evidence/data are you thinking of? What do you use that is less 'physical' than personal testimony or reporting? Science does use those, where appropriate, such as in historical and behavioral and social and psychological and neurological ( 'brain science' ) research.

There is plenty of stuff still to understand, of course, but if you don't realize all the things that influence our judgements, and even how easily our unaided senses and observations and memories can get things horribly wrong, then you can easily give far too much weight to, or wrongly interpret, historical documents and testimony.

Do you acknowledge that I am here trying to improve your 'grasp of science'?

What helps to convince me I am on the right track to improve my understanding, and more importantly to correct my misunderstandings, is the number of times I am surprised by some new finding or theory described in a program from sources such as Scientific American, Science Magazine, Nature, and so on, all reputable and serious scientific publications. You can have confidence that Science is not about just supporting our preconceptions, our existing ideas, when people keep popping up with ideas that 'blow our socks off', and which stand up to testing.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Our disagreement seems to be not so much over what constitutes "evidence", but how one properly uses it to support a proposition or argument.

"Proof under a microscope" betrays two fundamental misconceptions - first, we are not requiring 'proof', and second, that a microscope or equivalent is a necessary part of proper, ie 'scientific' 'proof'.

So am I to understand that you're implying that microscope is metaphorical for scientific proof?  I think you can see how I could misunderstand that.  You do see where I'm coming from about using a microscope specifically in this case would be an irrational expectation for the subject at hand.  

I don't think we're in disagreement about how one properly uses it to support a proposition or argument.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

What a proper, ie scientific, approach to evidence involves, is a search for possible disconfirming evidence before accepting supporting evidence as demonstrating the strength of your position. IOW, a wider context needs to be examined.

Any kind of "evidence" will do, within reason, but where possible, a demonstration of what evidence would contradict the proposal, and that some search for such evidence has been conducted. Or at least a proper comparison with all vaguely plausible alternative explanations that would fit the same evidence.

I have offered many broad means of research and offered focused ideas as well.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

You need to explain why there may be a lack of of corroborating evidence in a context where, if your conclusion is true, there would be expected to more than just an isolated example. This applies to your first example of a house apparently being 'miraculously' spared from the fires, assumed to be due to prayer. In that context, you didn't seem to consider why there were not many more such examples in a situation of widespread fires where surely there would have been many people who prayed to be spared from the fires.

I have taken that into consideration.  That was one of many many examples out there.  You all seem to take that piece as if that's my only means of evidence for God.  Consider to that you must take into consideration that God can choose which prayers are answered and which aren't.  Why choose this house and not another one who prayed just as much for protection?  I couldn't answer that.  I'm not God.  I don't know the families or circumstances or future outcomes of a consuming fire on each family.  Many factors would need to be taken into consideration to understand the why in any given God sighting.  

there is more than just an isolated example... despite the fact that there are numerous "isolated" examples out there, there is reasoning behind believing in God sightings and creation.  Science explains some, history, etc.    I have explained this before as well.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

As I already commented, I don't see you as doing this often enough or thoroughly enough. The point is that if there is a mundane explanation for something claimed as evidence for God, it really does mean that you really should not take that evidence as evidence for God, since God is by any reasonable standard, an 'extraordinary' assumption, since It is claimed to have attributes way beyond anything actually observed or positively detected has been found to have.

Can you honestly follow this thread and tell me that I could present something on here thoroughly without deviations from people who find details to complicated to comprehend and dismiss without basis reasoning before questioning it?  There's a reason why on this thread you don't see me explaining thing thoroughly.  Anyone who has cared to hear my more detailed explanations has started another thread with me.  I think i can say with confidence most have not been disappointed.  JPTS has even commented how he's been surprised at my perspective and in many cases has agreed with me about historical accounts of scripture. This is from one who I'm willing to bet would not have said such a thing if I was neglecting to provide thorough detail in my responses.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Again you show this misunderstanding of 'scientific' evidence, thinking of it only in terms of something physical that can be put under a microscope of some kind. It applies to any evidence that can be examined and tested by more than one investigator, by more than one approach, if possible.

I get that... why then if it really comes down to evidence being tested and examined by more than one investigator does it have to be physical?  Granted we'd need physical results to study the subject in question, but that doesn't mean that if the subject in question is not physical then it can't exist.  If this was the case than no one really thinks and gravity is a figment of your imagination.    Using a microscope in this subject matter is illogical.  You're not studying bugs here.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Again, I addressed this earlier in this response. More misunderstanding on your part.

I think you think I'm talking about you.  You seem to be one of the rational thinking minds on here.  I'm referencing to people on this thread in general that have been following and communicating regularly.  Most don't accept a compilation of rational avenues, let alone one that I might pull out of a hat.  As far as you, it seems you're accusing me of not presenting in a way that I have many times in the past... many pages back at this point because I lost interest in actually trying on this thread.  though I keep it going because every once in a while, someone who actually wants to use their brain will come on and we'll end up having a good conversation.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

My response was not that it didn't happen, but why you only presented one example in a context where it should have happened many times, if it happened for the reasons you claimed. Again your reference to Archeology betrays your misconceptions. You are closer to the mark with Statistics, as long as you think of it simply in terms of comparing all the cases where houses were in similar situations. Otherwise you can be validly accused of 'cherry-picking', where at least one such occurence is not all that improbable among a large number of instances, by pure fortuitous chance.

I know there are occurences throughout the world and history with similar situations.  We'd just have to find all the documentation.  I referenced that situation because of its commonality in history and not because this was a rare unique case that doesn't happen.    Most people who are aware of the numerous historical accounts of such situations who are not believers dismiss them as tales or misinformation or (you name it).  I know there are no outlying reasons for this situation and as you know, i sincerely tried to find the maps that I was sure were still online to show that it did in fact happen, and also that there is no geological or meteorological reasoning for how the fire did not consume this house.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

More demonstration of your misunderstanding. It is not so much about what I would consider 'true' evidence, let alone any 'means' for assessing what is 'true' evidence. It is about how widely and honestly you searched for any and all evidence relevant to the proposition, and how you evaluated whatever alternative explanations were available.

which in turn would have to be a means by which you'd accept as reasonable.  I am currently and have been for years doing research.  i believe there's never an end to learning and therefore will continue researching until the day I die.  Be it that I have more than 15 years of general research under me, it's difficult for me to sit here and say, yea here's my portfolio.  Instead, it's easier for me to ask you what avenue of research you want to focus on and talk about so that we can go into the detail and thoroughness that you're complaining I never get into.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

The indications of your limited grasp of scientific explanations and systems of analysis suggests you are not equipped to adequately understand alternatives when presented to you.

...and your basis for me having limited grasp of scientific explanations is... hopefully beyond lack of detail right...I'm really hoping here, you're going to pull something out that I claimed that is wrong and that you can empirically correct me.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

The inadequacy of the 'God' explanation is often only apparent to people like myself who have a much better understanding of the background science involved, and it can be hard to convey this perspective to those such as yourself who lack that understanding, often requiring as it does long training and study.

what's funny to me about that statement is in my research, i have come across believers that have told me the same thing when I was still searching.  Honest question here, what step should I take at this point if both sides are telling me this exact thing?  e.g. that you both believers and not have a better understanding of the background of science involved and that it's hard to convey this perspective (being both there is a God and not) to me who lack such understanding?   

The step that I did take is to better understand the subject through science on my own using neutral means of research.   What would you suggest?

BobSpence1 wrote:

I am not trying to insult you, it is an issue that genuinely troubles me, that from the position of those not really understanding science, they are being asked to take the scientific explanation 'on trust', and do not see why.

I don't trust anyone's word.  I must see it for myself.  So many people try to categorize me that way.  i don't see it as an insult.. unfortunately it is what most people who claim to know that God does and does not exist do, trust what others have told them and accept it at face value.  They don't think for themselves.  I think for myself.  

I do believe you could have a better grasp of science than I do.   I'd love to learn what you know.  

I have a much better grasp on scientific method than you do. "Metaphysics" is not science nor does any credible scientist community or credible scientist consider "metaphysics" find any lick of credibility in it. It is not tested or falsified like physics or biology. It is merely you with clap trap that you desparately want to pass off as being scientific. You might as well be trying to sell us Scientology or pantheism. Pseudo intellectual no matter how elaborate is still crap.

Metaphysics is crap, garbage, bullshit.

Please Cap, you might as well be trying to tell me that Thor makes lightening because we can prove lightening exists.

Give it up. Metaphysics won't prove the existence of the Christian god or the Hindu god or any god for that matter. BECAUSE IT IS MERELY MADE UP MENTAL MASTURBATION.

NOTHING, no claim on earth, on any subject deserves one lick of respect merely because people go around claiming it. All you have proven here is that you have bought a claim.

What you still waste your time doing is trying to convince us. You are the one who claims you have this "hot shit", this "earth shattering epiphany". And you want to share it with the world.

SO THE FUCK WHAT. I can share my computer with others because computers are real. I can go get medicine for an illness because medicine is real. But all you have is a claim, a pet claim, a naked assertion. If you had more than that the science labs would be beating down your door to invite you into theirs.

You have nothing, give it up. Stop wasting your time on your Star Trec Captain Kirk Jesus/Metaphysics bullshit.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:That

BobSpence1 wrote:

That statement alone typifies and demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of what science involves. In short, no, not at all. You don't understand.

If you simply mean by referring to a 'microscope', to the idea of studying something in great detail, as in the common metaphor of putting something 'under the microscope', then that is fine. And also the idea of using the appropriate instruments and techniques for a particular area of study, but that is trivially true.

But you seem to go beyond that. That would not be metaphorical for 'scientific proof', but just for careful and detailed observation.

I asked that because the one who brought up using a microscope I'm pretty sure wasn't being metaphorical.  He was very specific about wanting a DNA sample from God and/or wanting God to ejaculate in a cup for him.  

You would be right then to suggest that they don't understand.

I would agree with your perspective here.

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Proof' in the scientific sense, is not quite 'proof' in the sense of logic or math, which shows that some conclusion is absolutely and unambiguously implied by some set of initial propositions.

It is an analysis of all available and relevant observations, whether gathered via instruments of any kind or not, to show how they may support, ie be highly consistent with, some hypothesis or theory. And acknowledging any apparent conflict with the evidence, the observational data, and attempting to explain why that is not necessarily fatal to the theory.

The only problem with this, and I've asked for help in taking any scientific approach is what would the constant be and how do we assure cancelling out choice in the results?

BobSpence1 wrote:

That is not what I was asking for. I don't care that much about how you dig up the evidence, the data, or your ideas, in this context, but what they are based on.

that implied a basis of understanding.  Everyone seems to want to skip the basis step and go right to the result, then dismiss the result as false before looking at the basis.  This not including you

BobSpence1 wrote:

Then why did you not at least list all the other examples, and then give us the context, ie how many houses were faced with a broadly comparable situation, and what proportion of them were destroyed as would be expected, and how many 'miraculously' survived? That would be the way to support your argument.

I understand this.  If I remember correctly, the context of the conversation was what I've seen.  I have not seen all the other examples, nor are they all neatly compiled into a 4 volume set conveniently located at your public library.    

How many other examples would you need?  Would all the examples have to specifically do with houses that should have been consumed by fire or can they be based on other miraculous claims resulting from the same methodology?

I ask because I don't think i am capable of compiling all the other examples out there.  It would take too long and I don't have the resources to find them all, it's likely I would miss a lot.  There are many throughout history in almost every culture.  We could literally pull a people group out of a hat and probably find something similiar somewhere in their history.

BobSpence1 wrote:

In the absence of more examples, which we asked for, it began to look like that might indeed be your only evidence for God, or at least the only one you thought we might find a bit compelling. And again, it was not about 'means of evidence', whatever you mean by that, it was about the evidence itself.

"geological or meteorological reasoning"?? There is plenty of possible reasons for such events, none geological, and only having some general connection with meteorology, being much more local than that.

at the time, people were obsessed with evidence for that particular claim, therefore, I took my time to try and show it.  Once I found that the maps had likely been archived, the focus then went from what evidence to that likely didn't happen.  A debate insued as far as my honesty and whether it was legitimate.  Ultimately, there was a sidetrack, then the focus I think moved on from there.  I'm sure if we stuck to our guns a bit more or if the proposition was brought up, other examples would have been presented.  

Ultimately it's not about what the miracle was, but about means of understanding it as a miracle.  You're likely going to want more than my word that they are reliable sources if other people were telling me or specific documentaries claimed it am I right?  What would you need specifically?

BobSpence1 wrote:

They involve the complex dynamics of air movement under such conditions, depending on the geometry of the house and the surrounding land, the distribution of flammable material, etc. One often gets things like vortices forming, like mini tornadoes, which can lead to the flames completely excluded from some areas within the general conflagration.

it's possible a vortex formed around the house, be it that the unburned area was a perfect circle, it seems logical.  does that mean that then this wasn't a miracle?  Especially seeing as a vortex could form anywhere and happened to form directly over a house that was smack dab in the middle?  Beyond that, vortexes move, which then would have left the house open to fire damage once again, but the fire remained away.  There is also no path from this perfect circle of excluded zone.  It is logical from a Christian perspective that God would have used a vortex to void the fire from that house.  It's irrational to conclude that because a vortex formed, God didn't have a hand in it.  Of course from the perspective that there is no God, the God possibility is not even considered and it then would go to other possiblilities.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It would be very surprising if there were never any events that we could not easily explain in a non-supernatural manner, if you are going to look around teh world and throughout history, simply by the laws of chance and probability. Coupled with the well-established weaknesses of 'eye-witness' testimony, the fallibility of human recall, the common over-looking of, failure to notice, some key aspect of an event that would have made it far more understandable. That and the absence of time-machines.

I've said that understanding how something happened does not negate the possibility of God, likewise, not understanding something does not support God.  Circumstance of happening is key.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

I have pointed out in this post several examples of why I see you as lacking both an understanding of the current scientific knowledge on a subject, and more troubling, a failure to grasp the methodology of science.


I believe I have pointed out agreement with your perspective and also shown that I do understand.  I do not disagree with your methodology and understanding.   I can see how you've tried to point out how I might not understand.  You were taking your conclusion on lack of information.   I've explained why more detail was not given.

BobSpence1 wrote:

There you go again - it DOES NOT HAVE TO BE 'PHYSICAL'!! You keep getting stuck on this. We are not asking you to present us with bleeding chunks of 'God' that we can put under a microscope or in a test-tube in a lab (I refer to something I think you said earlier in this or another thread).

Correction YOU'RE not asking me to present bleeding chunks of God.  I like your way of thinking.  I respond to the masses on this thread and what they claim to be looking for.  It seems consistent that you're in agreement with me on their take.

BobSpence1 wrote:

It does have to be as objective as possible, ie not just based on internal mental experiences or 'feelings', no matter how intense or convincing. Such experiences are objective as experiences, but they cannot be taken as objective evidence for the reality of what they seem to indicate to the person experiencing them, without some strong and fairly unambiguous correlation with some external, independent observations.

completely agreed... i believe I've said that many times.  They are compelling when you have them, but they are not a basis for belief and without the God reasoning could be associated with any number of stimuli.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

We have vastly enhanced understanding these days of the workings of our own minds - I follow several podcasts on the mind and neuroscience - and much of this is based on cleverly designed test situations, or sometimes just following groups of people for sustained periods, where they have agreed to record specific aspects of their daily experiences, and so on, which reveal often surprising things about human behavior which are simply not apparent to our informal introspection and intuitions. Of course, we now have scanners which allow us to map the inner workings of the brain in increasing detail, to

What type of 'non-physical' evidence/data are you thinking of? What do you use that is less 'physical' than personal testimony or reporting? Science does use those, where appropriate, such as in historical and behavioral and social and psychological and neurological ( 'brain science' ) research.

can you send me a link to some of those podcasts?  I'd be interested in following those.

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is plenty of stuff still to understand, of course, but if you don't realize all the things that influence our judgements, and even how easily our unaided senses and observations and memories can get things horribly wrong, then you can easily give far too much weight to, or wrongly interpret, historical documents and testimony.

Do you acknowledge that I am here trying to improve your 'grasp of science'?

absolutely.  So far I'm in complete agreement with you and what you've presented.  Nothing contradicts my perspective on science so far.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

What helps to convince me I am on the right track to improve my understanding, and more importantly to correct my misunderstandings, is the number of times I am surprised by some new finding or theory described in a program from sources such as Scientific American, Science Magazine, Nature, and so on, all reputable and serious scientific publications. You can have confidence that Science is not about just supporting our preconceptions, our existing ideas, when people keep popping up with ideas that 'blow our socks off', and which stand up to testing.

I would agree that the same reasoning convinces me, obviously from a different perspective.   The testing part is what has hit a roadblock on this forum I think.  I've been challanged to come up with a case study.  Not sure what angle, but the other problem is a constant.  God is not a scientific constant because he has choice, which means, one house for example being saved by God from a fire does not mean every house from there on out will not catch fire.  No one's going to test the poison claim Mk 16:18.  How do we come up with a reliable constant for a legitimate case study on God?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I have a much

Brian37 wrote:

I have a much better grasp on scientific method than you do.

you do!  huh.. good to know.

Brian37 wrote:

"Metaphysics" is not science nor does any credible scientist community or credible scientist consider "metaphysics" find any lick of credibility in it. It is not tested or falsified like physics or biology. It is merely you with clap trap that you desparately want to pass off as being scientific. You might as well be trying to sell us Scientology or pantheism. Pseudo intellectual no matter how elaborate is still crap.

What of Quantum physics? 

Brian37 wrote:

Metaphysics is crap, garbage, bullshit.

so are you, but we're still talking

Brian37 wrote:

Please Cap, you might as well be trying to tell me that Thor makes lightening because we can prove lightening exists.

ok, you're telling me you'd buy that huh.

Brian37 wrote:

Give it up. Metaphysics won't prove the existence of the Christian god or the Hindu god or any god for that matter. BECAUSE IT IS MERELY MADE UP MENTAL MASTURBATION.

I'm not saying it will.  I'm looking for what you might be interested in, what you would need for reasoning or consideration.  obviously metaphysics isn't it.

Brian37 wrote:

NOTHING, no claim on earth, on any subject deserves one lick of respect merely because people go around claiming it.

listen to your own advice here.

Brian37 wrote:

All you have proven here is that you have bought a claim.

exactly, now where do you want to go with this claim?  logically?

Brian37 wrote:

What you still waste your time doing is trying to convince us. You are the one who claims you have this "hot shit", this "earth shattering epiphany". And you want to share it with the world.

I want to... but you could care less to... yet your'e still here.  don't get it.

Brian37 wrote:

SO THE FUCK WHAT. I can share my computer with others because computers are real. I can go get medicine for an illness because medicine is real. But all you have is a claim, a pet claim, a naked assertion. If you had more than that the science labs would be beating down your door to invite you into theirs.

You have nothing, give it up. Stop wasting your time on your Star Trec Captain Kirk Jesus/Metaphysics bullshit.

why are you so persistent as to say they're my claims?  There's a reason why science with the advancement we're at in this day in age has not shown God to be false.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
"why are you so persistent

"why are you so persistent as to say they're my claims?  There's a reason why science with the advancement we're at in this day in age has not shown God to be false.  "

Indeed there is - science makes no comment on the supernatural.

Then you claim metaphysics is a science that can make comments on the supernatural but refuse to give any metaphysical commentary where God is concerned

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:"why are you

jcgadfly wrote:

"why are you so persistent as to say they're my claims?  There's a reason why science with the advancement we're at in this day in age has not shown God to be false.  "

Indeed there is - science makes no comment on the supernatural.

Then you claim metaphysics is a science that can make comments on the supernatural but refuse to give any metaphysical commentary where God is concerned

I have mentioned metaphysics as a possible avenue of discussion.  No one bites onto metaphysics as a means of topic discussion, so why would I give any further commentary on it?  I'm looking for what people would be interested in talking about... you know the elephant in the room that all non-believers seem to be avoiding... at one time you talked, why stop now?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Now you are trying to use

Now you are trying to use quantum physics to justify the dead myth philosophy of metaphysics?

I've seen variants of this before from other believers. They claim that quantum physics leads to really freaky shit that to the believers justifies "anything goes" thus "all powerful" is justified. I even had an idiot quote Aquinas as justification to the Christian god.

If quantum physics justifies anything then Superman is a possibility and Angelina Jolie is giving me a blow job right now since, as the believer claims "anything goes" because of quantum physics.

Still have a huge gap there Cap. How do you get from quantum science to a non material brain with magical super powers?

Metaphysics IS NOT NOR EVER WILL BE CREDIBLE like quantum physics. Metaphysics is to quantum physics like Harry Potter explains human flight.

Cap, you are fighting a losing battle. If you had anything credible, the the rest of the world, outside of pet claims would be beating down your door for your earth shattering find.

Quantum physics will not justify the absurd. It won't justify Thor making lightening. It wont justify Ouija boards or Allah and it wont justify your dead man on a stick claim either.

Quantum physics is awesome all by itself and all the freaky things it shows in scientific observation without interjecting an old myth of superstition into it.

The universe, biology and evolution are a result of the natural, not fictional superstitious beings humans invent and insert in gaps. Scream it all you want Cap, the earth is not flat and claims of non material thinking beings BY ANY NAME are just as absurd.

Metaphysics=quantum physics..............Thanks for the laugh.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

"why are you so persistent as to say they're my claims?  There's a reason why science with the advancement we're at in this day in age has not shown God to be false.  "

Indeed there is - science makes no comment on the supernatural.

Then you claim metaphysics is a science that can make comments on the supernatural but refuse to give any metaphysical commentary where God is concerned

I have mentioned metaphysics as a possible avenue of discussion.  No one bites onto metaphysics as a means of topic discussion, so why would I give any further commentary on it?  I'm looking for what people would be interested in talking about... you know the elephant in the room that all non-believers seem to be avoiding... at one time you talked, why stop now?

It's the only avenue you've offered or used as an excuse as to why you can't offer any other means of proof.

"The existence of God" is still a good topic - metaphysics has been ruled out by you because you can't/won't provide proof in that area.

My offer still stands - show me something that has no other explanation than "God did it". If a natural explanation is possible then that example would fall short. The "miracles" you mentioned earlier don't count because those can and have been faked by deceitful men.

I'm still talking - you just stopped listening. Are you frightened or having some cognitive dissonance issues?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

"why are you so persistent as to say they're my claims?  There's a reason why science with the advancement we're at in this day in age has not shown God to be false.  "

Indeed there is - science makes no comment on the supernatural.

Then you claim metaphysics is a science that can make comments on the supernatural but refuse to give any metaphysical commentary where God is concerned

I have mentioned metaphysics as a possible avenue of discussion.  No one bites onto metaphysics as a means of topic discussion, so why would I give any further commentary on it?  I'm looking for what people would be interested in talking about... you know the elephant in the room that all non-believers seem to be avoiding... at one time you talked, why stop now?

It's the only avenue you've offered or used as an excuse as to why you can't offer any other means of proof.

"The existence of God" is still a good topic - metaphysics has been ruled out by you because you can't/won't provide proof in that area.

My offer still stands - show me something that has no other explanation than "God did it". If a natural explanation is possible then that example would fall short. The "miracles" you mentioned earlier don't count because those can and have been faked by deceitful men.

I'm still talking - you just stopped listening. Are you frightened or having some cognitive dissonance issues?

I don't see how anyone posts for this long does not have doubts. But I do think his ego wont allow him to accept the flaws in his arguments.

No one, not him, not anyone in human history, regardless of the pet deity they claim and try to defend, can be tested and falsified by any credible standard.

I do hold out hope for him though. Some journeys to atheism take longer. I only hope he gets there sooner rather than later.

Once he understands that his pet claim of his pet god is no different in human history than any other, he will be where we are at. But having been a believer myself at one point, it damned sure is a hard addiction for humans to shed.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I asked that

caposkia wrote:

I asked that because the one who brought up using a microscope I'm pretty sure wasn't being metaphorical.  He was very specific about wanting a DNA sample from God and/or wanting God to ejaculate in a cup for him.  

You would be right then to suggest that they don't understand.

I would agree with your perspective here.

I had a look back though a dozen of so pages here, and you were the first to mention a microscope. I looks like Brian37 mentioned a 'lab', which could be read as going a bit toward the idea of explicitly measuring something but you immediately went way further into inferring the idea of putting something under a microscope.

A laboratory can refer to any environment where you endeavour to test some ideas in a controlled environment. This could apply to testing a group of people's reactions to many things, not necessarily 'physical' things like chemicals or physical stimuli, but maybe just purely sociological or psychological contexts, no 'instrument' more technical than a notepad or pen required.

TGBaker referred to DNA, but nowhere in the sense of your ridiculous caricature of "God's sperm'.

caposkia wrote:

Utlimately for more models, it'd be like me asking you to show me a working model of a black hole, or for me to see a graviton under a microscope.  We can't do it yet.  We don't have the know-how.  

Metaphysical evidence would be a result caused by anything beyond the physical.  Now how do we know the result was caused by something beyond the physical.  Be it that we don't have a metaphysical detection device, this is hard.  We have to rule out causes by reasoning and logic.  From there, one can conclude.  due to the unknown factor, any skeptic can come in and say it could be something else, but until they can come up with that something else, it's likely to be a metaphysical occurrence.

We just have evidence, not 'metaphysical' evidence. Whether or not you feel it deserved to be called 'metaphysical' is a result of a failure to explain it by 'physical means. We may or may not have some current plausible, logically arguable hypothesis to explain some phenomenon, but to point to 'a result beyond the physical' would be a giant presumption. If something is observable, measurable, even just reported, it is evidence.

A 'result' would be the the outcome of an experiment or observation, which means it is still 'physical' in the sense of manifesting in something we can detect by physical means, even if it is just a specific feeling in our brain, which can all, in principle, be measured by psychological questions or brain scanning equipment. Talking about the 'metaphysical' is empty. There are just those things for which we have some plausible explanation for in terms of already established ideas, and stuff we cannot currently explain. Quantum effects, and relativity, follow strict mathematical laws, but are far less comprehensible to our mind, or tangible, as in a 'physical' object, than many claimed 'metaphysical' phenomena.

You seem to be saying 'non-physical' or 'metaphysical' evidence is anything we can't explain in a current scientific context. But that would be applicable to every established scientific theory, if you go far enough back before we developed the explanatory framework to encompass it. Lightning was long considered an act of the Gods, or God. 'Metaphysical' is not a category of evidence - it is a label you are applying to whatever we currently don't understand, that you simply assume cannot ever be explained by 'natural' or 'physical' means. It can only be defined in the negative, which makes it empty.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Proof' in the scientific sense, is not quite 'proof' in the sense of logic or math, which shows that some conclusion is absolutely and unambiguously implied by some set of initial propositions.

It is an analysis of all available and relevant observations, whether gathered via instruments of any kind or not, to show how they may support, ie be highly consistent with, some hypothesis or theory. And acknowledging any apparent conflict with the evidence, the observational data, and attempting to explain why that is not necessarily fatal to the theory.

The only problem with this, and I've asked for help in taking any scientific approach is what would the constant be and how do we assure cancelling out choice in the results?

What are you referring to by "the constant"? I did not refer to anything that I can see this applying to.

There is always going to be some subjective influence in any assessment of what seems to be the most likely explanation, in any context. We have techniques such as Bayesian analysis to rigorously allow for our uncertainty in judging any ambiguous evidence, and we encourage independent investigators to reduce the effect of individual bias.

So we never "cancel out choice" with full assurance, in any non-trivial study. We just continue to investigate, gather more observations, etc, and try to reduce the uncertainty to manageable levels. There is no 'constant', 100% certain attainable knowledge about the nature of reality, whether 'physical' or 'metaphysical', except for facts such as that we can never eliminate uncertainty.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

That is not what I was asking for. I don't care that much about how you dig up the evidence, the data, or your ideas, in this context, but what they are based on.

that implied a basis of understanding.  Everyone seems to want to skip the basis step and go right to the result, then dismiss the result as false before looking at the basis.  This not including you

BobSpence1 wrote:

Then why did you not at least list all the other examples, and then give us the context, ie how many houses were faced with a broadly comparable situation, and what proportion of them were destroyed as would be expected, and how many 'miraculously' survived? That would be the way to support your argument.

I understand this.  If I remember correctly, the context of the conversation was what I've seen.  I have not seen all the other examples, nor are they all neatly compiled into a 4 volume set conveniently located at your public library.    

How many other examples would you need?  Would all the examples have to specifically do with houses that should have been consumed by fire or can they be based on other miraculous claims resulting from the same methodology?

I ask because I don't think i am capable of compiling all the other examples out there.  It would take too long and I don't have the resources to find them all, it's likely I would miss a lot.  There are many throughout history in almost every culture.  We could literally pull a people group out of a hat and probably find something similiar somewhere in their history.

I was not asking for all the other examples, but to be even vaguely valid as a serious investigation, you need to be able to provide as many as practical, rather than just studying this one. Especially in a context where there were many other instances of houses having all kinds of lucky or unlucky fates, to give us some more reference points, more context. Heck, even one more example would have been a major improvement.

This style of argument, where you imply we are asking for some unattainable or unreasonable standard, such as something that can be put under a microscope, or a neatly compiled set of reference material, when I just ask if you have some more examples or evidence, is really irritating.

Quote:

I've said that understanding how something happened does not negate the possibility of God, likewise, not understanding something does not support God.  Circumstance of happening is key.  

Even taking this event, or, for that matter, all the reported 'miracles' in the Bible, at face value, they do not remotely point unambiguously to the existence of a being with all the attributes claimed in religious doctrines in any unambiguous sense.

Just to our inevitably imperfect understanding of reality. When I compare all the reports of still unexplained events with the all the instances of events which were in very much the same category, by any standard, but were subsequently found to be due to faulty observation, jumping to conclusions, misunderstanding of reports, or even an element of deliberate hoaxing, I think we need far more solid evidence for the reality of something as utterly beyond our ability to really comprehend as the God defined in the Bible, when we now have many non-supernatural ways to plausibly explain how such ideas and stories arise.

Even an advanced alien civilization would provide a more plausible explanation for the existence of Christian and other religious narratives, without violating known scientific principles to the same degree.

Quote:

can you send me a link to some of those podcasts?  I'd be interested in following those.I would agree that the same reasoning convinces me, obviously from a different perspective.   The testing part is what has hit a roadblock on this forum I think.  I've been challanged to come up with a case study.  Not sure what angle, but the other problem is a constant.  God is not a scientific constant because he has choice, which means, one house for example being saved by God from a fire does not mean every house from there on out will not catch fire.  No one's going to test the poison claim Mk 16:18.  How do we come up with a reliable constant for a legitimate case study on God?

I will try and compile a list of podcasts I think you may find interesting.

Things with choice, such as ourselves, can still be studied scientifically. That simply means not jumping to conclusions without proper justification, and properly considering alternative possible explanations for what you see and feel.

Your terminology continues to seem strange - God not a 'scientific constant' ? And I still don't see what you mean by a 'reliable' constant'. I can't fit it into my 'epistemology'. Scientific constants are things like the speed of light, the charge on an electron, the strength of Gravitational attraction, which are empirically determined to be constant, then a theories are developed based on the assumption that they are constant. When those theories are found to be be consistent with many other observations, that means we can validly assume they really are constant in some universal sense, at least until someone can find indications to the contrary.

I can accept that the origin and governing principles of the Universe may be some kind of 'constant', but that kind of constant would be the diametric opposite of a being capable of choice.

Your have not provided proof for God - saying our arguments don't prove a God was not involved is utterly inadequate, even if true. There are an infinite number of alternative 'explanations' for such events which are at least as plausible and logically consistent as the God of the Bible, and equally impossible to disprove - we haven't disproved them either. God is now seen to be so improbable, and begs far more questions than it 'explains', that it does not deserve to be take seriously, if it wasn't for the number of people who still do, due to the weaknesses and 'flaws' of human imagination.

My perspective on history is that if there is such a being, he is far more likely to be an evil prankster, who rather than preventing the fires, chooses a few individuals to be 'miraculously' saved from the disaster, or the diseases he unleashed, or the hurricanes he throws at us, while leaving vast numbers of people to suffer and die. Historically, the majority of persons who died prematurely and innocently, from natural causes, (ie God) were children, babies, the unborn...

God is evil, if he exists. The evidence for that is truly overwhelming.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Now you are

Brian37 wrote:

Now you are trying to use quantum physics to justify the dead myth philosophy of metaphysics?

DUDE!  I'm spinning out avenues of discussion.  Brian, tell me honestly.  If I told you it was raining... and it was actually raining... would you tell me it was snowing and argue the point?

Brian37 wrote:

I've seen variants of this before from other believers. They claim that quantum physics leads to really freaky shit that to the believers justifies "anything goes" thus "all powerful" is justified. I even had an idiot quote Aquinas as justification to the Christian god.

ok, so instead of biting on this topic and having a discussion on it, you kind of just want to assume I'm going to do the same thing.  Ok, that's fine.  Lemme try to get this going then.  What claims were supposedly made... be specific.  Use the appropriate terms and claims that go along with them so that I can effectively research them.  thanks

Brian37 wrote:

If quantum physics justifies anything then Superman is a possibility and Angelina Jolie is giving me a blow job right now since, as the believer claims "anything goes" because of quantum physics.

...and I thought you had a better grasp of science than I do.  Quantum physics really says anything goes huh?

Brian37 wrote:

Still have a huge gap there Cap. How do you get from quantum science to a non material brain with magical super powers?

Gee, i don't know.  why don't we start talking about it and find out!  It might have something to do with quantum leaps and the theory of brainwaves taking quantum leaps. 

well, at least God that is... a brain with magical super powers... that's in your fantasy world.

Brian37 wrote:

Metaphysics IS NOT NOR EVER WILL BE CREDIBLE like quantum physics. Metaphysics is to quantum physics like Harry Potter explains human flight.

I gave you one avenue of discussion, then another one.  I never tied them together.  can you explain how you are?

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, you are fighting a losing battle. If you had anything credible, the the rest of the world, outside of pet claims would be beating down your door for your earth shattering find.

yea, I'd believe that if I just learned about this site yesterday and haven't had 4 years for allegedly intelligent non believers to try and show me that I'm fighting a losing battle and fail. 

Brian37 wrote:

Quantum physics will not justify the absurd. It won't justify Thor making lightening. It wont justify Ouija boards or Allah and it wont justify your dead man on a stick claim either.

woah.. such certainty... at least I have you on a topic.  Can you explain study you're referencing to here?  If you have a link that would be great.

Brian37 wrote:

Quantum physics is awesome all by itself and all the freaky things it shows in scientific observation without interjecting an old myth of superstition into it.

ah. so Quantum physics is an avenue you respect... ok... maybe we're getting somewhere then.  

Brian37 wrote:

The universe, biology and evolution are a result of the natural, not fictional superstitious beings humans invent and insert in gaps. Scream it all you want Cap, the earth is not flat and claims of non material thinking beings BY ANY NAME are just as absurd.

I think you're the one screaming 1 eyed wolf and when asked to show it, you call them delusional for thinking they see 2 eyes.  

Brian37 wrote:

Metaphysics=quantum physics..............Thanks for the laugh.

sure, no problem.  I had no idea you'd go as far as to equalify metaphysics to quantum physics.  Kudos to you on that one.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:It's the only

jcgadfly wrote:

It's the only avenue you've offered or used as an excuse as to why you can't offer any other means of proof.

Hi, welcome to the forum.  I can see you haven't had time to look through this whole thread and I don't blame you.  I have offered many many avenues.  Just pick one and we'll go from there.

jcgadfly wrote:

"The existence of God" is still a good topic - metaphysics has been ruled out by you because you can't/won't provide proof in that area.

oh wait... jcgadfly?!  Oh, I'm sorry.  I thought you were someone new.  

Anyway, metaphysics has been ruled out because no one finds it a credible avenue to pursue.  If you believing that it's because I can't or won't provide proof in that area helps you sleep better at night, then that's fine. 

jcgadfly wrote:

My offer still stands - show me something that has no other explanation than "God did it". If a natural explanation is possible then that example would fall short. The "miracles" you mentioned earlier don't count because those can and have been faked by deceitful men.

ah... so because people can fake a miracle... then the ones that really happen that way... never really happened... I see your logic... or lack thereof.  Hate to tell you this, but "God did it" has been a claim by many who have faked it.  That in no way makes every single claim fake.  If that's the case, then the world really is flat and Elvis just went home. 

Look up any Certified miracle by the Vatican and we can talk about it.  Keep in mind, not one that is in the process of certification, but that has already been certified.  

Here, I'll give you a head start:  http://www.vatican.va/latest/documents/escriva_miracolo-canoniz_en.html

I'm still talking - you just stopped listening. Are you frightened or having some cognitive dissonance issues?

Actually, you've already admitted to me that you've changed your approach on here... so are you changing your story now?  By talking I meant saying something substantial. You used to do that.  Then... I don't know... Massive internal brain fart maybe?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

It's the only avenue you've offered or used as an excuse as to why you can't offer any other means of proof.

Hi, welcome to the forum.  I can see you haven't had time to look through this whole thread and I don't blame you.  I have offered many many avenues.  Just pick one and we'll go from there.

jcgadfly wrote:

"The existence of God" is still a good topic - metaphysics has been ruled out by you because you can't/won't provide proof in that area.

oh wait... jcgadfly?!  Oh, I'm sorry.  I thought you were someone new.  

Anyway, metaphysics has been ruled out because no one finds it a credible avenue to pursue.  If you believing that it's because I can't or won't provide proof in that area helps you sleep better at night, then that's fine. 

jcgadfly wrote:

My offer still stands - show me something that has no other explanation than "God did it". If a natural explanation is possible then that example would fall short. The "miracles" you mentioned earlier don't count because those can and have been faked by deceitful men.

ah... so because people can fake a miracle... then the ones that really happen that way... never really happened... I see your logic... or lack thereof.  Hate to tell you this, but "God did it" has been a claim by many who have faked it.  That in no way makes every single claim fake.  If that's the case, then the world really is flat and Elvis just went home. 

Look up any Certified miracle by the Vatican and we can talk about it.  Keep in mind, not one that is in the process of certification, but that has already been certified.  

Here, I'll give you a head start:  http://www.vatican.va/latest/documents/escriva_miracolo-canoniz_en.html

I'm still talking - you just stopped listening. Are you frightened or having some cognitive dissonance issues?

Actually, you've already admitted to me that you've changed your approach on here... so are you changing your story now?  By talking I meant saying something substantial. You used to do that.  Then... I don't know... Massive internal brain fart maybe?

You haven't shown any miracles that "really happen that way" that science (that has not been purchased by the church in order to support their conclusions) has been allowed to examine further so drop that crap right now. the few things that science has been able to look at (ex. Shroud of Turin) has been shown to be fraudulent so I do understand why the RCC doesn't want to risk it.

No one finds metaphysics a credible avenue to pursue because you've given them no reason to.

Just because you don't like the substance of what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm not saying something substantive. Like I said - I'm still talking but you're not listening. Is this cognitive dissonance or do you need a Q-Tip?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I had a

BobSpence1 wrote:

I had a look back though a dozen of so pages here, and you were the first to mention a microscope. I looks like Brian37 mentioned a 'lab', which could be read as going a bit toward the idea of explicitly measuring something but you immediately went way further into inferring the idea of putting something under a microscope.

Are you sure there wasn't any suggestion of studying something physical in a lab such as God DNA?  That would suggest that a microscope is being used and thus would be why i might have mentioned it.  what post was it?  I don't remember ever claiming we could study God under a microscope, if anything I've always said that would be illogical.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

A laboratory can refer to any environment where you endeavour to test some ideas in a controlled environment. This could apply to testing a group of people's reactions to many things, not necessarily 'physical' things like chemicals or physical stimuli, but maybe just purely sociological or psychological contexts, no 'instrument' more technical than a notepad or pen required.

TGBaker referred to DNA, but nowhere in the sense of your ridiculous caricature of "God's sperm'.

I get that and never had a problem with that perspective.  God Sperm is brian's baby.

BobSpence1 wrote:

We just have evidence, not 'metaphysical' evidence. Whether or not you feel it deserved to be called 'metaphysical' is a result of a failure to explain it by 'physical means. We may or may not have some current plausible, logically arguable hypothesis to explain some phenomenon, but to point to 'a result beyond the physical' would be a giant presumption. If something is observable, measurable, even just reported, it is evidence.

that taking into consideration that anything outside the physical is not possible right?  That's the only way it would be a giant presumption.  I have already explained not understanding something is not an excuse to claim "God did it".

BobSpence1 wrote:

A 'result' would be the the outcome of an experiment or observation, which means it is still 'physical' in the sense of manifesting in something we can detect by physical means, even if it is just a specific feeling in our brain, which can all, in principle, be measured by psychological questions or brain scanning equipment. Talking about the 'metaphysical' is empty. There are just those things for which we have some plausible explanation for in terms of already established ideas, and stuff we cannot currently explain. Quantum effects, and relativity, follow strict mathematical laws, but are far less comprehensible to our mind, or tangible, as in a 'physical' object, than many claimed 'metaphysical' phenomena.

metaphysical is empty depending on what angle you want to take.  The typical angle from the religious standpoint of course is empty because it takes no consideration to science.  Metaphysics is brought up whenever any scientific discovery might elude to something outside the phsyical... hence, metaphysical.

any means that you mentioned would be fine.

BobSpence1 wrote:

You seem to be saying 'non-physical' or 'metaphysical' evidence is anything we can't explain in a current scientific context. But that would be applicable to every established scientific theory, if you go far enough back before we developed the explanatory framework to encompass it. Lightning was long considered an act of the Gods, or God. 'Metaphysical' is not a category of evidence - it is a label you are applying to whatever we currently don't understand, that you simply assume cannot ever be explained by 'natural' or 'physical' means. It can only be defined in the negative, which makes it empty.

As I said earlier, not understanding something is no excuse to claim God did it... therefore if this is what you're getting from me, I'm sorry for misleading you and that's not what I meant.  In our day in age, we have enough understanding of science to deduce a scientific possibility, or that something would likely have a scientific explanation even if we don't know what that could be yet.  If it likely doesn't, like an instant cure or the like, then an investigation starts that likely would take years to conclude.  This way all possible avenues are eliminated as possibilities before turning to the God possibility.

BobSpence1 wrote:

What are you referring to by "the constant"? I did not refer to anything that I can see this applying to.

a few pages back, a case study was proposed... nothing specific, but that I should set up a case study... my first question was what the constant would be.  No one could tell me.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is always going to be some subjective influence in any assessment of what seems to be the most likely explanation, in any context. We have techniques such as Bayesian analysis to rigorously allow for our uncertainty in judging any ambiguous evidence, and we encourage independent investigators to reduce the effect of individual bias.

So we never "cancel out choice" with full assurance, in any non-trivial study. We just continue to investigate, gather more observations, etc, and try to reduce the uncertainty to manageable levels. There is no 'constant', 100% certain attainable knowledge about the nature of reality, whether 'physical' or 'metaphysical', except for facts such as that we can never eliminate uncertainty.

Brian, I hope you're reading this.  This is the answer I've been waiting for.  Thank you.  How then would we go about a case study focusing on... i guess the effects of God?  This seems to be what is wanted.  

BobSpence1 wrote:

I was not asking for all the other examples, but to be even vaguely valid as a serious investigation, you need to be able to provide as many as practical, rather than just studying this one. Especially in a context where there were many other instances of houses having all kinds of lucky or unlucky fates, to give us some more reference points, more context. Heck, even one more example would have been a major improvement.

I could find more medical miracles probably than these, but if you want I'll do some homework and see what I can find.  I'm sure i can find a few more.  There's one off the top of my head from Perspectives that talks about a tribe attempting to poison one of their own for trying to bring the Gospel of Jesus into their tribe and the poison not affecting him.

BobSpence1 wrote:

This style of argument, where you imply we are asking for some unattainable or unreasonable standard, such as something that can be put under a microscope, or a neatly compiled set of reference material, when I just ask if you have some more examples or evidence, is really irritating.

Sorry.  I'm used to getting the runaround here.  yes, I can find other examples, one mentioned above and others that might have more to do with houses being spared in a given situation.  Am I to present them on here when compiled?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Even taking this event, or, for that matter, all the reported 'miracles' in the Bible, at face value, they do not remotely point unambiguously to the existence of a being with all the attributes claimed in religious doctrines in any unambiguous sense.

a Christian would take all claimed miracles of the Bible at face value just as you'd take a claim that a pen fell off a table and hit the floor.  Christians know Gods capabilities and know they're all possible and therefore haven't a reason to doubt they happened.  That's not to say that Bible claims are never questioned by Christians, it's our job to understand the Bible in and out so that when someone like you comes by, we can have some sort of logical reasoning to our understanding.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Just to our inevitably imperfect understanding of reality. When I compare all the reports of still unexplained events with the all the instances of events which were in very much the same category, by any standard, but were subsequently found to be due to faulty observation, jumping to conclusions, misunderstanding of reports, or even an element of deliberate hoaxing, I think we need far more solid evidence for the reality of something as utterly beyond our ability to really comprehend as the God defined in the Bible, when we now have many non-supernatural ways to plausibly explain how such ideas and stories arise.

how do you feel about the process the Vatican uses to conclude the liklihood of an official miracle from God?  If you have problems with it, please detail them.  I have not found a flaw in their process yet.  I've tried to look into it quite a bit.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I will try and compile a list of podcasts I think you may find interesting.

thanks

BobSpence1 wrote:

Things with choice, such as ourselves, can still be studied scientifically. That simply means not jumping to conclusions without proper justification, and properly considering alternative possible explanations for what you see and feel.

agreed... Brian are you still following this?  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your terminology continues to seem strange - God not a 'scientific constant' ? And I still don't see what you mean by a 'reliable' constant'. I can't fit it into my 'epistemology'. Scientific constants are things like the speed of light, the charge on an electron, the strength of Gravitational attraction, which are empirically determined to be constant, then a theories are developed based on the assumption that they are constant. When those theories are found to be be consistent with many other observations, that means we can validly assume they really are constant in some universal sense, at least until someone can find indications to the contrary.

Right.  I say that because many of the proposed ideas brought my way through this thread to "prove" the existence of God would require God to be a constant such as the speed of light.    I've been trying to say this all along.  Maybe they'll listen to you.  I'm not always good with words, you seem to be able to explain things better.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I can accept that the origin and governing principles of the Universe may be some kind of 'constant', but that kind of constant would be the diametric opposite of a being capable of choice.

Agreed.   Just because God can choose and we can doesn't mean everything in existence can make a choice.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your have not provided proof for God - saying our arguments don't prove a God was not involved is utterly inadequate, even if true. There are an infinite number of alternative 'explanations' for such events which are at least as plausible and logically consistent as the God of the Bible, and equally impossible to disprove - we haven't disproved them either. God is now seen to be so improbable, and begs far more questions than it 'explains', that it does not deserve to be take seriously, if it wasn't for the number of people who still do, due to the weaknesses and 'flaws' of human imagination.

That sounded good up until the end.  This is based on understanding negates the possibility of God, which is an irrational perspective.

BobSpence1 wrote:

My perspective on history is that if there is such a being, he is far more likely to be an evil prankster, who rather than preventing the fires, chooses a few individuals to be 'miraculously' saved from the disaster, or the diseases he unleashed, or the hurricanes he throws at us, while leaving vast numbers of people to suffer and die. Historically, the majority of persons who died prematurely and innocently, from natural causes, (ie God) were children, babies, the unborn...

God is evil, if he exists. The evidence for that is truly overwhelming.

For you to conclude that, you'd need to understand death and what happens after and what also happened as a result of those deaths opposed to what would have been if they survived.  It's virtually impossible to understand all that and therefore is irrational again to conclude that God allowing those in history to die in the way they did was evil and would have been the worse alternative.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You haven't

jcgadfly wrote:

You haven't shown any miracles that "really happen that way" that science (that has not been purchased by the church in order to support their conclusions) has been allowed to examine further so drop that crap right now. the few things that science has been able to look at (ex. Shroud of Turin) has been shown to be fraudulent so I do understand why the RCC doesn't want to risk it.

Check out the link I just posted.  You obviously still have not looked up the process of declaring a miracle and then debunked it.  You're so sure they have not allowed science to examine them further, so I want you to show me those gaps in their process.  I'm waiting.  Please go ahead.  show me where they don't allow science to work.  

jcgadfly wrote:

No one finds metaphysics a credible avenue to pursue because you've given them no reason to.

has anyone jumped on the topic?  No.  it was immediately dismissed... why would I persue it further when it was automatically declined?  Are you telling me you want to discuss metaphysics?  if not then "drop that crap right now"

jcgadfly wrote:

Just because you don't like the substance of what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm not saying something substantive. Like I said - I'm still talking but you're not listening. Is this cognitive dissonance or do you need a Q-Tip?

I'm reading carefully.  You know how I work.  if you say something, I will listen and reply.  The current alternate conversation is a good example.  When you say nothing and then try to tell me I'm wrong.  I will give you crap for it.  No exception.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I've asked you several times

I've asked you several times to provide "metaphysical evidence" as you claim that's the only kind you can provide. Why are you lying and saying that no one has offered to discuss this?

On the miracle attributed to the founder of Opus Dei...

1. They didn't publish the credentials of the doctor who claimed to receive the miracle.

2. They didn't publish who diagnosed the radiodermatitis - did he diagnose himself?

3. There is no record of a doctor who pronounced the radiodermatitis as cured.

4. The only mentioning of an examination were those performed by a group of people less concerned with "Is it a miracle?" than with "Did Escriva perform this miracle?"

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I've asked

jcgadfly wrote:

I've asked you several times to provide "metaphysical evidence" as you claim that's the only kind you can provide. Why are you lying and saying that no one has offered to discuss this?

On the miracle attributed to the founder of Opus Dei...

1. They didn't publish the credentials of the doctor who claimed to receive the miracle.

2. They didn't publish who diagnosed the radiodermatitis - did he diagnose himself?

3. There is no record of a doctor who pronounced the radiodermatitis as cured.

4. The only mentioning of an examination were those performed by a group of people less concerned with "Is it a miracle?" than with "Did Escriva perform this miracle?"

Cap's problem is that he treats "metaphysics" as some sort of equal method on par with scientific method and CANNOT accept or is in denial that "metaphysics" is nothing more than elaborate babble.

Now again, if you trace his history over this thread, over the years it goes something like this.

1. "This book is the shit(original post)"

"They're not buying it, I'll try something else"

2." A house was magically saved from a fire"( ignoring selection bias and sample rate errors in his logic)

3."Words don't mean what they mean"

4."You cant prove there isn't a god"

5. "Metaphysics".

6. "Metaphysics is justified by quantum physics"

Amongst other things.

He wont face that he has nothing because his ego wont allow it. I don't bother trying to address his pseudo science. He is merely and falsely trying to get us on his Yellow Brick road.

He cant take his claims to a neutral setting because he is not a scientist, he is an apologist who is trying to retrofit science to prop up his magic invisible non material super brain.

Unless or until he sees why he rejects Thor making lightening as being the same as his pet god claim, he will dodge everything you are attempting to challenge him with.

It is totally foreign to him the idea that he got sucked into believing a really bad claim. But he has no problem looking at Muslims or Hindus or even Scientologists and points the finger at them.

He is a fool, all be it a nice and likable fool, to think he is special and he has escaped flawed logic and gap filling while having no problem accusing other god believers of other sects and other religions.

Hopefully for his own sake he will come around and wake up.

My challenge to him is the same for ANYONE claiming any pet invisible non material thinking deity(by any name).

Come up with a universal, testable, falsifiable model that DEMONSTRATES HOW a thought can arise out of a non material process. THEN and only then can the idea of a god be proposed, and even then that still wouldn't be proof of an "all powerful" god or that one particular label of god is true over all others.

The fact is NO ONE, no Muslim, no Jew no Hindu no Mormon, no one in the past or present of any label can do the above. But he is a fool to think quantum physics or much less "metaphysics" justifies his particular deity over all others.

I like Cap in that he has taken a beating from us for the past 3 almost 4 years and hasn't run way treating us like Hitler or Osama Bin Laden.  But again, I really hope for his sake he gives up on his fiction before he wastes his entire life on it.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I had a look back though a dozen of so pages here, and you were the first to mention a microscope. I looks like Brian37 mentioned a 'lab', which could be read as going a bit toward the idea of explicitly measuring something but you immediately went way further into inferring the idea of putting something under a microscope.

Are you sure there wasn't any suggestion of studying something physical in a lab such as God DNA?  That would suggest that a microscope is being used and thus would be why i might have mentioned it.  what post was it?  I don't remember ever claiming we could study God under a microscope, if anything I've always said that would be illogical.  

Yes there was indeed the idea of studying something in a lab, such as 'God DNA'. But that does not require a microscope, although very fancy electron microscopes have been used in some studies of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the processes of cellular replication can use more ordinary microscopes.

But DNA sequencing does not use microscopes.

And I didn't say you claimed we "could study God under a microscope", of course you did explicitly deny it. But you are the one who implied we were making such a claim, and tried to make it sound even more ridiculous by suggesting that we had the idea of using a microscope to study God.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

A laboratory can refer to any environment where you endeavour to test some ideas in a controlled environment. This could apply to testing a group of people's reactions to many things, not necessarily 'physical' things like chemicals or physical stimuli, but maybe just purely sociological or psychological contexts, no 'instrument' more technical than a notepad or pen required.

TGBaker referred to DNA, but nowhere in the sense of your ridiculous caricature of "God's sperm'.

I get that and never had a problem with that perspective.  God Sperm is brian's baby.

Which does have some relevance to 'virgin birth' claims.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

We just have evidence, not 'metaphysical' evidence. Whether or not you feel it deserved to be called 'metaphysical' is a result of a failure to explain it by 'physical means. We may or may not have some current plausible, logically arguable hypothesis to explain some phenomenon, but to point to 'a result beyond the physical' would be a giant presumption. If something is observable, measurable, even just reported, it is evidence.

that taking into consideration that anything outside the physical is not possible right?  That's the only way it would be a giant presumption.  I have already explained not understanding something is not an excuse to claim "God did it".

No, not so much 'not possible', but totally unnecessary, or even a meaningless idea in itself. It IS a giant presumption that we have to subdivide reality into what is accessible to science and some other realm where magical, transcendental, ideas like 'infinite, all-powerful, conscious beings might plausibly exist yet be not detectable by science, even though science can detect and measure all kinds of things we never even dreamed about before, from quarks to dark matter, from viruses to the subconscious workings of our own mind.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

A 'result' would be the the outcome of an experiment or observation, which means it is still 'physical' in the sense of manifesting in something we can detect by physical means, even if it is just a specific feeling in our brain, which can all, in principle, be measured by psychological questions or brain scanning equipment. Talking about the 'metaphysical' is empty. There are just those things for which we have some plausible explanation for in terms of already established ideas, and stuff we cannot currently explain. Quantum effects, and relativity, follow strict mathematical laws, but are far less comprehensible to our mind, or tangible, as in a 'physical' object, than many claimed 'metaphysical' phenomena.

metaphysical is empty depending on what angle you want to take.  The typical angle from the religious standpoint of course is empty because it takes no consideration to science.  Metaphysics is brought up whenever any scientific discovery might elude to something outside the phsyical... hence, metaphysical.

any means that you mentioned would be fine.

But of course, your distinction between the 'physical' and the 'non-physical' is a category error.

Science already addresses the 'non-physical', such as the more abstract principles which govern the way complex systems behave, such as the related areas of complexity theory, chaos theory, non-linear systems, and the evolutionary paradigm as a generalization of Darwin's ideas. These are not tied to any specific physical manifestation.

There is also the study of intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, which include efforts to study the fundamentals of what they are, as processes divorced from particular 'physical' examples.

And how space and time may ha

aphysics'. Science has expanded to encompass those ideas, because they are inspired by what our research has revealed that we had no concept of before, and in turn inform our hypotheses and what to study in the future.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

What are you referring to by "the constant"? I did not refer to anything that I can see this applying to.

a few pages back, a case study was proposed... nothing specific, but that I should set up a case study... my first question was what the constant would be.  No one could tell me.  

That still doesn't even begin to clarify what you mean by 'the constant'.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is always going to be some subjective influence in any assessment of what seems to be the most likely explanation, in any context. We have techniques such as Bayesian analysis to rigorously allow for our uncertainty in judging any ambiguous evidence, and we encourage independent investigators to reduce the effect of individual bias.

So we never "cancel out choice" with full assurance, in any non-trivial study. We just continue to investigate, gather more observations, etc, and try to reduce the uncertainty to manageable levels. There is no 'constant', 100% certain attainable knowledge about the nature of reality, whether 'physical' or 'metaphysical', except for facts such as that we can never eliminate uncertainty.

Brian, I hope you're reading this.  This is the answer I've been waiting for.  Thank you.  How then would we go about a case study focusing on... i guess the effects of God?  This seems to be what is wanted.  

Lesser versions of this have already been attempted, especially focussing around the effects of prayer, which have come up negative, within the bounds of experimental error.

It would really just have to look for departures from statistical pure chance in all kinds of contexts, in some way that could not be explained by as yet undiscovered non-sentient forces.

Problem is that even if the influence of some consciousness on worldly events could be detected, there is no easy way to prove it was due to anything like 'God'. Intelligent aliens are always going to be more plausible than 'God' as described in scripture. How could we possibly prove this influence was of an 'infinite' being, of infinite power, or even begin to determine the motives of such a being? This dilemma is faced by believers, quite independent of 'science', if they would be honest.

t applies to the traditional theological arguments for God - demonstration of a 'First Cause' says nothing about the nature of that First Cause, now that we know that complexity does not require an even more complex 'cause'.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I was not asking for all the other examples, but to be even vaguely valid as a serious investigation, you need to be able to provide as many as practical, rather than just studying this one. Especially in a context where there were many other instances of houses having all kinds of lucky or unlucky fates, to give us some more reference points, more context. Heck, even one more example would have been a major improvement.

I could find more medical miracles probably than these, but if you want I'll do some homework and see what I can find.  I'm sure i can find a few more.  There's one off the top of my head from Perspectives that talks about a tribe attempting to poison one of their own for trying to bring the Gospel of Jesus into their tribe and the poison not affecting him.

BobSpence1 wrote:

This style of argument, where you imply we are asking for some unattainable or unreasonable standard, such as something that can be put under a microscope, or a neatly compiled set of reference material, when I just ask if you have some more examples or evidence, is really irritating.

Sorry.  I'm used to getting the runaround here.  yes, I can find other examples, one mentioned above and others that might have more to do with houses being spared in a given situation.  Am I to present them on here when compiled?

Sure, if you want to back up your original claim. It doesn't have to be detailed, but the less detail is available for each case, the more examples are needed to find some consistent trend.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Even taking this event, or, for that matter, all the reported 'miracles' in the Bible, at face value, they do not remotely point unambiguously to the existence of a being with all the attributes claimed in religious doctrines in any unambiguous sense.

a Christian would take all claimed miracles of the Bible at face value just as you'd take a claim that a pen fell off a table and hit the floor.  Christians know Gods capabilities and know they're all possible and therefore haven't a reason to doubt they happened.  That's not to say that Bible claims are never questioned by Christians, it's our job to understand the Bible in and out so that when someone like you comes by, we can have some sort of logical reasoning to our understanding.

Christians claim to know God's capabilities, but there is no way they can know that with any confidence. They are not all 'possible', within current understanding of every other aspect of reality. They are naked assertions, speculations, based on ancient and faulty understanding of what might be possible, of how things 'work', and the pre-supposition that God exists, rather then being something that needs to be demonstrated.

All you have in the Bible are mysteries, not explicit witnesses of God's attributes. Or experiences of God seeming to speak to them, which we know can be explained by purely psychological mechanisms in our mind.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Just to our inevitably imperfect understanding of reality. When I compare all the reports of still unexplained events with the all the instances of events which were in very much the same category, by any standard, but were subsequently found to be due to faulty observation, jumping to conclusions, misunderstanding of reports, or even an element of deliberate hoaxing, I think we need far more solid evidence for the reality of something as utterly beyond our ability to really comprehend as the God defined in the Bible, when we now have many non-supernatural ways to plausibly explain how such ideas and stories arise.

how do you feel about the process the Vatican uses to conclude the liklihood of an official miracle from God?  If you have problems with it, please detail them.  I have not found a flaw in their process yet.  I've tried to look into it quite a bit.

Everything I have read on these, and comments by serious, qualified investigators, like Robert Winston, who is NOT an atheist, seem to show little justification for claiming them as miracles.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I will try and compile a list of podcasts I think you may find interesting.

thanks

BobSpence1 wrote:

Things with choice, such as ourselves, can still be studied scientifically. That simply means not jumping to conclusions without proper justification, and properly considering alternative possible explanations for what you see and feel.

agreed... Brian are you still following this?  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your terminology continues to seem strange - God not a 'scientific constant' ? And I still don't see what you mean by a 'reliable' constant'. I can't fit it into my 'epistemology'. Scientific constants are things like the speed of light, the charge on an electron, the strength of Gravitational attraction, which are empirically determined to be constant, then a theories are developed based on the assumption that they are constant. When those theories are found to be be consistent with many other observations, that means we can validly assume they really are constant in some universal sense, at least until someone can find indications to the contrary.

Right.  I say that because many of the proposed ideas brought my way through this thread to "prove" the existence of God would require God to be a constant such as the speed of light.    I've been trying to say this all along.  Maybe they'll listen to you.  I'm not always good with words, you seem to be able to explain things better.

I've never seen posts which seem to read that way, sorry. I still don't understand this idea. Although I am happy to accept some version of that, which would make God just a metaphorical label on a non-conscious principle of Physics, as in the next bit of my post that you quote.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I can accept that the origin and governing principles of the Universe may be some kind of 'constant', but that kind of constant would be the diametric opposite of a being capable of choice.

Agreed.   Just because God can choose and we can doesn't mean everything in existence can make a choice.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your have not provided proof for God - saying our arguments don't prove a God was not involved is utterly inadequate, even if true. There are an infinite number of alternative 'explanations' for such events which are at least as plausible and logically consistent as the God of the Bible, and equally impossible to disprove - we haven't disproved them either. God is now seen to be so improbable, and begs far more questions than it 'explains', that it does not deserve to be take seriously, if it wasn't for the number of people who still do, due to the weaknesses and 'flaws' of human imagination.

That sounded good up until the end.  This is based on understanding negates the possibility of God, which is an irrational perspective.

Understanding doesn't "negates the possibility", it reduces the need to posit a 'God' to explain anything, and raises the need to explain how God would fit in to our expanded comprehension of reality. God is now something that needs to be explained, rather than an explanation. It is irrational to insist on believing something that no longer provides the most clearly plausible or predictive framework for understanding, even if we cannot actually disprove it. Ask William of Ockham.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

My perspective on history is that if there is such a being, he is far more likely to be an evil prankster, who rather than preventing the fires, chooses a few individuals to be 'miraculously' saved from the disaster, or the diseases he unleashed, or the hurricanes he throws at us, while leaving vast numbers of people to suffer and die. Historically, the majority of persons who died prematurely and innocently, from natural causes, (ie God) were children, babies, the unborn...

God is evil, if he exists. The evidence for that is truly overwhelming.

For you to conclude that, you'd need to understand death and what happens after and what also happened as a result of those deaths opposed to what would have been if they survived.  It's virtually impossible to understand all that and therefore is irrational again to conclude that God allowing those in history to die in the way they did was evil and would have been the worse alternative.  

So the fact that, over historical time, 50 billion children have died at an early age, even before birth, from natural causes, ie because of the hostile nature of the world that God supposedly created, before they could begin to comprehend belief, is possibly defensible? Or that there is some ultimate good that might follow from children rendered blind by parasites that God created?

Of course there is always the possibility, however remote, that there is some hypothetical 'higher purpose' served by such apparently pointless deaths, but on what basis would you conclude that an infinitely powerful and 'loving' entity could not find some other way of achieving that, and why would he need to cause such suffering in a mortal race to achieve his purpose? And why would his purpose necessarily be morally compelling to us? Why do presume we are more than a tool or a plaything to this hypothetical being? Concocting a story to fool us into doing what he wanted for whatever ulterior motives he might have would be trivial for such a being.

Why would you even entertain such an idea, when there are far simpler, more likely explanations for why everything happens the way we observe?

You think that facts like that some houses escaped a fire in unusual but not impossible circumstances, among a vast number that suffered the more common and expected fate, given the reality that unusual events will happen naturally at least some of the time, given enough time, justifies such claims in the face of what evidence we do have??

Even if you feel you need a God to explain some mysteries, the idea of a God who is not omni-benevolent, doesn't ultimately care how much suffering he causes, is prepared to put on the occasional stunt like the resurrection, and so on, is a far more plausible and comprehensible interpretation of the Bible and history than yours.

Completely solves the classic "Problem of Evil" for a start. And doesn't violate logic any more than the conventional interpretation does, arguably less so.

EDIT: Of course. It is blindingly obvious to me that tossing the illogical God concept out makes things even simpler.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:caposkia

BobSpence1 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I had a look back though a dozen of so pages here, and you were the first to mention a microscope. I looks like Brian37 mentioned a 'lab', which could be read as going a bit toward the idea of explicitly measuring something but you immediately went way further into inferring the idea of putting something under a microscope.

Are you sure there wasn't any suggestion of studying something physical in a lab such as God DNA?  That would suggest that a microscope is being used and thus would be why i might have mentioned it.  what post was it?  I don't remember ever claiming we could study God under a microscope, if anything I've always said that would be illogical.  

Yes there was indeed the idea of studying something in a lab, such as 'God DNA'. But that does not require a microscope, although very fancy electron microscopes have been used in some studies of the structure of the DNA molecule, and the processes of cellular replication can use more ordinary microscopes.

But DNA sequencing does not use microscopes.

And I didn't say you claimed we "could study God under a microscope", of course you did explicitly deny it. But you are the one who implied we were making such a claim, and tried to make it sound even more ridiculous by suggesting that we had the idea of using a microscope to study God.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

A laboratory can refer to any environment where you endeavour to test some ideas in a controlled environment. This could apply to testing a group of people's reactions to many things, not necessarily 'physical' things like chemicals or physical stimuli, but maybe just purely sociological or psychological contexts, no 'instrument' more technical than a notepad or pen required.

TGBaker referred to DNA, but nowhere in the sense of your ridiculous caricature of "God's sperm'.

I get that and never had a problem with that perspective.  God Sperm is brian's baby.

Which does have some relevance to 'virgin birth' claims.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

We just have evidence, not 'metaphysical' evidence. Whether or not you feel it deserved to be called 'metaphysical' is a result of a failure to explain it by 'physical means. We may or may not have some current plausible, logically arguable hypothesis to explain some phenomenon, but to point to 'a result beyond the physical' would be a giant presumption. If something is observable, measurable, even just reported, it is evidence.

that taking into consideration that anything outside the physical is not possible right?  That's the only way it would be a giant presumption.  I have already explained not understanding something is not an excuse to claim "God did it".

No, not so much 'not possible', but totally unnecessary, or even a meaningless idea in itself. It IS a giant presumption that we have to subdivide reality into what is accessible to science and some other realm where magical, transcendental, ideas like 'infinite, all-powerful, conscious beings might plausibly exist yet be not detectable by science, even though science can detect and measure all kinds of things we never even dreamed about before, from quarks to dark matter, from viruses to the subconscious workings of our own mind.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

A 'result' would be the the outcome of an experiment or observation, which means it is still 'physical' in the sense of manifesting in something we can detect by physical means, even if it is just a specific feeling in our brain, which can all, in principle, be measured by psychological questions or brain scanning equipment. Talking about the 'metaphysical' is empty. There are just those things for which we have some plausible explanation for in terms of already established ideas, and stuff we cannot currently explain. Quantum effects, and relativity, follow strict mathematical laws, but are far less comprehensible to our mind, or tangible, as in a 'physical' object, than many claimed 'metaphysical' phenomena.

metaphysical is empty depending on what angle you want to take.  The typical angle from the religious standpoint of course is empty because it takes no consideration to science.  Metaphysics is brought up whenever any scientific discovery might elude to something outside the phsyical... hence, metaphysical.

any means that you mentioned would be fine.

But of course, your distinction between the 'physical' and the 'non-physical' is a category error.

Science already addresses the 'non-physical', such as the more abstract principles which govern the way complex systems behave, such as the related areas of complexity theory, chaos theory, non-linear systems, and the evolutionary paradigm as a generalization of Darwin's ideas. These are not tied to any specific physical manifestation.

There is also the study of intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, which include efforts to study the fundamentals of what they are, as processes divorced from particular 'physical' examples.

And how space and time may have more dimensions than we assume, and may be 'curved'. These all would have fallen into 'metaphysics' in the mind of the Greeks who introduced the idea of 'metaphysics'. Science has expanded to encompass those ideas, because they are inspired by what our research has revealed that we had no concept of before, and in turn inform our hypotheses and what to study in the future.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

What are you referring to by "the constant"? I did not refer to anything that I can see this applying to.

a few pages back, a case study was proposed... nothing specific, but that I should set up a case study... my first question was what the constant would be.  No one could tell me.  

That still doesn't even begin to clarify what you mean by 'the constant'.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is always going to be some subjective influence in any assessment of what seems to be the most likely explanation, in any context. We have techniques such as Bayesian analysis to rigorously allow for our uncertainty in judging any ambiguous evidence, and we encourage independent investigators to reduce the effect of individual bias.

So we never "cancel out choice" with full assurance, in any non-trivial study. We just continue to investigate, gather more observations, etc, and try to reduce the uncertainty to manageable levels. There is no 'constant', 100% certain attainable knowledge about the nature of reality, whether 'physical' or 'metaphysical', except for facts such as that we can never eliminate uncertainty.

Brian, I hope you're reading this.  This is the answer I've been waiting for.  Thank you.  How then would we go about a case study focusing on... i guess the effects of God?  This seems to be what is wanted.  

Lesser versions of this have already been attempted, especially focussing around the effects of prayer, which have come up negative, within the bounds of experimental error.

It would really just have to look for departures from statistical pure chance in all kinds of contexts, in some way that could not be explained by as yet undiscovered non-sentient forces.

Problem is that even if the influence of some consciousness on worldly events could be detected, there is no easy way to prove it was due to anything like 'God'. Intelligent aliens are always going to be more plausible than 'God' as described in scripture. How could we possibly prove this influence was of an 'infinite' being, of infinite power, or even begin to determine the motives of such a being? This dilemma is faced by believers, quite independent of 'science', if they would be honest.

t applies to the traditional theological arguments for God - demonstration of a 'First Cause' says nothing about the nature of that First Cause, now that we know that complexity does not require an even more complex 'cause'.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I was not asking for all the other examples, but to be even vaguely valid as a serious investigation, you need to be able to provide as many as practical, rather than just studying this one. Especially in a context where there were many other instances of houses having all kinds of lucky or unlucky fates, to give us some more reference points, more context. Heck, even one more example would have been a major improvement.

I could find more medical miracles probably than these, but if you want I'll do some homework and see what I can find.  I'm sure i can find a few more.  There's one off the top of my head from Perspectives that talks about a tribe attempting to poison one of their own for trying to bring the Gospel of Jesus into their tribe and the poison not affecting him.

BobSpence1 wrote:

This style of argument, where you imply we are asking for some unattainable or unreasonable standard, such as something that can be put under a microscope, or a neatly compiled set of reference material, when I just ask if you have some more examples or evidence, is really irritating.

Sorry.  I'm used to getting the runaround here.  yes, I can find other examples, one mentioned above and others that might have more to do with houses being spared in a given situation.  Am I to present them on here when compiled?

Sure, if you want to back up your original claim. It doesn't have to be detailed, but the less detail is available for each case, the more examples are needed to find some consistent trend.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Even taking this event, or, for that matter, all the reported 'miracles' in the Bible, at face value, they do not remotely point unambiguously to the existence of a being with all the attributes claimed in religious doctrines in any unambiguous sense.

a Christian would take all claimed miracles of the Bible at face value just as you'd take a claim that a pen fell off a table and hit the floor.  Christians know Gods capabilities and know they're all possible and therefore haven't a reason to doubt they happened.  That's not to say that Bible claims are never questioned by Christians, it's our job to understand the Bible in and out so that when someone like you comes by, we can have some sort of logical reasoning to our understanding.

Christians claim to know God's capabilities, but there is no way they can know that with any confidence. They are not all 'possible', within current understanding of every other aspect of reality. They are naked assertions, speculations, based on ancient and faulty understanding of what might be possible, of how things 'work', and the pre-supposition that God exists, rather then being something that needs to be demonstrated.

All you have in the Bible are mysteries, not explicit witnesses of God's attributes. Or experiences of God seeming to speak to them, which we know can be explained by purely psychological mechanisms in our mind.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Just to our inevitably imperfect understanding of reality. When I compare all the reports of still unexplained events with the all the instances of events which were in very much the same category, by any standard, but were subsequently found to be due to faulty observation, jumping to conclusions, misunderstanding of reports, or even an element of deliberate hoaxing, I think we need far more solid evidence for the reality of something as utterly beyond our ability to really comprehend as the God defined in the Bible, when we now have many non-supernatural ways to plausibly explain how such ideas and stories arise.

how do you feel about the process the Vatican uses to conclude the liklihood of an official miracle from God?  If you have problems with it, please detail them.  I have not found a flaw in their process yet.  I've tried to look into it quite a bit.

Everything I have read on these, and comments by serious, qualified investigators, like Robert Winston, who is NOT an atheist, seem to show little justification for claiming them as miracles.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I will try and compile a list of podcasts I think you may find interesting.

thanks

BobSpence1 wrote:

Things with choice, such as ourselves, can still be studied scientifically. That simply means not jumping to conclusions without proper justification, and properly considering alternative possible explanations for what you see and feel.

agreed... Brian are you still following this?  

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your terminology continues to seem strange - God not a 'scientific constant' ? And I still don't see what you mean by a 'reliable' constant'. I can't fit it into my 'epistemology'. Scientific constants are things like the speed of light, the charge on an electron, the strength of Gravitational attraction, which are empirically determined to be constant, then a theories are developed based on the assumption that they are constant. When those theories are found to be be consistent with many other observations, that means we can validly assume they really are constant in some universal sense, at least until someone can find indications to the contrary.

Right.  I say that because many of the proposed ideas brought my way through this thread to "prove" the existence of God would require God to be a constant such as the speed of light.    I've been trying to say this all along.  Maybe they'll listen to you.  I'm not always good with words, you seem to be able to explain things better.

I've never seen posts which seem to read that way, sorry. I still don't understand this idea. Although I am happy to accept some version of that, which would make God just a metaphorical label on a non-conscious principle of Physics, as in the next bit of my post that you quote.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I can accept that the origin and governing principles of the Universe may be some kind of 'constant', but that kind of constant would be the diametric opposite of a being capable of choice.

Agreed.   Just because God can choose and we can doesn't mean everything in existence can make a choice.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your have not provided proof for God - saying our arguments don't prove a God was not involved is utterly inadequate, even if true. There are an infinite number of alternative 'explanations' for such events which are at least as plausible and logically consistent as the God of the Bible, and equally impossible to disprove - we haven't disproved them either. God is now seen to be so improbable, and begs far more questions than it 'explains', that it does not deserve to be take seriously, if it wasn't for the number of people who still do, due to the weaknesses and 'flaws' of human imagination.

That sounded good up until the end.  This is based on understanding negates the possibility of God, which is an irrational perspective.

Understanding doesn't "negates the possibility", it reduces the need to posit a 'God' to explain anything, and raises the need to explain how God would fit in to our expanded comprehension of reality. God is now something that needs to be explained, rather than an explanation. It is irrational to insist on believing something that no longer provides the most clearly plausible or predictive framework for understanding, even if we cannot actually disprove it. Ask William of Ockham.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

My perspective on history is that if there is such a being, he is far more likely to be an evil prankster, who rather than preventing the fires, chooses a few individuals to be 'miraculously' saved from the disaster, or the diseases he unleashed, or the hurricanes he throws at us, while leaving vast numbers of people to suffer and die. Historically, the majority of persons who died prematurely and innocently, from natural causes, (ie God) were children, babies, the unborn...

God is evil, if he exists. The evidence for that is truly overwhelming.

For you to conclude that, you'd need to understand death and what happens after and what also happened as a result of those deaths opposed to what would have been if they survived.  It's virtually impossible to understand all that and therefore is irrational again to conclude that God allowing those in history to die in the way they did was evil and would have been the worse alternative.  

So the fact that, over historical time, 50 billion children have died at an early age, even before birth, from natural causes, ie because of the hostile nature of the world that God supposedly created, before they could begin to comprehend belief, is possibly defensible? Or that there is some ultimate good that might follow from children rendered blind by parasites that God created?

Of course there is always the possibility, however remote, that there is some hypothetical 'higher purpose' served by such apparently pointless deaths, but on what basis would you conclude that an infinitely powerful and 'loving' entity could not find some other way of achieving that, and why would he need to cause such suffering in a mortal race to achieve his purpose? And why would his purpose necessarily be morally compelling to us? Why do presume we are more than a tool or a plaything to this hypothetical being? Concocting a story to fool us into doing what he wanted for whatever ulterior motives he might have would be trivial for such a being.

Why would you even entertain such an idea, when there are far simpler, more likely explanations for why everything happens the way we observe?

You think that facts like that some houses escaped a fire in unusual but not impossible circumstances, among a vast number that suffered the more common and expected fate, given the reality that unusual events will happen naturally at least some of the time, given enough time, justifies such claims in the face of what evidence we do have??

BOB, I AM GOING TO BITCH SLAP YOU!(Not really, but dude, don't feed is fantasy)LOL

There is no possibility of a "higher purpose" other than the semantic fleeting sense. I don't know the future so "I guess" it is possible that I will get a blow job from Angelina Jolie.

Most humans, including Cap, can accept that tornados and hurricanes don't have brains. So why would what we don't know about the universe, or what was before it, need any more cognition when we see nothing outside evolution that has cognition.

It makes sense that, just like a hurricane doesn't have a brain, the big bang and evolution and everything in the universe is the result of processes, not cognition.

Here's what he is thinking when you do that, Jim Carry in Dumb and Dumber, "So you're saying there's a chance"

DONT FEED HIS FANTASY.

Gaps in whatever we have not discovered do not require myth or superstition. When you say things like that he falsely misunderstands this as "approaching a googol fraction of a cunt hair of "no chance" as being fleeting" he will conflate that "chance" as being 50/50 or use the unscientific untested excuses of "miracle" and "god did it" to justify the absurdly gigantic odds against him.

 

I don't want him to think gaps can be filled with ancient myths and invisible non-material beings anymore than he thinks I will ever fart a Lamborghini out of my ass simply because Lamborghini's exist and my ass exists.

I don't mind your good cop motif here, but boy does my lip twitch when you say things like this.

Our goal is to pull him out of fantasy land, not keep him there.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Bob, the flying spaghetti

Bob, the flying spaghetti monster must be screwing with the quotes in this thread, can you fix my last post?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Scientific Evidence

A fairly good description of scientific evidence is an observation that could have falsified a hypothesis, but did not.

 

In order to have evidence for your view, you must identify what counts as evidence against your view.  Cap, you have "excused" the deaths of billions of children by referencing the unknown.  Will you similarly excuse unanswered prayers, failed medical treatment, and so on?  Every time you retreat from potential falsification, you inhibit your ability to gain evidence.  Because you are not willing to admit that the deaths of innocent people count as evidence against your god, you cannot count any "miraculous" survival or recoveries as evidence for your god.  If you will not admit that evil counts as evidence against your god, then you cannot use good as evidence for your god.

 

Don't tell us what confirms your beliefs.  Instead, tell us what would, if observed, falsify them.  You can't gain any evidence for your position until you can tell us what would count as evidence against your position.  Before you can support the idea that God exists, you have to determine what observations would indicate that God doesn't exist.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Bob, the

Brian37 wrote:

Bob, the flying spaghetti monster must be screwing with the quotes in this thread, can you fix my last post?

Fixed.

It did add the following to my post:

Quote:

Completely solves the classic "Problem of Evil" for a start. And doesn't violate logic any more than the conventional interpretation does, arguably less so.

EDIT: Of course. It is blindingly obvious to me that tossing the illogical God concept out makes things even simpler.

I know that's not gonna be enough for you, dammit! But you can still be the 'bad cop'...

BTW, I just heard a couple of jokes that I just have to tell you, but not here.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:A fairly good

Zaq wrote:

A fairly good description of scientific evidence is an observation that could have falsified a hypothesis, but did not.

 

In order to have evidence for your view, you must identify what counts as evidence against your view.  Cap, you have "excused" the deaths of billions of children by referencing the unknown.  Will you similarly excuse unanswered prayers, failed medical treatment, and so on?  Every time you retreat from potential falsification, you inhibit your ability to gain evidence.  Because you are not willing to admit that the deaths of innocent people count as evidence against your god, you cannot count any "miraculous" survival or recoveries as evidence for your god.  If you will not admit that evil counts as evidence against your god, then you cannot use good as evidence for your god.

 

Don't tell us what confirms your beliefs.  Instead, tell us what would, if observed, falsify them.  You can't gain any evidence for your position until you can tell us what would count as evidence against your position.  Before you can support the idea that God exists, you have to determine what observations would indicate that God doesn't exist.

Never underestimate the credulity of believers or their ability to come up with excuses.

"You wouldn't understand. No one can understand. God can do what he wants. God is all powerful. He doesn't have to explain himself to you".

Cap fails to see all those claims as mere claims just like is pet god is a mere claim. Once you buy any naked assertion what you build after that is based on that naked assertion.

If he would for once, take himself outside his own pet whim, he could, if he really wanted to, understand that if others used the same excuses and naked assertions he does with other god/s, he could understand why his logic fails as well.

But he is deep in it, and what I mentioned above is what he will resort to and or dodge.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Not that I see myself every

Not that I see myself every buying into the god of Abraham, but the only way I could(minus the scientific absurdity of such) would be if the claimants of such would stop saying he cares and doesn't want anything bad happening to us. I could believe that there is a prick in the sky who likes using us a lab rats for his own amusement.  That being just as absurd as a loving god, would be more consistent with we actually observe. The real answer to "evil" is that shit happens that we don't want happening to us.

However, if such a god were real, he has one sick twisted sense of morality/humor.

29.000 kids in Somalia died from starvation last month under the watch of their alleged deity. And that does not include all the death of every war in human history or the death of every natural disaster in human history. The only way to buy into a cosmic super hero, is to buy into the same book in which this fictional character watches while a flood murders all but one family, and where children of Egypt and Israel get murdered in the book under his watch.

If parents in America provided such a crappy home to their kids CPS would have the parent arrested and charged.

Lack of education and even lack of understanding of human psychology, even by those with an education that do believe, explain why these placebo superstitions, polytheistic and monotheistic exist.

But to think that with all the shit that happens that there is a God who wants to save us. Please, no thanks, considering the inconsistent track record, I would not want to hang out with such a selective deadbeat who cant seem fit make it clear to all of us without all the bloodshed and drama while all he seems to want us to do is kiss his ass.

Death happens because it does. War happens because it does. Tsunamis happen because they do. There is no need for Thor to create lightening and there is no need to invent a god to explain either the good or bad in life.

There are natural explanations to life, and whatever gaps we have now, do not need to be, nor should be filled with the ancient rantings of people who didn't know shit about modern science.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jefferson proposed the idea

Jefferson proposed the idea that God started everything and stepped aside and did nothing after that. But he did not buy into any of the magical stories in the bible. That would be closer to something more consistent with what we see in reality, even though still having the same amount of scientific evidence as a God that does get involved".

My point even would be with Jefferson "Why?"

What is the point of all this?

I'm trying to get Cap to see no matter what deity you slap onto the cause of all this you are going to have huge problems, scientifically and morally, even more so morally even with Jefferson's deistic god who stepped aside.

Where as if life an the universe have no purpose anymore than a hurricane or tornanado you can accept bad shit happening without creating fictional super heros to explain the bad shit.

Once you shed all deity claims and superstition you can focus on what we have proven and can prove and study to minimize the harm that all of reality can throw at us.

No one could stop lightening by praying to Thor. But now that we know what it is, we can head warnings by weather people by going inside AND even by putting up the inventions of lightening rods next to buildings which have a higher tendency to be hit.

No one can pray a fertility god and expect the same type of affect and knowledge of a fertility doctor.

And most certainly Steve Jobs and Bill Gates did not pray to a fictional computer god to invent the personal computer which humanity has greatly benefited from.

What all of us here are TRYING to get you to see Cap, despite your claims of objectivity, your god is not only an absurdity as a concept, but fails way short of the REAL evidence that explains both the good and bad we see in life without superstition.

God never built a damned thing, humans invent gods as a gap answer because humans are and have always been capable of believing absurd and patiently false things.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:A fairly good

Zaq wrote:

A fairly good description of scientific evidence is an observation that could have falsified a hypothesis, but did not.

 

In order to have evidence for your view, you must identify what counts as evidence against your view.  Cap, you have "excused" the deaths of billions of children by referencing the unknown.  Will you similarly excuse unanswered prayers, failed medical treatment, and so on?  Every time you retreat from potential falsification, you inhibit your ability to gain evidence.  Because you are not willing to admit that the deaths of innocent people count as evidence against your god, you cannot count any "miraculous" survival or recoveries as evidence for your god.  If you will not admit that evil counts as evidence against your god, then you cannot use good as evidence for your god.

 

Don't tell us what confirms your beliefs.  Instead, tell us what would, if observed, falsify them.  You can't gain any evidence for your position until you can tell us what would count as evidence against your position.  Before you can support the idea that God exists, you have to determine what observations would indicate that God doesn't exist.

Don't expect him to look in the mirror by being willing to come up with things that falsify his claims. That would constitute objectivity.

He has bought a ton of elaborate crap and until or unless he sees himself for what he really is, which is a salesman, not a scientist using legit method, like you are challenging him to do here, he will continue to dodge what you are saying here.

I still think it is important to drill him with "Would you buy another deity claim if someone else was using the same arguments you are using. If not, then why do you think it works with your own claims. And if it is supposed to work, why isn't your claim a universal standard?"

I do agree with you here, but his dodge is rooted in his false belief of "prove it isn't true" which wont allow him to use falsification like you rightfully suggest and legit scientist use.

I'm hoping with everything we have thrown at him over the years that something is cracking him, and or will crack him. I have hope for him.

I would love for him to do what you suggest in this post, but I doubt he is at that point yet.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I'd suggest on top of what

I'd suggest on top of what you suggest, maybe in order to get to the point you suggest, that he take a piece of paper and split it in two.

One column "for" and one column "against", even without scientific proof and just go on the moral issues and ask himself, page for page from the beginning of the bible to the end of it and ask himself "would I do/allow" this if I were god myself.

That would address just the moral aspect of such a claim and might break him.

If his answer is "no" in any of the stories claimed in the bible, then he should be able to see that he has better morality than the god he believes in himself.

I think you have to crack the moral issues first because he's already bought god as a reality as a scientific possibility.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
What we are trying to point

What we are trying to point out to cap is that he is up against a triple whammy.

First, he has to assume there is a sentient being capable of creating himself from nothing.

Or that somehow, reality just requires that such a thing has to exist as part of it, so he has just always been there.

Then, that despite massive evidence to the contrary, that he really is specially concerned about life on an infinitesimal part of the vastness that is our Universe, on one planet going around one star among 400 billion stars in one galaxy among at least 100 billion galaxies.

And finally, that he actually 'loves' us - so after 13 billion years he decides to step in and briefly intervene and put on a series of demonstrations for us, culminating in a fake suicide, then stops putting on the big shows like that.

Demanding that we 'believe in him' and that he really loves us, despite having left us on a planet with swarms of diseases, natural disasters, with a half-baked body design that among other things, like cancer, results in billions of children dying before they could be old enough to even understand the idea of a God...

There are just so many alternatives at each stage, which are ultimately more likely, more plausible, than your scenario, that you have to have really bought deeply into the story to not realize that you are being extremely irrational in persisting with it.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I've asked

jcgadfly wrote:

I've asked you several times to provide "metaphysical evidence" as you claim that's the only kind you can provide. Why are you lying and saying that no one has offered to discuss this?

I'm sure I've asked you what you'd be looking for... EVP's?  Orbs?  confirmed miracles with no physical explanation?  sightings?  experiences? 

jcgadfly wrote:

On the miracle attributed to the founder of Opus Dei...

1. They didn't publish the credentials of the doctor who claimed to receive the miracle.

does that mean there are none?  or possibly that you might need to look beyond the article that might just be presenting the miracle

jcgadfly wrote:

2. They didn't publish who diagnosed the radiodermatitis - did he diagnose himself?

Logically he didn't... though you must assume he did in order for you to debunk right?  might want to look into the process of confirming a miracle.'

jcgadfly wrote:

3. There is no record of a doctor who pronounced the radiodermatitis as cured.

So then you have looked into it and have confirmed that it has never been pronounced cured by a professional doctor?

jcgadfly wrote:

4. The only mentioning of an examination were those performed by a group of people less concerned with "Is it a miracle?" than with "Did Escriva perform this miracle?"

Obviously based on the source and the result for the person performing the miracle, their focus isn't going to at this moment be is it... but in order to confirm who performed it, they'd need to then proceed to confirm whether it was a miracle or not.  You didn't do anything as far as investigate it have you.   yes, this would be your job.  I have presented to you a claimed miracle.  You can question the authenticity all you want, but when you look into the process, those questions have already been asked.  You then would need to cross reference and confirm.  The source is clear and not good enough, so it's your job to then debunk such a claim if skeptical is it not? 

Think before you answer.  You claim I never provided metaphysical evidence... this would be some... even with reference to a source... Usually that's all a rational thinking atheist presents to confirm what they think they know as true.  It is then my job to cross reference and do some homework to debunk their conclusion.  Your turn now.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2621
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cap's problem

Brian37 wrote:

Cap's problem is that he treats "metaphysics" as some sort of equal method on par with scientific method and CANNOT accept or is in denial that "metaphysics" is nothing more than elaborate babble.

Now again, if you trace his history over this thread, over the years it goes something like this.

1. "This book is the shit(original post)"

"They're not buying it, I'll try something else"

2." A house was magically saved from a fire"( ignoring selection bias and sample rate errors in his logic)

3."Words don't mean what they mean"

4."You cant prove there isn't a god"

5. "Metaphysics".

6. "Metaphysics is justified by quantum physics"

Amongst other things.

He wont face that he has nothing because his ego wont allow it. I don't bother trying to address his pseudo science. He is merely and falsely trying to get us on his Yellow Brick road.

He cant take his claims to a neutral setting because he is not a scientist, he is an apologist who is trying to retrofit science to prop up his magic invisible non material super brain.

Unless or until he sees why he rejects Thor making lightening as being the same as his pet god claim, he will dodge everything you are attempting to challenge him with.

It is totally foreign to him the idea that he got sucked into believing a really bad claim. But he has no problem looking at Muslims or Hindus or even Scientologists and points the finger at them.

He is a fool, all be it a nice and likable fool, to think he is special and he has escaped flawed logic and gap filling while having no problem accusing other god believers of other sects and other religions.

Hopefully for his own sake he will come around and wake up.

My challenge to him is the same for ANYONE claiming any pet invisible non material thinking deity(by any name).

Come up with a universal, testable, falsifiable model that DEMONSTRATES HOW a thought can arise out of a non material process. THEN and only then can the idea of a god be proposed, and even then that still wouldn't be proof of an "all powerful" god or that one particular label of god is true over all others.

The fact is NO ONE, no Muslim, no Jew no Hindu no Mormon, no one in the past or present of any label can do the above. But he is a fool to think quantum physics or much less "metaphysics" justifies his particular deity over all others.

I like Cap in that he has taken a beating from us for the past 3 almost 4 years and hasn't run way treating us like Hitler or Osama Bin Laden.  But again, I really hope for his sake he gives up on his fiction before he wastes his entire life on it.

 

Who are you talking to?  It sounds to me like you're trying to convince everyone else of your delusion.  I can talk to the masses and make you look like an idiot, but you don't need my help for that.  

Rule #457 in apologetics... if you can get the crowd to go along with you, then you must be right and everyone else is wrong.  Good job Brian.  You're a good apologist it seems. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cap's problem is that he treats "metaphysics" as some sort of equal method on par with scientific method and CANNOT accept or is in denial that "metaphysics" is nothing more than elaborate babble.

Now again, if you trace his history over this thread, over the years it goes something like this.

1. "This book is the shit(original post)"

"They're not buying it, I'll try something else"

2." A house was magically saved from a fire"( ignoring selection bias and sample rate errors in his logic)

3."Words don't mean what they mean"

4."You cant prove there isn't a god"

5. "Metaphysics".

6. "Metaphysics is justified by quantum physics"

Amongst other things.

He wont face that he has nothing because his ego wont allow it. I don't bother trying to address his pseudo science. He is merely and falsely trying to get us on his Yellow Brick road.

He cant take his claims to a neutral setting because he is not a scientist, he is an apologist who is trying to retrofit science to prop up his magic invisible non material super brain.

Unless or until he sees why he rejects Thor making lightening as being the same as his pet god claim, he will dodge everything you are attempting to challenge him with.

It is totally foreign to him the idea that he got sucked into believing a really bad claim. But he has no problem looking at Muslims or Hindus or even Scientologists and points the finger at them.

He is a fool, all be it a nice and likable fool, to think he is special and he has escaped flawed logic and gap filling while having no problem accusing other god believers of other sects and other religions.

Hopefully for his own sake he will come around and wake up.

My challenge to him is the same for ANYONE claiming any pet invisible non material thinking deity(by any name).

Come up with a universal, testable, falsifiable model that DEMONSTRATES HOW a thought can arise out of a non material process. THEN and only then can the idea of a god be proposed, and even then that still wouldn't be proof of an "all powerful" god or that one particular label of god is true over all others.

The fact is NO ONE, no Muslim, no Jew no Hindu no Mormon, no one in the past or present of any label can do the above. But he is a fool to think quantum physics or much less "metaphysics" justifies his particular deity over all others.

I like Cap in that he has taken a beating from us for the past 3 almost 4 years and hasn't run way treating us like Hitler or Osama Bin Laden.  But again, I really hope for his sake he gives up on his fiction before he wastes his entire life on it.

 

Who are you talking to?  It sounds to me like you're trying to convince everyone else of your delusion.  I can talk to the masses and make you look like an idiot, but you don't need my help for that.  

Rule #457 in apologetics... if you can get the crowd to go along with you, then you must be right and everyone else is wrong.  Good job Brian.  You're a good apologist it seems. 

You're calling me delusional? Thanks for the laugh. I'm not the one claiming that there is a thinking entity with no material.

You're just pissed that no one is buying your pet god. You're in good company, we don''t buy Allah or Vishnu or Thor either.

A scientist CAN take their claims into a neutral setting and DEMONSTRATE to outsiders their claims. Which is why you and I can know what DNA is and what mitosis is and why we can know what entropy is.

You're just pissed that the bullshit you bought doesn't have those same high universal standards. Don't blame me for the bullshit you bought. Go bitch at the people who sold you this crap.

How you can type on a computer and still peddle your superstition after the beating we have given you, knowing that computers are a RESULT of scientific method, is the very definition of DELUSION.

You cant even see that you might as well believe that your computer runs on pixie dust and you might as well be trying to convince us your computer runs on pixie dust. Claiming "metaphysics" has just as much credibility and could justify a giant pixie running the universe, just as well.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37