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...

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?

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,

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'?

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."

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

"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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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?

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 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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.  

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

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.

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.

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.