Re: funny creationsist


Jack Dominey wrote:
> In <1137648903.694030.27090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jim Spaza"
> <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >Richard Forrest wrote:
> >> Jim Spaza wrote:
>
> >Using scientific methods (theory, testing, analysis, conclusion, peer
> >review), please explain how you would test for hate.
>
> I'd come up with a definition first. Beginning with "Hatred is an
> emotional state..." and being as specific and concrete as possible.
> Then I might try to get reports from people that see if there's a good
> correlation between what they call "hate" and the definition I came up
> with. Based on that, I might have to modify my definition.
>
> As Mr. Bryant has stated, I could also try to get brain scans to
> correlate particular mental activity with the reported experience of
> hatred.

Sounds good, but...

How will brain scans indicate hate? How do you determine cause and
effect? Does hate cause the brain to act differently or does the brain
first act differently which causes hate? How would you ever know which
is which?

>
> >If all you can do is infer the existence of the emotion hate, then
> >you'd be doing as much as you can.
>
> Given all that we know about people, it would be a pretty damn sound
> inference, known as well as we know anything about any other emotional
> state.

That would be doing about the best that you can if you restrict your
testing to those sources and equipment that you trust, namely science.

>
> >Same with God.
>
> God is an emotional state?

No. Same principle about testing for something that seems to only
cause an effect without revealing itself for scientific testing.

>
> >Even if He appeared
> >to you, you'd never be able to scientifically provide evidence that God
> >exists. But the inference for God's existence is readily verifiable.
>
> Let's see. Do we have a common description of hate across multiple
> times, places, and cultures? Yup. Common description of God? Nope.
> Even people who claim belief in the same God give significantly
> different descriptions.

That's because hate is a universally agreed upon event because everyone
has experienced it. God is not universally agreed upon because not
everyone seeks God in every manner possible. Religious folks, like
scientists I suppose, tend to restrict their searching methods when
they shouldn't.

>
> <snip>
>
> >> > Scientists
> >> > theorizing about the Big Bang Theory routinely admit that conventional
> >> > laws of physics and chemistry break down at the purported beginning of
> >> > time (at the "singularity"). Thus, they have to think outside what
> >> > science can test and can't.
>
> >> No, quite categorically they don't. They propose hypotheses which may
> >> be testable if technology advances far enough, and are consistent with
> >> what we know about behviour of the universe.
>
> >Maybe technology will one day be available to track angels in flight,
> >see normally-invisible demons, and even view God's hand at work.
>
> More likely, given the information at hand, technology will show us
> what's going on in the brains of people who claim such things are
> real.

And all the atheists said...amen.

>
> <snip>
>
> >> Common sense has nothing to do with it. It is quite simply unknowable.
> >
> >Common sense has everything to do with it. How do you know that you
> >exist? Some things don't need testing under controlled conditions to
> >be established as truth.
>
> I don't need to prove *my* existence to myself. To accept existence
> of another, I do need evidence. But evidence of other people like
> myself is an absolutely ordinary, day-to-day thing, like evidence that
> coffee makes me more alert.

And all completely subjective and wholly unscientific. I guess when it
comes to religion, some people suddenly decide that rigid scientific
methodology is suddenly needed.

>
> >If you don't have free will, then your post happened only by undesign
> >random chance through the interaction of the forces of nature and the
> >chemicals in your body.
>
> Strike "only by undesign random chance" and you're trivially correct,
> as far as I'm concerned. Nothing about posting to Usenet violates the
> forces of nature or can happen without the operation of chemicals in
> the body of the poster.
>
> Free will and intention aren't the same thing. My posts "happen"
> because I want them to. I select from many options, starting with the
> decision to post down to choosing words and phrases. But of course my
> choices are constrained. I can't post in MSWord format because my
> newsreader doesn't do that. I can't post in French because I don't
> know French. I can't post the smell of my breakfast because Usenet
> technology doesn't allow that. I can't post a solution to the Halting
> Problem because there's no such thing.
>
> Now let's think about other constraints. I *won't* post a string of
> obscenities directed at you. I am not prevented from doing so by
> anything other than my own internal state, right? But what defines my
> internal state? I can alter it, *within limits*. I can't, by
> concious act of will, make myself suicidally depressed, or homicidally
> enraged. I can't make myself sociopathic or autistic. There are
> clearly *internal* limits on what I am capable of choosing. How tight
> are those limits?
>
> It seems to me that every choice I make, regardless of how trivial, is
> *influenced*. If I am conscious of a particular influence, I can
> decide to reject it. But I can't be conscious of all influences. I
> can't not have any influences - some of them are what define who I am.
> So, can I know that any particular decision is not determined by
> influences I'm unaware of? Doesn't seem so to me.
>
> It *feels* like I decide things "freely". But I cannot know that this
> is actually the case.
>
> <snip>

You can make yourself mad thinking like that.

>
> >> No they don't. I know that I'm conscious. I don't, and can't know if I
> >> have free will.
> >
> >Then test it. Do something that makes no logical sense. Do something
> >which provides zero benefit or even some detriment to your existence.
> >Do something that goes against all genetic and environmental
> >programming in you.
>
> What, like extend my non-existent claws? :-)
>
> As above - how could committing any given action prove that I have
> free will?

You would have to do something where the only cause for your doing that
is your free will. No genetic influences. No environmental factors.

>
> <snip>
>
> >Interesting. You know that you, yourself, exist without any scientific
> >testing whatsoever. So, now we know
>
> "We"? Nope, sorry. I know that I exist as a conscious entity. You
> could be conscious or a very cleverly programmed robot, or some kind
> of delusion on my part. The simplest hypothesis is that you're
> conscious - but I can't *prove* that. You can't prove it about me,
> either.
>
> Wow. Re-reading the discussion below, I can see where others have made
> this point repeatedly, but you still don't get it.
>
> >of one being's existence which has
> >been firmly established without any objective testing, analysis, and
> >peer review. I guess that God, on the other hand, doesn't rate such
> >special treatment.
>
> I've got direct evidence that there's an entity calling itself "Jim
> Spaza" posting in the talk.origins newsgroup. By ordinary, mundane
> evidence, I tentatively accept the hypothesis that "Jim Spaza" is a
> person like myself. With slightly more evidence, I would believe that
> "Jim Spaza" is a pseudonym. With more elaborate and unusual evidence,
> I might be persuaded that the pseudonym actually applies to a group of
> people playing some hoax. With some extraordinary evidence, I might
> believe that someone has programmed a computer to compose and post as
> "Jim Spaza".
>
> Note that for all the above, I have a pretty clear idea what the
> entities in question can and cannot do, based on my own experience.

Sounds like you have been beset in the past with fraudulent, dishonest
bots posing as human posters.

I don't know what I can do to convince you otherwise. Maybe physically
meet with you somewhere and show you my driver's license.

>
> Then there's this "God" idea.
>
> >> You miss the point completely! I know that *I* have a conscious mind,
> >> but there is no way of knowing with absolute certainty that anyone or
> >> anything else has a conscious mind. As I said, the universe may simply
> >> be a figment of my imagination.
> <snip>
>
> >I'm not talking about the worship of God. I'm just talking about the
> >study of the existence of God.
> >
> >Anyway, here's a short list of scientists, some of whom are herein
> >described as being religiously influenced by their scientific work.
> >
> >http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
>
> What does "religiously influenced" have to do with "study the
> existence of God"?
>
> <snip>
>
> >> You miss the point. All anyone can know for certain is that they are
> >> conscious and that they exist. Cogito ergo sum and all that. Nobody can
> >> know for certain if anyone or anyting else exists.
> >
> >But, at some point, you have to make an educated guess, sometimes with
> >just common sense, and then move on in life.
>
> Yes, we do that. It works.
>
> <snip>
>
> >Some atheists. They don't say that God's existence cannot be
> >determined. They say as a fact that there is no God.
>
> Read such statements carefully in context. They invariably reduce to
> "there is no God such as you assert", where "you" might be one person,
> Christians in general, or basically everyone the atheist has ever
> encountered. Or possibly "there is no evidence of any Superior Being
> worth bothering about".
>
> >Some others define atheism as a lack of any belief concerning God as
> >opposed to a religious belief that there is no God. However, I always
> >considered such as agnostics.
>
> I think it's polite to pay attention to what people call themselves.
>
> <snip>
>
> >I think that my belief in the God of the Bible has more science behind
> >it than some quantum theory made up when scientists realized that they
> >painted themselves into a corner with the Big Bang theory.
>
> Then I must conclude you don't know much about cosmology and science
> in general on the one hand, or the Bible on the other.

That would be a wrong conclusion.

>
> <snip>
>
> >> Many theologicans would say that if your belief is based on scientific
> >> evidence, it is not, by definition, faith.
>
> >They're wrong.
>
> What a cavalier dismissal.

No different than a mathematician stating that 1+1=3. Then again, if
that mathematician defined things differently, then who knows?

>
> > If these theologians read the Bible,
>
> The only way this makes sense is to add, "the way I read the bible".
>
> >then they'd know
> >that God never calls anyone to blind faith.
>
> <snip>
>
> >I hope that science fills in the gaps with the right conclusions and
> >not just the conclusions that it can come up with at the time.
>
> The cool thing about science as an enterprise is that any conclusion
> is "at the time" and can be rejected or overturned later. *If the
> evidence supports it.*

The uncool thing is when scientists lambaste others for not coming to
the same, "obvious" conclusions that they did. How dare those
skeptics!

>
> <snip>
> >Who says that science is incapable of studying God's existence?
>
> Besides everyone else in this thread?

Yes. Besides the dozen or so posters here.

>
>
> --
> "I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
> Jack Dominey
> jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
> R.I.P. Bob Denver

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The thing about ID...
    ... Some personal beliefs (e.g. the existense of God) are not ... >>> testable and cannot be studied by science. ... so all evidence must be held as contaminated and invalid. ... It isn't hampered because the believing scientists deliberately ignore what ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... But there ISN'T any direct evidence - not one single scrap/ Care to ... itself or came into existence without a cause. ... is the supposed effect on other bodies, an effect for which scientists ... Your never having had a supernatural event occur in your life has no ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: funny creationsist
    ... But there ISN'T any direct evidence - not one single scrap/ Care to ... is the supposed effect on other bodies, an effect for which scientists ... Your god isn't needed. ... Your never having had a supernatural event occur in your life has no ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The thing about ID...
    ... Some personal beliefs (e.g. the existense of God) are not ... >> testable and cannot be studied by science. ... >> be drawn from evidence consisting of observations and experimentations. ... as many of the greatest scientists believed ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... God is an emotional state? ... of another, I do need evidence. ... >Anyway, here's a short list of scientists, some of whom are herein ...
    (talk.origins)