A Question for the Atheistocracy

Joeseph

Your fallacy is

Argument from incredulity.....also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

MayCaesar

What is "Atheistocracy"? Not sure who you exactly are asking this question of, but I can provide my humble input.

First, let us get this out of the way immediately: complexity is not proof of intelligent design. 

• For one, complexity of the designer has to be greater than that of the design itself, so your designer himself would require a designer - so this line of reasoning gets us nowhere. 
• For another, complexity naturally arises from simple systems over time. Have you heard of Conway's Game of Life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life? You can initialize a random chaotic state and then let the game run: the rules are so simple, there is a way to express them all in one short mathematical equation - yet after millions of iterations you will observe incredible self-replicating and evolving structures, colonies, processes, wars between groups of colonies... As mentioned in another thread, as long as some processes are digital (and even that is not necessary, although it certainly helps a lot), information will aggregate and evolve over time, giving birth to typically increasingly complex structures.

Now, let us tackle the bigger demon: you mentioned "meaningless random occurrence". This is where you go wrong: in our everyday life we throw terms like this to mean that something has no apparent reason to happen, it was just luck. But "randomness" has a very different meaning in a more... professional setting. Stock/option prices change randomly, yet quantitative finance is a major field paying 7-digit salaries in many cases, and its entire purpose is to devise strategies exploiting the patterns found in between that randomness. Random processes are not necessarily just "chaotically random": there are laws to that randomness.

There is a very interesting result in mathematics, often expressed as follows: "A drunk man will eventually find his way home, while a drunk bird will depart from its nest forever". Basically, imagine something moving around and constantly changing directions randomly, but always moving at the same absolute speed. At any given point in time it will be moving in a completely random direction - but we can make very strong statements about certain things such as the distribution of its distance from the original point after n seconds. It turns out that such motion in two dimensions is still fairly tightly constrained: with the probability of 100% the man wandering randomly will eventually bump into his home - however, three dimensions offer too much freedom, and the bird changing directions randomly in all dimensions will get lost forever.

Same goes for evolution of life, including the formation of the first DNA molecules. It is "random" in that, by just looking at initial conditions, it is practically impossible to say what the molecule will look like in a billion years. Yet the underlying processes are not random, the practical randomness comes solely from our practical inability to collect all the information we need to predict everything and then run all the computations with sufficient precision. Theoretically, assuming we had all the information about every particle everywhere in the Universe, and a computer with infinite processing power and perfect model of the world - and discarding intrinsic quantum randomness (the presence of which is still an open question), we would find no randomness: purely deterministic world where we can know what it will look like at any point in time in the future. Including the role of the DNA in biological organisms.

There is no faith involved here: just logical reasoning. In the real world our everyday intuition often diverges from what the logic suggests. Faith is going with intuition versus logic; rationality is going with logic versus intuition, however strange the conclusions may appear. The Universe does not owe you conformity with your intuition, it does not owe you comfort from knowing that you understand how everything works and it makes perfect intuitive sense to you.

Here is an example of a leap of faith: "All of this looks too complicated, so I cannot believe that it arose naturally. God must have done it!" Notice how the conclusion here does not at all follow from the premise: there is literally no connection between these. All you are doing is expressing your feelings.

Here is an example of rational argument: "All of this looks complicated, and I do not know how it arose. Let me study individual steps of the process, and hopefully eventually I will reconstruct the whole picture". You do not jump to any conclusions, you just gradually get rid of the blind spots in your understanding, one by one.

In conclusion, you argue from feelings, and biologists argue from reason. These are very different arguments, and they lead to different outcomes. Arguing from feelings leads to... well, even your holy book recognizes the problem with letting your feelings carry your mind away, does it not? Arguing from reason, on the other hand, leads to modern medicine which you can credit for your life expectancy being 80 years rather than 30, as was the case back in the good old times when arguing from feelings was mandatory and people were punished from using reason instead.

polytheistwitch

Why are Christians always looking for proof of God. Either you have faith or you don't

Barnardot

@EvePhantom There's no more polite way to say this, but the very first word you wrote was "IF", and thereafter, it was a complete load of incredulous speculative assertions and a heap of unknowledgeable crap.
If you are going to knock facts, it would pay to at least know something about what you are talking about. I'm sure that wasn't your best hour but Jesus, it's enough to make anyone cringe.

EvePhantom

@MayCaesar ;

Atheistocracy is just a way of describing Atheists so entrenched in their views their minds have become closed by the establishment of a trench and a higherachy of thought 

“complexity is not proof of intelligent design”

-          Agreed

But wat of ‘directed complexity’ when parent DNA imparts information to offspring DNA this is done in a considered way, what the parent DNA has considered is the environment it has lived in and what would be the best possible way to ‘Adopt’ offspring to increase survivability

 

This is not a description of complex design it is a description of conscious thought as defined below:

‘aware of and responding to one's surroundings’

 

How can DNA be aware of and responding to one's surroundings while also being ‘non-concious’ I put it to you that the DNA is conscious in that it is fully aware of and responding to its surroundings further still when it ‘designs’ its offspring it ‘designs’ them for ‘better survivability’

This is not a ‘dead process’ it is not a mechanic its is biological consciousness in motion, motion that can be recorded, watched and studied

Games of life are mere computer based models where they anything akin to ‘real life’ they would be able to creatively find a way of the computer they have become stuck in, without consciousness ‘life’ doesn’t exist.

DNA is not a random occurrence? How can it be? Parent DNA literally ‘builds’ its offspring using pieces of itself, what is random about the design of genetic traits then the building of a biological lifeform to contain those traits? Then building 7billion more of them in all shapes and colours but all with the same contained ability to be consciousness all the while the DNA itself exhibiting more than a degree of consciousness in fact one could easily say DNA is more conscious to it surroundings than the human brain.

you say 'random occurrence' you you can with you will sit and create something non random, how is this possible of you are the result of random biology, if you a mere human are capable of intelligent design how is it that the universe that made you is not?      

EvePhantom

@Barnardot The 'If' is my signal to open mindedness, in closed mindedness the If switches to 'Is' 

you describe my argument as "There's no more polite way to say this, but the very first word you wrote was "IF", and thereafter, it was a complete load of incredulous speculative assertions and a heap of unknowledgeable crap.
If you are going to knock facts, it would pay to at least know something about what you are talking about. I'm sure that wasn't your best hour but Jesus, it's enough to make anyone cringe"

yet the totality of your contribution of 'thought' is the above paragraph spat out in hate and dismay, likely upon realisation that you lack the intellectual competence to formulate a reasonable argument of your own that contradicts mine using logical and intelligence ... effectively a cop out!

consider yourself lucky I have even responded in the face of such lazy thought, roll yourself over and go back to sleep comforted by the ignorant knowledge that life is meaningless anyway so your laziness is 'justified' 

Ignoramus. 
     

EvePhantom

@polytheistwitch its not 'looking for proof' its explaining of the truth to those who lack the mental capacity to perceive it, this lack of mental capacity is generated by 'establishment hive mind thinking' for example you statement:

"Why are Christians always looking for proof of God. Either you have faith or you don't"

"Why are scientist always trying to disprove of God. Either you have faith in your 'science' or you don't"

this logic in mind can you tell me, what's the difference between the holy books and the science books?

do both not rely on the 'testimony of men' as their evidence base? do both not require the 'Lameman' to believe in authority and hierarchy  to propagate and survive? you 'preach' to me about faith yet you have to 'google' mercury's reaction when placed on platinum

the truth is those lack the capacity to do the scientific experiments for themselves are required to believe a 'figure of authority' on the matter. this 'belief' is no different than the belief in a priests authority 

both beliefs require 'ignorance' as a feeding ground for their authority.   

EvePhantom

@Joeseph

your 'argument' is to argue the mechanics of arguing instead of the subject being argued, this is you 'fleeing' the intellectual weight of the argument to a place of perceived safety 'mock the way the argument is held' 

in the end all you really do is show you have no valid input to the argument.

Your 'logical fallacy' input is based upon the Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis yet lacks even a basic understanding of Aristotle's values and precepts. below is a quote from Aristotle that could easily be used as a response to your poorly conceived ill thought through and frankly 'intellectually lazy' point...

  “Be the free thinker and don’t accept everything you hear as truth. Be Critical and evaluate what you believe in”

 -          Aristotle

now ask yourself why are you attempting to prevent the above points application to science yet holding up the quotee' as an authority on argumentative style? Ignorance ... this is why! 

MayCaesar

EvePhantom said:

@MayCaesar ;

Atheistocracy is just a way of describing Atheists so entrenched in their views their minds have become closed by the establishment of a trench and a higherachy of thought 

“complexity is not proof of intelligent design”

-          Agreed

But wat of ‘directed complexity’ when parent DNA imparts information to offspring DNA this is done in a considered way, what the parent DNA has considered is the environment it has lived in and what would be the best possible way to ‘Adopt’ offspring to increase survivability

 

This is not a description of complex design it is a description of conscious thought as defined below:

‘aware of and responding to one's surroundings’

 

How can DNA be aware of and responding to one's surroundings while also being ‘non-concious’ I put it to you that the DNA is conscious in that it is fully aware of and responding to its surroundings further still when it ‘designs’ its offspring it ‘designs’ them for ‘better survivability’

This is not a ‘dead process’ it is not a mechanic its is biological consciousness in motion, motion that can be recorded, watched and studied

Games of life are mere computer based models where they anything akin to ‘real life’ they would be able to creatively find a way of the computer they have become stuck in, without consciousness ‘life’ doesn’t exist.

DNA is not a random occurrence? How can it be? Parent DNA literally ‘builds’ its offspring using pieces of itself, what is random about the design of genetic traits then the building of a biological lifeform to contain those traits? Then building 7billion more of them in all shapes and colours but all with the same contained ability to be consciousness all the while the DNA itself exhibiting more than a degree of consciousness in fact one could easily say DNA is more conscious to it surroundings than the human brain.

you say 'random occurrence' you you can with you will sit and create something non random, how is this possible of you are the result of random biology, if you a mere human are capable of intelligent design how is it that the universe that made you is not?      

Closed to what? My mind is closed to accepting arbitrary fantasy claims - does that make me a member of "Atheistocracy" in your view? There is the saying about not having one's mind so open that the brains fall out.

Complexity is naturally going to be directed somehow. In the Game of Life from chaos arises complex order. In general, chaotic systems subjected to laws guiding their evolution tend to order and complexity as a consequence. The Game of Life just illustrates this larger concept; it is not intended to emulate evolution of actual living organisms.

The DNA is not "aware" of anything to the best of my knowledge, not any more than the file containing the Python script I just wrote is "aware" of anything. Yet should I run that script, it will produce the results I want. That is what information storage is all about: information in itself is completely useless - but when interacted by by an information processing system, it is decoded and used to complete a task.

Your last question is just bizarre... There are countless examples of properties that an object has, but its progenitor does not. A car factory cannot be driven, but a car can. Intelligence, too, does not have to require intelligence to create.

EvePhantom

@MayCaesar when I say closed I mean atheists generally, they tend to have closed or fixed mindsets, they believe one thing 'meaningless existence' and are unable to amend or open their mind to alternatives. this is proven by the continued atheist vs theists argument on God that has been on going with no progress since Jesus himself walked the earth.

"Complexity is naturally going to be directed somehow"

not exactly a scientific statement based on empirical evidence is it now?

you say: "The DNA is not "aware" of anything to the best of my knowledge"

this ignores the definition of conscious awareness;

Conscious Defined: - aware of and responding to one's surroundings

Is a DNA strand not "aware of and responding to its surroundings" if not how is 'evolution' achieved? Evolution requires that 'information' be passed inter-generationally the only thing capable pf passing this information is the parent DNA strand itself, it is the half mum half dad DNA strand combining to form the first cell of a lifeforms existence that we call conception

this first cell contains the map for the human that is being built and information from each parent as to what are the best genes to 'switch' on or off to encourage survivability.

who's making the decision to turn genes 'on or off' who's flipping the switches? why is that thing flipping switches to increase survivability? why not instead randomly flip the switches?

Evolution is managed by something, traits are designed for a reason (survivability, exploration, life) yet the atheist would have us believe there is no reasoning for anything and that the 'DNA' that is 'designing' these traits is doing so at random and without meaning

without meaning to it DNA would have no reason to produce a plan to build us out of a single cell it would simply be a bunch of random gibberish that means nothing to nobody yet DNA means 'everything' its probably the God we are chasing, the single lifeform underpinning all life ..

the common denominator we all share    

Joeseph

@EvePhantom


your 'argument' is to argue the mechanics of arguing instead of the subject being argued, this is you 'fleeing' the intellectual weight of the argument to a place of perceived safety 'mock the way the argument is held' 

That's incorrect , I didnt make an argument I corrected you on your ignorance on a topic you know nothing about. 

in the end all you really do is show you have no valid input to the argument.

There is no argument , you made a lot of claims you cannot back up an in your gross ignorance anything you don't comprehend is explainable by saying GODIDIT.

Your 'logical fallacy' input is based upon the Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis yet lacks even a basic understanding of Aristotle's values and precepts.

I didn't commit a logical fallacy I pointed out the one you made , an uneducated  ignoramus like you attempting to hold forth on Aristotle is to be frank hilarious .

below is a quote from Aristotle that could easily be used as a response to your poorly conceived ill thought through and frankly 'intellectually lazy' point...

  “Be the free thinker and don’t accept everything you hear as truth. Be Critical and evaluate what you believe in”

 -          Aristotle

 My pointing out your fallacy is an attempt to point out what  you are doing is exactly what Aristotle is warning people not to do as in stupidly attempting to use god as an explanatory force for what you don't comprehend , you of course are to uneducated and ignorant to recognise this.

now ask yourself why are you attempting to prevent the above points application to science yet holding up the quotee' as an authority on argumentative style?

Anything you don't understand you believe is done by magic as in GODIDIT, the quote I supplied was demonstrating the fallacy you're guilty of , you of course never heard of it and don't even know what the term fallacy means it seems.

 Ignorance ... this is why! 

Ignorance is why you were born , your parents no doubt thought they were bringing an entity into existence that might have some basic intelligence but no doubt genetics played a cruel trick on them and you.

EvePhantom

@Joeseph your 'ignorance' is completely apparent in your response as you have again missed the points raised and replaced them with what appears to be a wilful misinterpretation of the points I raised:

You have failed to understand that your argument is one and the same as 'Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis'

You have failed to understand the principles Aristotle himself claimed to uphold.

You have then continued to argue along the lines of 'Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis' completely missing the point that you are not arguing the point at hand you are arguing about the argument style itself.

the moment you used the sentence "Your fallacy is Argument from incredulity" you ignored the argument topic at hand in exchange for an argument about the argument itself.

This proves one thing for sure... the topic of the argument 'cell biology' is beyond your comprehension we know this for a fact because where you to have any knowledge of the topic itself with which to formulate an argument you would have done so instead you attacked my argument on the basis of the argumentative style applied which in fact..

contributes absolutely nothing to the argument itself or the ideas it seeks to challenge or express.

my application of the term 'Lazy' in reference to your efforts is as accurate a description as it gets, and as to your copy pasted 'knowledge' about 'magic'

Quantum Tunnelling is 'Magic'
Quantum Communication is 'Magic'
Super position is  'Magic'
Super symmetry is  'Magic' 
M Theory is 'Guess work'
BB Theory is 'Guess work'
Blackhole theory is 'Guess work'

they may be scientific theory's in their nature but they are just that 'theory's' not answers or solid facts just ... 'Magic'

now 'cell biology and its contraction of the atheist position' why don't you put the donut of ignorance down and make a genuine and valid attempt at contradicting my points...  

Factfinder

@EvePhantom

"Why are scientist always trying to disprove of God. Either you have faith in your 'science' or you don't"

Who said scientists are always trying to disprove god? They're constantly trying to falsify their own theories so as to seek the correct information. It is a method that has produced both answers that can be concluded as facts and results that me sitting typing my response to you demonstrates. That's what science is about. It has no interest in any of the imagined gods one way or the other because the method used hasn't the tools to falsify a god hypothesis.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@EvePhantom

"Why are scientist always trying to disprove of God. Either you have faith in your 'science' or you don't"

Who said scientists are always trying to disprove god? They're constantly trying to falsify their own theories so as to seek the correct information. It is a method that has produced both answers that can be concluded as facts and results that me sitting typing my response to you demonstrates. That's what science is about. It has no interest in any of the imagined gods one way or the other because the method used hasn't the tools to falsify a god hypothesis.

I think it is important to be honest about how powerful group think is.  Scientists who take unpopular positions or who ask questions on sacred cow issues find they are treated as outcasts and can't get funding.  This is not just about religious issues, but political ones as well.  Science is far from the open exchange of ideas you claim it to be.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@EvePhantom

"Why are scientist always trying to disprove of God. Either you have faith in your 'science' or you don't"

Who said scientists are always trying to disprove god? They're constantly trying to falsify their own theories so as to seek the correct information. It is a method that has produced both answers that can be concluded as facts and results that me sitting typing my response to you demonstrates. That's what science is about. It has no interest in any of the imagined gods one way or the other because the method used hasn't the tools to falsify a god hypothesis.

I think it is important to be honest about how powerful group think is.  Scientists who take unpopular positions or who ask questions on sacred cow issues find they are treated as outcasts and can't get funding.  This is not just about religious issues, but political ones as well.  Science is far from the open exchange of ideas you claim it to be.  

Can you read? Try again. Stop arguing with yourself. 

MayCaesar

EvePhantom said:

@MayCaesar when I say closed I mean atheists generally, they tend to have closed or fixed mindsets, they believe one thing 'meaningless existence' and are unable to amend or open their mind to alternatives. this is proven by the continued atheist vs theists argument on God that has been on going with no progress since Jesus himself walked the earth.

"Complexity is naturally going to be directed somehow"

not exactly a scientific statement based on empirical evidence is it now?

you say: "The DNA is not "aware" of anything to the best of my knowledge"

this ignores the definition of conscious awareness;

Conscious Defined: - aware of and responding to one's surroundings

Is a DNA strand not "aware of and responding to its surroundings" if not how is 'evolution' achieved? Evolution requires that 'information' be passed inter-generationally the only thing capable pf passing this information is the parent DNA strand itself, it is the half mum half dad DNA strand combining to form the first cell of a lifeforms existence that we call conception

this first cell contains the map for the human that is being built and information from each parent as to what are the best genes to 'switch' on or off to encourage survivability.

who's making the decision to turn genes 'on or off' who's flipping the switches? why is that thing flipping switches to increase survivability? why not instead randomly flip the switches?

Evolution is managed by something, traits are designed for a reason (survivability, exploration, life) yet the atheist would have us believe there is no reasoning for anything and that the 'DNA' that is 'designing' these traits is doing so at random and without meaning

without meaning to it DNA would have no reason to produce a plan to build us out of a single cell it would simply be a bunch of random gibberish that means nothing to nobody yet DNA means 'everything' its probably the God we are chasing, the single lifeform underpinning all life ..

the common denominator we all share    

Closed or fixed as compared to whom? Alternatives to what? I think "closed mind" in your definition is "refusing to agree with me".

The information passing inter-generationally is guided by chemistry, not some conscious operators. Nobody is making "decisions" any more than my computer makes the decision to put a letter on the screen when I hit a key on my keyboard. The nature appears to have some laws to which all objects inhabiting it are subjected. The objects do not choose those laws, nor do they have freedom to defy those laws.

I do not know where you are getting all those ideas, and the logic behind them eludes me.

EvePhantom

@Factfinder

the entire basis of science is to 'disprove' the scientific method is a method designed to 'disprove'

when 'science is presented with a hypothesis (God for example) science applies the scientific method 'Question, Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Data Analysis, Conclusion, and Communication' 

the point of this method is to disprove the hypothesis by means of testing it (then repeating the test conditions) and presenting empirical evidence for or against the hypothesis in the 'case of the God hypothesis' what is considered to be the 'mainstream of science' has rendered its opinion as...

'no God does not exist'

where this opinion not rendered as 'no' atheists wouldn't cling to 'science' so tightly as their rationale for God not existing without the 'scientific method' an atheist wouldn't be able to call for 'evidence of God' let alone calling the wobbly conclusions of science as evidence against God. 

the same people that hold up Einstein as the 'father of science' miss the disproving of (E=mc2) in the observation of 'quantum communication'

you see science 'just like religion' is no more than a set of 'established beliefs' until the new beliefs become established this is the same as religion before the Noah flood story there was the Mesopotamian flood story the newer belief replacing the older.

In the end Einstein understood God as 'the universe', science as a tool for exploring Gods being, his 'science' is being disproven day by day with the newer science inevitably awaiting its own demise at the hands of new future knowledge. no scientific theory stands the test of time, time only leads one way and that way is toward God

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"

- Einstein - father of modern science 

and for ref: "As understood by Spinoza, God is the one infinite substance who possesses an infinite number of attributes each expressing an eternal aspect of his/her nature"

EvePhantom

@MayCaesar

"Closed or fixed as compared to whom? Alternatives to what? I think "closed mind" in your definition is "refusing to agree with me".

- I don't understand this, the wording makes little sense to me, i may require aa simpler format to comprehend.

The information passing inter-generationally is guided by chemistry, not some conscious operators. Nobody is making "decisions" any more than my computer makes the decision to put a letter on the screen when I hit a key on my keyboard. The nature appears to have some laws to which all objects inhabiting it are subjected. The objects do not choose those laws, nor do they have freedom to defy those laws.

"guided by chemistry, not some conscious operators" - explain this surly (according to scientific method) if we understand the process to be chemically induced we can 'reproduce' the conditions our selves to test the conclusion

Nobody is making "decisions" any more than my computer makes the decision to put a letter on the screen when I hit a key on my keyboard

- Your computer makes the decision only because a human made the decision to build the computer, without decision making the computer doesn't exist nor does the human to operate it. I feel you are being wilfully ignorant here in that you know as well as I genetic decisions i.e. what genes are expressed or not are made 'pre-birth' yet you cover your eyes when I ask 'What' made those genetic decisions? are you trying to pretend genetic decisions are not made on a cellular level?

my understanding is that in order to make a 'decision' at all requires conscious awareness yet you argue it doesn't? 

below is the definition of a decision.. 

"a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration"

now you know a 'decision' is made by parent DNA about what 'genetic traits' to pass on to offspring and what traits get left out, so how is this possible without "a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration"

you had mentioned "The information passing inter-generationally is guided by chemistry"

- to this I ask by what 'exact' chemical process (list the compounds and solutions) are 'genetic decisions' made regarding what 'Traits' an offspring will have? 

- Light Skin for example is light skin not the genetic 'decision' to reduce melanin production? is this not a genetic 'reaction' to the sunlight in the environment the of spring are born?  

I do not know where you are getting all those ideas, and the logic behind them eludes me."

- I get my ideas from the 'science' I read as such they are not my own they are the 'madness' of science and its 'ideas' about the nature of reality

Factfinder

EvePhantom said:

@Factfinder

the entire basis of science is to 'disprove' the scientific method is a method designed to 'disprove'

when 'science is presented with a hypothesis (God for example) science applies the scientific method 'Question, Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Data Analysis, Conclusion, and Communication' 

the point of this method is to disprove the hypothesis by means of testing it (then repeating the test conditions) and presenting empirical evidence for or against the hypothesis in the 'case of the God hypothesis' what is considered to be the 'mainstream of science' has rendered its opinion as...

'no God does not exist'

where this opinion not rendered as 'no' atheists wouldn't cling to 'science' so tightly as their rationale for God not existing without the 'scientific method' an atheist wouldn't be able to call for 'evidence of God' let alone calling the wobbly conclusions of science as evidence against God. 

the same people that hold up Einstein as the 'father of science' miss the disproving of (E=mc2) in the observation of 'quantum communication'

you see science 'just like religion' is no more than a set of 'established beliefs' until the new beliefs become established this is the same as religion before the Noah flood story there was the Mesopotamian flood story the newer belief replacing the older.

In the end Einstein understood God as 'the universe', science as a tool for exploring Gods being, his 'science' is being disproven day by day with the newer science inevitably awaiting its own demise at the hands of new future knowledge. no scientific theory stands the test of time, time only leads one way and that way is toward God

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"

- Einstein - father of modern science 

and for ref: "As understood by Spinoza, God is the one infinite substance who possesses an infinite number of attributes each expressing an eternal aspect of his/her nature"

It attempts to disprove what THEY think so that if they can't disprove it they can keep working within the perimeters and trains of thoughts concerning questions they seek to answer. In other words they want to disprove what they think for two reasons. One they don't want to put out something totally wrong as it damages their professional reputations and second if they can't prove it wrong then they will be confident they are disseminating accurate information based on their success in the falsification process. 

For example Einstein's equation E=mc2 you bring up has been falsified and the knowledge gained has produced results. While continuing to test the boundaries of relativity knowledge greatly increased of which included the reality that it was possible to build an atom bomb. The fact that there now appears to be anomalies defying the theory of relativity is celebrated in science circles, not disappointed. It offers new avenues for which to seek knowledge. The prospect of finding out E=mc2 isn't 100% attributed to the entire universe in intriguing but it doesn't discredit Einstein's theory at all as it's still vastly accurate in the known universe. The methodology behind science is designed to get answers, it is not to consent to a consensus of right or wrong notions. Or any group think. If scientists overwhelmingly accept a theory as fact it's because large amounts of data and research and/or experimentation suggest it is factual. Religion asserts a belief in the notion of a god then seeks support for that belief. Completely different then the scientific method.   

Joeseph

@EvePhantom

your 'ignorance' is completely apparent in your response as you have again missed the points raised and replaced them with what appears to be a wilful misinterpretation of the points I raised:


The only ignorance on display is yours you should thank me for correcting you.

You have failed to understand that your argument is one and the same as 'Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis'

You don't even know what you're saying , although thank you for comparing me to Aristotle.

You have failed to understand the principles Aristotle himself claimed to uphold.

You just said the opposite you dummy.

You have then continued to argue along the lines of 'Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis' completely missing the point that you are not arguing the point at hand you are arguing about the argument style itself.

I can only explain your fallacy to you I cannot comprehend for you that requires an effort on your part which given your level of ignorance  you're incapable of making.

the moment you used the sentence "Your fallacy is Argument from incredulity" you ignored the argument topic at hand in exchange for an argument about the argument itself.

Again pointing out your error is not an argument it's a correction , you have no argument just an appeal to magic.

This proves one thing for sure... the topic of the argument 'cell biology' is beyond your comprehension

Actually it's not but it certainly is beyond yours , your replies  so far are hilarious.


 we know this for a fact because where you to have any knowledge of the topic itself with which to formulate an argument you would have done so instead you attacked my argument on the basis of the argumentative style applied which in fact..

Again you have no argument just an appeal to Magic .

contributes absolutely nothing to the argument itself or the ideas it seeks to challenge or express.

Read above Dufus.

my application of the term 'Lazy' in reference to your efforts is as accurate a description as it gets, and as to your copy pasted 'knowledge' about 'magic'

Quantum Tunnelling is 'Magic'

Quantum Communication is 'Magic'

Super position is 'Magic'

Super symmetry is 'Magic' 

M Theory is 'Guess work'

BB Theory is 'Guess work'

Blackhole theory is 'Guess work'

they may be scientific theory's in their nature but they are just that 'theory's' not answers or solid facts just ... 'Magic'

Ah got ya actual science is " magic" and belief in supernatural entities is science ......LOL 

now 'cell biology and its contraction of the atheist position' why don't you put the donut of ignorance down and make a genuine and valid attempt at contradicting my points...  

I destroyed your nonsense in one sentence in my very first post,  please get an adult to help you understand the fallacy you're guilty of.

polytheistwitch

EvePhantom said:

@polytheistwitch its not 'looking for proof' its explaining of the truth to those who lack the mental capacity to perceive it, this lack of mental capacity is generated by 'establishment hive mind thinking' for example you statement:

"Why are Christians always looking for proof of God. Either you have faith or you don't"

"Why are scientist always trying to disprove of God. Either you have faith in your 'science' or you don't"

this logic in mind can you tell me, what's the difference between the holy books and the science books?

do both not rely on the 'testimony of men' as their evidence base? do both not require the 'Lameman' to believe in authority and hierarchy  to propagate and survive? you 'preach' to me about faith yet you have to 'google' mercury's reaction when placed on platinum

the truth is those lack the capacity to do the scientific experiments for themselves are required to believe a 'figure of authority' on the matter. this 'belief' is no different than the belief in a priests authority 

both beliefs require 'ignorance' as a feeding ground for their authority.   

Can you let me know what active scientific experiments are going on to disprove God? 

just_sayin

EvePhantom ,  Just know that May, Fact and little Joe will default to singing that old polka song - the science of the gaps, to excuse the problems with their world view.

EvePhantom

@Joeseph

now you are responding with vigor, doesn't that feel better?

now you said "Ah got ya actual science is " magic" and belief in supernatural entities is science"

could you explain to me what is 'natural' about a 'black hole'? and just to be clear I'm not talking about the type that 'twerks' 

again just so we are clear sciences best guest is ... "a region of space having a gravitational field so intense that no matter or radiation can escape" sounds pretty 'super' natural to me.

a place where no matter can escape? no radiation can escape? the best hypothesis being that it is a 'singularity' a 'single point of infinite mass' an this from the same guys who consider the idea of God as preposterous? isn't God describable as a single point of infinite mass? if one where in a black hole one would be in a space of 'infinite mass' would it then not also be true that where there is 'infinite mass' there is 'infinite potential' in a space of infinite potential how can there be 'no' potential for a God like entity (with all the mass it requires) to exist?

could it not be said that the default state of the universe itself is a space of 'infinite potential' from which everything emerges?

Natural? Lol!

The fallacy is of no importance or consequence if you don't understand the underlying principles and people who created the idea of 'fallacy' itself, when i say Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis, this is in reference to Aristotle's way of thinking, Aristotle coined the idea of fallacy in arguments yet here you are in one hand telling me you don't understand Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis yet in the other you are attempting to use the reasoning originally found in Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis to bat away my argument on the grounds that its premise is a fallacy?. 

if we follow your reasoning and hypothesis that the argument is based upon a 'Argument from incredulity'  which says that 'argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine' 

ok so following along with this line of thinking how is 'the question designed to get the argument going' a 'Argument from incredulity' when the argument hasn't taken place yet to be able to define its incredulity, the entire argument in your flawed logic is the question asked rather than the argument the question provokes. after the argument is had or even during the course of it one can claim that an argument is based in incredulity because one then would have proof in the responses generated by the argument but here you are attempting to shut the argument down before it has begun with the premise that the provocative question itself is an example of incredulity, if this where accepted and the argument canceled for its fallacy where is the 'evidence' that the argument was from incredulity if the argument part is missing and only the initial question exists?

in reality what is going on is you are trying to hard to 'win the argument' and not hard enough to 'understand' it. this is a lazy thought process that doesn't seek new knowledge instead seeking to crush new ideas before they start in order to 'win' 

my advice, come over to the losing side with me and you might learn more, over here we question everything, even questioning questions themselves what is a 'question' some say it is "a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information" where do questions come from? some say 'It comes from the Old French question, meaning roughly the same thing, from the Latin quaestiō, also “question”, from the Latin verb quaerere, from quaerō, meaning “I ask”, “I question”, or “I seek”

if a question is 'incredulous' why ask any questions at all when one by their supposed nature 'purposefully wont believe the answers' to the questions asked?

MayCaesar

EvePhantom said:

@MayCaesar

"Closed or fixed as compared to whom? Alternatives to what? I think "closed mind" in your definition is "refusing to agree with me".

- I don't understand this, the wording makes little sense to me, i may require aa simpler format to comprehend.

The information passing inter-generationally is guided by chemistry, not some conscious operators. Nobody is making "decisions" any more than my computer makes the decision to put a letter on the screen when I hit a key on my keyboard. The nature appears to have some laws to which all objects inhabiting it are subjected. The objects do not choose those laws, nor do they have freedom to defy those laws.

"guided by chemistry, not some conscious operators" - explain this surly (according to scientific method) if we understand the process to be chemically induced we can 'reproduce' the conditions our selves to test the conclusion

Nobody is making "decisions" any more than my computer makes the decision to put a letter on the screen when I hit a key on my keyboard

- Your computer makes the decision only because a human made the decision to build the computer, without decision making the computer doesn't exist nor does the human to operate it. I feel you are being wilfully ignorant here in that you know as well as I genetic decisions i.e. what genes are expressed or not are made 'pre-birth' yet you cover your eyes when I ask 'What' made those genetic decisions? are you trying to pretend genetic decisions are not made on a cellular level?

my understanding is that in order to make a 'decision' at all requires conscious awareness yet you argue it doesn't? 

below is the definition of a decision.. 

"a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration"

now you know a 'decision' is made by parent DNA about what 'genetic traits' to pass on to offspring and what traits get left out, so how is this possible without "a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration"

you had mentioned "The information passing inter-generationally is guided by chemistry"

- to this I ask by what 'exact' chemical process (list the compounds and solutions) are 'genetic decisions' made regarding what 'Traits' an offspring will have? 

- Light Skin for example is light skin not the genetic 'decision' to reduce melanin production? is this not a genetic 'reaction' to the sunlight in the environment the of spring are born?  

I do not know where you are getting all those ideas, and the logic behind them eludes me."

- I get my ideas from the 'science' I read as such they are not my own they are the 'madness' of science and its 'ideas' about the nature of reality

Understanding something does not imply being able to reproduce it, buddy. We understand very well what is happening at the core of the Sun; good luck reproducing those processes in a lab (and making sure that our planet does not blow up along with it). One can understand the underlying laws behind a particular process without knowing every little detail involved in it. You can understand the American society somewhat well I presume, but you cannot hope to accurately describe life of every one of the 340+ million individuals living here.

It does not make sense to talk about "decision" when the actor has no option but to act a particular way. You do not decide to fall down when you step off a cliff: gravity forces you to. If you could choose whether to fall down or fly up and chose to fall down, then it would be different.

There is no evidence that anything in the DNA works that way. It is all organic chemistry. What genes are expressed or not depends on the environmental conditions: no intelligence is responsible for that to the best of our knowledge.

If you want to know the details of the exact processes involved, you will have to talk to specialists. I have dealt a lot with RNA sequencing, but not with the DNA. I do know that in the DNA research nobody talks about anything being there beside deterministic chemical processes. You claim to get your ideas from science, but will you be able to find one single paper published in a reputable journal that claims that "DNA is conscious"? Please do if so, I would love to have a look.

EvePhantom

@Factfinder we are not in disagreement here, your line of reasoning matches my own, you are correct science is seeking answers, and it’s not like E=mc2 had no value as a scientific  belief as it certainly generated predicable results in space and time, if anything quantum mechanics only add to the overall understanding of reality, in doing so it is the ‘nature’ of science to disprove itself inorder to ensure it has reached ‘truth’ in doing so is science not automatically seeking to ‘disprove God’ in that science seeks God in order to ‘disprove’ God?

 The way in which it ‘seeks’ is by collection, accumulation and comprehension of the truth related to the reality that surrounds us trying to ‘look behind the curtain’ as it where, what does looking behind the curtain seek? It seeks a glimpse at the wizard the reason behind reality itself, it will seek until the end of time surly but the only true answers are those which lie beyond death, death is the ‘final answer’ the ‘curtain pulled back’ the soul as we call it is ‘all in’ at the moment of death at that stage there is either an answer or their isn’t. When we consider that billion years ago no life existed based on the nature of the universe we inhabit we also have to consider the end point for humanity, a simple ‘zip’ from a neutron star and we are fried, a ‘whip’ of a solar flare and ‘we gone’ the sun goes ‘pop’ no more science, no more ideas, no more anything, what then will be spoke of ‘science’ what then will be spoke of its achievements? Its accumulation of knowledge? Its ‘worth’

After all is said and done it is well known that the ultimate goal of science is ‘immortality’ to find ‘immortality’ one has to first seek God, seek ‘Gods’ capabilities and if someday it is achieved by our own merit are we ourselves then not ‘the proof of God’ do we then not attempt to show others ‘the path to eternal life’ do we then not attempt to control all of reality bending it to our will? Is the ultimate answer really that hard to comprehend? Are ourselves not the ‘proof’ of God? If where were immortal gods wouldn’t we make us at some point?

Simulation theory and religious theory have a lot in common, many near death experiences describe beautiful things beyond death all seem to have the common experience of leaving the body behind, a mere signal receiver for consciousness floating up in to space itself not clouds or gates but ‘wormholes’ , Vivid color, 360vision, a download of knowledge these are often how near death experiences go, not exactly fire and brimstone but certainly teasing something real, something tangible exists ‘after’ what if science accidently pulls down that curtain? How would it explain such a thing to us?    

EvePhantom

EvePhantom

@polytheistwitch ;specifically ‘the hunt for the immortality gene’ experiments seek to disprove God 

Factfinder

EvePhantom said:

@Factfinder we are not in disagreement here, your line of reasoning matches my own, you are correct science is seeking answers, and it’s not like E=mc2 had no value as a scientific  belief as it certainly generated predicable results in space and time, if anything quantum mechanics only add to the overall understanding of reality, in doing so it is the ‘nature’ of science to disprove itself inorder to ensure it has reached ‘truth’ in doing so is science not automatically seeking to ‘disprove God’ in that science seeks God in order to ‘disprove’ God?

 The way in which it ‘seeks’ is by collection, accumulation and comprehension of the truth related to the reality that surrounds us trying to ‘look behind the curtain’ as it where, what does looking behind the curtain seek? It seeks a glimpse at the wizard the reason behind reality itself, it will seek until the end of time surly but the only true answers are those which lie beyond death, death is the ‘final answer’ the ‘curtain pulled back’ the soul as we call it is ‘all in’ at the moment of death at that stage there is either an answer or their isn’t. When we consider that billion years ago no life existed based on the nature of the universe we inhabit we also have to consider the end point for humanity, a simple ‘zip’ from a neutron star and we are fried, a ‘whip’ of a solar flare and ‘we gone’ the sun goes ‘pop’ no more science, no more ideas, no more anything, what then will be spoke of ‘science’ what then will be spoke of its achievements? Its accumulation of knowledge? Its ‘worth’

After all is said and done it is well known that the ultimate goal of science is ‘immortality’ to find ‘immortality’ one has to first seek God, seek ‘Gods’ capabilities and if someday it is achieved by our own merit are we ourselves then not ‘the proof of God’ do we then not attempt to show others ‘the path to eternal life’ do we then not attempt to control all of reality bending it to our will? Is the ultimate answer really that hard to comprehend? Are ourselves not the ‘proof’ of God? If where were immortal gods wouldn’t we make us at some point?

Simulation theory and religious theory have a lot in common, many near death experiences describe beautiful things beyond death all seem to have the common experience of leaving the body behind, a mere signal receiver for consciousness floating up in to space itself not clouds or gates but ‘wormholes’ , Vivid color, 360vision, a download of knowledge these are often how near death experiences go, not exactly fire and brimstone but certainly teasing something real, something tangible exists ‘after’ what if science accidently pulls down that curtain? How would it explain such a thing to us?    

Yes we are in disagreement. You equate science with religion. I do not. They are separate entities with separate agendas. How does one approach disproving a god when a god has yet to be established?

EvePhantom

@just_sayin indeed i love displaying such gaps for the 'valid questions' they create. it is only in the nonsense where sense can be found, one has to look there to see it, as you say sometimes it can be a needle in a haystack. 

Joeseph

@EvePhantom

now you are responding with vigor, doesn't that feel better?

I enjoy correcting id-ots so yes it feels " better".

now you said "Ah got ya actual science is " magic" and belief in supernatural entities is science.

could you explain to me what is 'natural' about a 'black hole'? and just to be clear I'm not talking about the type that 'twerks' 

Leave your mother out of this.......so your contention is black holes are supernatural...,do explain?

again just so we are clear sciences best guest is ... "a region of space having a gravitational field so intense that no matter or radiation can escape" sounds pretty 'super' natural to me.

Of course it doesn't because everything you don't comprehend you claim GODIDIT.

a place where no matter can escape? no radiation can escape? the best hypothesis being that it is a 'singularity' a 'single point of infinite mass' an this from the same guys who consider the idea of God as preposterous? isn't God describable as a single point of infinite mass? if one where in a black hole one would be in a space of 'infinite mass' would it then not also be true that where there is 'infinite mass' there is 'infinite potential' in a space of infinite potential how can there be 'no' potential for a God like entity (with all the mass it requires) to exist?

The time to believe in a god is when deluded simpletons like you prove there is one but you can't. 

could it not be said that the default state of the universe itself is a space of 'infinite potential' from which everything emerges?

Including your idiocy?

Natural? Lol!

Supernatural....LOL

The fallacy is of no importance or consequence if you don't understand the underlying principles and people who created the idea of 'fallacy' itself, when i say Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis, this is in reference to Aristotle's way of thinking, Aristotle coined the idea of fallacy in arguments yet here you are in one hand telling me you don't understand Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis yet in the other you are attempting to use the reasoning originally found in Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis to bat away my argument on the grounds that its premise is a fallacy?. 

No , the only one who doesn't understand falacies is you , you're that st-pid you cannot comprehend  the one you keep using .

if we follow your reasoning and hypothesis that the argument is based upon a 'Argument from incredulity' which says that 'argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine' 

ok so following along with this line of thinking how is 'the question designed to get the argument going' a 'Argument from incredulity' when the argument hasn't taken place yet to be able to define its incredulity, the entire argument in your flawed logic is the question asked rather than the argument the question provokes. after the argument is had or even during the course of it one can claim that an argument is based in incredulity because one then would have proof in the responses generated by the argument but here you are attempting to shut the argument down before it has begun with the premise that the provocative question itself is an example of incredulity, if this where accepted and the argument canceled for its fallacy where is the 'evidence' that the argument was from incredulity if the argument part is missing and only the initial question exists?


Your stupi-dty is astounding,  your argument is ridiculous because you are trying to assert a god into existence by saying anything not explainable  by science has to be magic.

in reality what is going on is you are trying to hard to 'win the argument' and not hard enough to 'understand' it. this is a lazy thought process that doesn't seek new knowledge instead seeking to crush new ideas before they start in order to 'win' 

I'm not making an argument you ridiculous troll I'm pointing out you haven't got one.

my advice, come over to the losing side with me and you might learn more, over here we question everything, even questioning questions themselves what is a 'question' some say it is "a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information" where do questions come from? some say 'It comes from the Old French question, meaning roughly the same thing, from the Latin quaestiō, also “question”, from the Latin verb quaerere, from quaerō, meaning “I ask”, “I question”, or “I seek”

My advice to you is try to formulate a  decent argument,  I see you say a lot of very silly things like science is trying to prove a god yet you cannof name one scientist trying to do so , why do you lie?

if a question is 'incredulous' why ask any questions at all when one by their supposed nature 'purposefully wont believe the answers' to the questions asked?
 
I didn't say the argument was incredulous you id-ot I said your argument was an argument from incredulity,  conversing  with you is equivalent with trying to explain to a pot plant the intricacies of geometry .....a futile exercise 

MayCaesar

Something that I have systematically observed is that ideology-driven people heavily employ selective thinking. They will use one line of reasoning when it appears to lead them to the conclusion that supports their ideology, and not use it - in fact, actively resist using it and even openly say that the line of reasoning is wrong - when it leads to an inconvenient conclusion.

For example, take Christian fundamentalists' relationship with science. They will cite a small minority of scientific results outside of a proper context that have the sense of mystery to them, such as "Our current theories struggle with explaining this phenomenon", and point at them as evidence of god's existence (what is the logical connection here - beats me). Then they will ignore the overwhelming amount of scientific literature that convincingly shows that yet one more phenomenon that could not be explained in the past now has a clear scientific explanation. They invoke science when convenient, and ignore it when inconvenient.

At this point my question is: why bother at all? If you only accept the evidence that leads you to your conclusion, then, no matter what you look at, you will arrive at that conclusion. So why not just accept the conclusion and stop wasting time with this charade? It does not make you look better to talk about things you do not understand.

In case somebody is still confused: no widely accepted result in science supports existence of god. What you do is cite particular results that appear bewildering to you (perhaps due to your scientific ignorance), and then say something like, "Well, this is so strange/unlikely, it must have been a work of an intelligent designer!" Only the authors' research does not indicate that at all. It is your addition, your lie about what the result implies.

It is not very different from a caveman 20,000 years ago looking at lightning and thinking, "Wow, this is so far outside of what I know, it must be spirits raging". The only difference is, the caveman had no choice: there was no easily accessible knowledge on this. People today have a choice, and all the knowledge is within one uttered sentence: "Hey Google, find me the most up to date scientific results on how the DNA functions!" Today they are just too lazy to act on it. The caveman's life depended on taking active action; the modern couchman's life is going to be fine because even if he deludes himself with gods and spirits, there are plenty of people who do not and who will provide him with tools he needs to survive.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
At this point my question is: why bother at all? If you only accept the evidence that leads you to your conclusion, then, no matter what you look at, you will arrive at that conclusion. So why not just accept the conclusion and stop wasting time with this charade? It does not make you look better to talk about things you do not understand.

What???  I have presented documented miracle after documented miracle, such as the miracle of Calanda, that was literally certified a genuine miracle by the country of Spain, and you reject all the eye witness evidence, medical evidence, and the 1,000 plus pages of documentation.  So why not just accept the conclusion and stop wasting time with this charade? Physician heal thyself.

People today have a choice, and all the knowledge is within one uttered sentence: "Hey Google, find me the most up to date scientific results on how the DNA functions!"

You are getting scientific information from Google? Anciano, love ya, but we have to teach you some new tricks.  

EvePhantom

@MayCaesar the reason to be bothered sinking in to a 'belief' is to find its roots, its core truths and then stack them against other conflicting truths to see how they weigh up, a good and robust defense of an idea or belief set weeds out the chaff, the fake truths that hide among the dogma of a belief system. its in the stanching up against other ideas, the for and against of the argument, that new ideas are spawned of the the friction of other ideas clashing together. all of this requires offence and defense. in my personal beliefs i defend a position of God as the universe, this is a core belief based on my own witnessing and experience of reality, this was not my first belief which was the founded in biblical God, do i believe God is universe, yes do i believe that the universe manifested Jesus, yes do i believe Jesus is the Son of God? of course he is God manifested him and Jesus himself is reported to have said:

Galatians 3:26-29 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

'All one in Christ Jesus' as in All one in God as God is the universe manifest as Jesus and us and everything around us, God is existence itself, in its movement the Universe is God expressing Himself. 

for me The ideas of Christian God clashed with the science of the universe in debate spaces like this, spawning new ideas, new ways of thinking, new observations of reality and the thought that surrounds it like a cloud of 'creative magic' just waiting to be realized, placed at our fingertips a whole universe to explore, if only we had the will to explore it the tenacity, the boldness ... "Let us therefore come boldly (literally, with boldness) unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need"

is the universe not the provider to our needs?, is it not the answer to our prayers, we conflict over not enough space on the planet yet 'space is boundless' we fight over recourses that in space are 'infinite' we squabble over food and shelter ignoring the infinite supply were we to only think 'how' how can it be done, how can we explore God? 

to bargain the universe down to some trivial and pointless mechanics operating without reason or direction is for me a missing of the beautiful living painting that sits before our eyes, i mean my God what is this reality? what actually is it? i open my eyes in the morning and keep finding it, i close my eyes at night and its still there in my dreams, i see it without eyes, i feel it without body, i experience it whether awake or sleeping, its certainly 'there' but where is there? if there is there where is here, "what is it, that is aware that I am thinking?"  

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Odd isn't it? How willing @just_sayin is to accept the Catholic Spanish Inquisition's certifications and endorsements at face value from a dark ages cultic theocracy,  yet most likely dismisses the Soviet declarations that they've disproved god in space as closed mindedness....

The U.S.S.R. had officially embraced atheism (though some Soviet citizens were people of faith). In her recent history of Soviet atheism, Victoria Smolkin describes how Soviet leaders and cosmonauts used their victories in the Space Race as occasions to wave a banner of antipathy toward religion. During a 1962 visit to the U.S., Smolkin writes, Soviet cosmonaut German Titov, the second person in space, proclaimed his atheism, remarking “that he had not seen ‘God or angels’ during his 17 orbits of Earth.” Later Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev similarly joked to American reporters about God’s failure to show up in space. The brash rejection of God served to advance the Soviet effort to solidify state atheism and defuse religion’s threat to state authority https://undark.org/2022/01/27/is-there-a-place-for-spirituality-in-space-science/#:~:text=During a 1962 visit to,God's failure to show up

MayCaesar

@EvePhantom

There is reality, and there is fantasy. 

Reality is things that are true no matter what you think about them: for example, if you put your hand on a hot stove, then, no matter what mind tricks you play, you will feel the pain of the burn - and if you refuse to react to this pain properly, then you will die shortly. It is characterized by our ability to perform hard experiments that irrefutably tell us which of the two competing hypotheses holds - ideally. In practice, we often cannot determine irrefutably which hypothesis holds - but we can still make hard, sound, logical arguments about the likelihood of different hypotheses holding.

Fantasy is things that you are describing: cryptic creatures or events that no one has ever directly observed or measured and existence of which is only claimed in old obscure books. There is no "hot stove" counterpart to god. I cannot get burned by living under the assumption that god does not exist. I can do DNA sequencing and genetic editing without assuming that DNA is conscious or engineered by "god".

Your attempts to put the two on equal grounding fail precisely because they do not intersect in the way that I described. You can say that godly matters are your "spiritual pursuit", and that is fine. But they are completely separate from hard questions about reality, and you are not going to find the answers by meditating on the wisdom of ancient scriptures and trying to apply it to the modern world. Human mind has gone very far since Jesus' times; it is time to update the fundamental assumptions.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

Odd isn't it? How willing @just_sayin is to accept the Catholic Spanish Inquisition's certifications and endorsements at face value from a dark ages cultic theocracy,  yet most likely dismisses the Soviet declarations that they've disproved god in space as closed mindedness....

The U.S.S.R. had officially embraced atheism (though some Soviet citizens were people of faith). In her recent history of Soviet atheism, Victoria Smolkin describes how Soviet leaders and cosmonauts used their victories in the Space Race as occasions to wave a banner of antipathy toward religion. During a 1962 visit to the U.S., Smolkin writes, Soviet cosmonaut German Titov, the second person in space, proclaimed his atheism, remarking “that he had not seen ‘God or angels’ during his 17 orbits of Earth.” Later Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev similarly joked to American reporters about God’s failure to show up in space. The brash rejection of God served to advance the Soviet effort to solidify state atheism and defuse religion’s threat to state authority https://undark.org/2022/01/27/is-there-a-place-for-spirituality-in-space-science/#:~:text=During a 1962 visit to,God's failure to show up

Indeed, people preferring obscure and today unverifiable references from centuries ago over modern observations that anyone can replicate are a curious phenomenon. Even among atheists, there are so-called "spiritual" people who do not believe in gods and spirits, but believe in chakras, a primitive concept going back thousands of years that strongly contradicts modern understanding of human anatomy. On what basis they assume that people 3,000 years ago knew something that scientists in the cutting edge labs today cannot figure out, I have no idea.

Perhaps, part of it is intrinsic human conservatism: we are comfortable with certainty and stability, and going back to the "wisdom of the ancients" gives us the sense of both. Of course, to you and me, more forward-looking people, this is very alien.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Very true indeed. Very alien.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; @Factfinder ; @MayCaesar ; You are so foolish and blind and demonically dead spiritually.

EvePhantom

Here's an scientific experiment you can explore:

The Expiriment:

Close your eyes and cover them with your hand or a night mask, block out as much light as you can, now with your eyes closed and covered ... look into the darkness

---

When i conduct this experiment after a few minuets of looking a light comes in to view, not only this it begins resonating to some form of frequency, i liken it to a dance it performs

one time i tried to force my field of view beyond the darkness and things started to happen, my heart rate shot up as i was about to let go in to the darkness and just allow what happens to happen, right on the precipice of the revealing of something i panicked and backed out, my heart was beating out of my chest, genuinely thought i had induced a heart attack, i discovered in that darkness that a part of me fears what is beyond it, part of me fears the answer I seek, part of me fears God is sitting there waiting for me stepping out of the reality He has created for me and what he will think of such a brazen pulling back of the curtain. that was a very real and physical experience for me yet it came forth from closed covered eyes, my word doesn't have to be taken on this the scientific experiment open to anybody willing to attempt it, then they will have their 'evidence' to stand upon, their 'witness testimony' of the truth their personal truth.

Disclaimer: this experiment generated a very real physical response for me i literally thought i was having a heart attack at one point, approach with caution i accept no responsibility for any ill effects induced by conducting this experiment. if you proceed with conducting this experiment you do so of your own free will and volition and at your own risk.  

MayCaesar

@EvePhantom

This is a great example of reading too much into a highly subjective experience based on your preconceived notion. It is like when people take psychedelics and then claim to have seen angels, or be "one with the world", or whatever, based on whatever beliefs they hold.

When I was a kid, I liked doing what I called "cartoon watching". You close your eyes and press on the eyelids gently with your fingertips. After a few seconds you start seeing weird moving light patterns: they gradually change in color, texture, pattern, speed of motion...

What is happening here is your mind trying to make sense of the sensory input it is not accustomed to: it tries to map it onto something it is familiar with, so the "cartoons" that you see resemble something you have seen in the real world - yet there is no sense trying to infer some universal truths from that. Yet if you are inclined to the mystical thinking, i.e. finding mysteries where there are none, then you can absolutely interpret these "cartoons" as you communing with god or whatever.

This kind of mystical thinking is incompatible with logic. You even use explicitly illogical terms such as "personal truth". There is no "personal truth": there is just truth and falsehood. "Personal truth", "alternative facts", "lived experiences" - these are faulty concepts.

Barnardot

@polytheistwitch @Factfinder ;Why are Christians always looking for proof of God. Either you have faith or you don't

Well, I think you have put it in a nutshell there although I have never heard of any Christian looking for proof of God. In fact, the opposite is probably true to say since the real die-hard Christians just would not want to go there because they don't want to know. And most so-called Christians couldn't even give a stuff either way. 

So, when you analize the hole situation in the end, whether God actually exists is pretty irrelevant to belief and faith.

Barnardot

@EvePhantom @MayCaeser ; i discovered in that darkness that a part of me fears what is beyond it, part of me fears the answer I seek, part of me fears God is sitting there waiting for me stepping out of the reality He has created for me and what he will think of such a brazen pulling back of the curtain.

Well, that must be some pretty strong stuff that you are packing into your bong.

Here's another interesting thing you can do right. I'm into photography and you can get a kit of different colored vaselines that you smear on a clear filter so you can make pictures just like Monet. And believe me those impressionist artists were really into taking some pretty strong stuff in those days.

So anyway, what you do is get one of those kits from Amazon and just after you have had a real good bong session, you smear some onto a pair of pink-tinted Ray Bans (the "P" versions are the best since they are polarized) then walk through the park. Then, oh wow, screw that world, this is so much better.

Barnardot

@just_sayin @MayCaeser ;I have presented documented miracle after documented miracle

Indeed, you have but the problem is that those documents aren't even fit to wipe your ace with.

Joeseph

@EvePhantom

my word doesn't have to be taken on this the scientific experiment open to anybody willing to attempt it, then they will have their 'evidence' to stand upon, their 'witness testimony' of the truth their personal truth.

That's not a " scientific experiment " it's a subjective experience and has no meaningful conclusions to draw on, it's worthless.

Joeseph

@EvePhantom

Galatians 3:26-29 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

" There is neither slave nor free " seriously? The christian god according to the bible layed down the laws for the buying,  selling beating and mistreating of slaves , of course you totally ignore this  right? 

I just bet you ask now " wherein the bible does it say owing slaves is ok" 

Also god mentions Jews as being his chosen people and that they were never to be treated as one treats his slaves so how are we "all one in christ "?

You don't really know what you're on about do you?


to bargain the universe down to some trivial and pointless mechanics operating without reason or direction is for me a missing of the beautiful living painting


So what's the reason for your god watching children die of cancer ? Starvation ? What's the reason for your god watching children being sexually abused ad choosing just to watch? 

Einstein was right in what he said about believers in a personal god he said they were like superstitious children , gullible and naive in the extreme.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey Eve

@EvePhantom

The alternative big leap is to accept the idea of an undesigned designer.

EvePhantom

@Barnardot you know what I think I will give that a go, sounds like an experience. and a simple set up to yeah I will give this a go thanks.

EvePhantom

@MayCaesar said:

When I was a kid, I liked doing what I called "cartoon watching". You close your eyes and press on the eyelids gently with your fingertips. After a few seconds you start seeing weird moving light patterns: they gradually change in color, texture, pattern, speed of motion.

I think this is it, I think this is exactly what I experienced, I had my hand pressed against my eyes to block out light there was a little pressure there i think you have cracked the case, and I though I was 'going mental' 

still though I will be trying this method you describe tonight, i will report back the results.

so many good ideas have come out of this, have you seen the Vaseline glasses trick barnardot threw out, i never even though of messing with glasses, I mean I wont be using raybans i don't have money to burn but certainly I will be enjoying a warped walk in the park    

EvePhantom

@Joeseph said

"That's not a " scientific experiment " it's a subjective experience and has no meaningful conclusions to draw on, it's worthless."

- what is the 'worth' of this statement?

EvePhantom

@Joeseph as to your comment about bible references you are intentionally interpreting the verses incorrectly...

" There is neither slave nor free " seriously? The christian god according to the bible layed down the laws for the buying,  selling beating and mistreating of slaves , of course you totally ignore this  right? 

here you have taken "There is neither slave nor free" to mean that 'owing slaves is ok'  this is purposely misinterpreting also known as wilful ignorance, the full context is "there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" verse means we are neither slave nor free because we are all one 

as to the rest of your diatribe...

I made it clear in previous comments that my beliefs are not that of the bible, they are that God is the physical universe 

ignoring this you seem to be attempting to attribute the bible as my 'exact' viewpoint, this is incorrect and an ingenuine attempt to assume guilt by association as if I am some how guilty for what was written in a book 2000 years ago

I don't what to be seen as disparaging or a bully so I will not comment further on what I think of these attempts to 'take me down' 

you will need a better argument to defeat my point of view, take a leaf out of Barnardot's book his subtle approach to changing my views is certainly having an effect.