1. Islamic Theologian's Theory: It's Likely the Prophet Muhammad Never Existed

Comment #288441 by Invisible Talker on November 22, 2008 at 12:46 am

Did qomak say there is no contemporary evidence for evolution? What a blunder. Like Ian said, this is really not the place to flaunt your ignorance.

Here's some contemporary evidence for evolution. Take a look at this.

2. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #264708 by Invisible Talker on October 15, 2008 at 4:45 am

Comment #264704 by rsommer
I only want you to pretend only for a moment that you are impartial if you are able to be.

Of course I'm impartial. If I wasn't, I'd still be a Christian.

Would you still say that everything in the universe came into being by accident... that life started with a cell which is formed only by chance or that some inanimate chemicals in the primordial atmosphere reacted on each other, and the atmospheric pressure eventually led to the first living cell?

Yes, I'd say that. It's the best explanation we have. Bear in mind however that abiogenesis wasn't a single event, but rather an ever-increasing slope of complexity.

3. [UPDATED] Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation

Comment #264706 by Invisible Talker on October 15, 2008 at 4:40 am

Comment #264701 by Steve Zara

And be in favour of marrying one's identical twin.

4. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #261188 by Invisible Talker on October 6, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Invisible Talker, the Dems are to blame as well. This isn't something we should blame squarely on the Republicans. We've had a Dem congress for a little while now, and even with this bailout it was hardly Dems vs Republicans (a lot of Dems voted against!).

It's the banks' irresponsible behaviour that is to blame. As far as I know, neither of the parties participated directly in the making of this crisis. But the excessive de-regulatory policies of the Republicans heavily contributed to the crisis. They made it easier for this to slip under the radar.

5. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #261178 by Invisible Talker on October 6, 2008 at 2:02 pm

He's right that Mccain should talk about how democrats caused this crisis.

Yea, damn those democrats and their irresponsible de-regulation policies! Just look at what it's led us into. Damn them all to, oh wait..

6. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #261088 by Invisible Talker on October 6, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Comment #261080 by Sciros

Ha, ha, Sciros. Don't make me come over there.

7. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #261077 by Invisible Talker on October 6, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Thats why government can not do things as good and efficient as the private sector.

Man, you really are something. It's easy to say that, but in doing so you have to ignore the success of Finland's public education system. I ask you again, if government can't do things as efficiently as the public sector then why is Finland so successful?

8. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260950 by Invisible Talker on October 6, 2008 at 8:05 am

You have steep taxes and thus the government can afford to lavish more on a public university.

You've got our number. However surely America is richer than Finland and could affor public education easier than we do. Yet still it's us doing it, and not you.

Here's your number:

Comment #260945 by root2squared:
From the 2008 budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget

$481.4 billion - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion - Global War on Terror

$56.0 billion - United States Department of Education

Some fucked up priorities.

9. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #260938 by Invisible Talker on October 6, 2008 at 7:52 am

Why are the greatest universities in america private universities?

Because they charge exorbitant fees from their students and then consequently have better resources, better teachers and smaller class sizes. Your argument is just foolishness. If the government is fundamentally bad at running education, then why is my country (Finland) a longtime top5 resident and currently no. 1 in the PISA surveys? (With the US nowhere in sight.) Looking at a broad level we are n.1 in the whole world. If you are correct, how can this be so?

And there are virtually NO private schools or private universities in Finland.

10. Strippers, armadillos inspire Ig Nobel winners

Comment #260934 by Invisible Talker on October 6, 2008 at 7:44 am

Comment #260766 by Steve Zara,

Interesting. I wonder if there's any way I could make useful practical applications from this. Like reading a 'magical' set of words to myself before taking an exam at the University ;) Or before delivering a pitch.

Still, I think it may be a purely psychological phenomenon instead of a sensory one. Still, I realize that it's also a question of definitions: At which point does psychlogical influence over a person's judgment become sensory crossover? I.e.: Does the better sounding chips actually taste better, or does it only seem like it? It's possible there isn't even a difference between the two.

Comment #260771 by hobar,

Perhaps, but I also accurately described how expectations can affect judgment. I don't really know how the brain works but an effect on the person's judgment sounds much more plausible than actual sensory crossover.

However, as I said earlier it's a question of what's defined as a placebo, and what as actual sensory crossover. It's possible that the phenomenon is a mix of the two, or that the two are linked in some way and that there isn't one without the other. You know, that wouldn't surprise me much..

11. Strippers, armadillos inspire Ig Nobel winners

Comment #260733 by Invisible Talker on October 6, 2008 at 1:17 am

If the taste of potato crisps seems to change when the crunch sound is different, that has important implications for the crossover of different senses.

I respectfully disagree. (Wow, I disagree with Dawkins for once..) Rather than sensory crossover, I think it has more to do with the way the Human psychology handles expectations.

When you drink wine from a crystal glass, you expect it to be a good wine. When you dine with fine silverware, everything screams 'posh' to the eye so it again raises expectations. And this crosses over to the world of religion. When people attend a religious service, they too expect it to be nothing short of marvelous (being tended by a supposedly all-powerful being and all that), so it is. When a priest blesses you, you expect to feel something, so you do. When you attend a supernatural healer, you expect to feel better afterwards, so you do. It's probably the old and infamous placebo-effect all over again, of which you too talked about.

Still, more research into this would always be a good thing. It is possible, if rather unlikely, that we're dealing with sensory crossover here.

12. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #259816 by Invisible Talker on October 4, 2008 at 1:41 am

Why don't we stick to the issues and not bring up how she didn't actually ban any books or her religious background.

This is clearly just obfuscation.

She would have wanted to ban books, this has already been explained to you. Banning books, even an attempted banning of books, should make any sensible person question her judgment.

13. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #259785 by Invisible Talker on October 4, 2008 at 12:34 am

Justice has been done.

14. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #259551 by Invisible Talker on October 3, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Comment #259549 by Sciros

Agreed. That sounds like the proper way of handling the issue.

15. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #259547 by Invisible Talker on October 3, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Comment #259528 by Sciros

I can't argue for any specifics as to what kind of moderation we need. I wouldn't be the person to consult on that. The less possible without averse effects, the better. Still as a rule of thumb, personal insults shouldn't be tolerated. Especially on the scale seen on this thread.

Although looking back on this debate, I didn't really mind the contemptious posts. I wasn't hurt by them, some provoked gales of laugher :D

I mean the constant twisting of adversaries names: the 'Invisible Twit', wtf man? 'Little Stevie'? They were all the more humorous because they were intended as offensive, in which they failed epicly. It was entertaining to see it to the end.

But for now, good night everybody!

16. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #259540 by Invisible Talker on October 3, 2008 at 1:36 pm

I am still baffled as to what mrj was all about.

Yeah, me too. She had some puzzling things about her:

1) What was the reason for her being here?

2) Why the overflowing smugness and contempt? Why the baiting? Why the hostility?

3) Why the lying? She at one time pretended to be a professor of logic who has taught logical classes at a university, and an experienced programmer who has taught others. Then it was clearly revealed that she wasn't. Lying is such a low blow.

She clearly was religious, and was intent on making atheists appear as irrational as theists. She mentioned it like a hundred times. As to why, I don't know, but I guess it was probably to justify her own religiousity and sincere wish to think belief in god is rational, even though it isn't.

17. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #259520 by Invisible Talker on October 3, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Congratulations, great work Steve. My argument exactly, just presented in much more detail! High five!

To Sciros and severalspeciesof:

I for one have enjoyed the moderation free-zone that is RD.net, where even people with very bad arguments like mrj1007 can come and have their arguments demolished. The moment we start very actively moderating the board, there will be people questioning our motives. And that will lead RDnet to become, in the eyes of people, just an another version of www.carm.com. Ultimately, we will win the argument with openness and intellectual honesty, though I agree that such a profoundly smug style should not be tolerated. I've had to deal with lines upon lines upon lines of ad hominems while arguing with mrj1007. There were times I wished she could just sit down and behave.

18. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258422 by Invisible Talker on October 2, 2008 at 2:34 am

Kudos to Sciros for taking on mrj1007,

I can't take it anymore. I've often wondered who she really is, because she seems to nearly know everything. Not know nearly everything, but nearly know everything. She seems to have a narrow and deep enough base to discuss symbolic logic accurately but still get everything outside it horribly wrong. Here's some examples, mjrnisms if you will:

Collected mrjnisms: (for those looking for a laugh)

1) A few pages back, she quite amusingly thought that by an all-powerful entity we mean power as in P = W / t. She then proceeded to take the sun as an example of a powerful thing and then basically said that an all-powerful entity would not necessarily be complex (as a counter to my claim that Occam's Razor invalidates her "reasonable interpretation"). That is of course lunacy, unless she really thought all-powerful meant the greatest P=W/t.

The sun is much more powerful then anything energy source here on earth, but is it really much more complex. Given enough hydrogen in a given area you will get the same thing. In fact controlled fusion is much more complex, which is why we still don't have it. The relationship between power and complexity has not been shown. If you were in my logical class back at University I certainly would have failed you.

2) There's the occasional profoundly puzzling remark:

Comment #248046 by mjr1007:
You seem to have as much fervor for your atheism as fundamentalist have for there religion. This includes the use of rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, and my favorite, going silent for long periods so that you can have the last word.

While I don't know of you, to me this seems like a sure way of NOT getting the last word. If you'd want the last word, you'd be constantly posting. As phatbat pointed out, it's a very strange thing to say.

3) Then there's the lying about what she's arguing for:
Steve Zara wrote:
Indeed. How do you test for the presence of an infinitely powerful and knowledgeable being? It is a pretty awful interpretation even without Ockham's Razor, as it isn't verifiable.
mjr1007 replied:
Couldn't tell you, since I've never made the claim of an infinitely powerful being.

Yet previously on the thread:
Comment #247678 by mjr1007:
All powerful at the quantum level [of the god she's arguing for] was inferred from the principle that an observer effects the event. I would agree that all powerful is complicated, well beyond the scope of this board.

While infintely powerful and all-powerful aren't exactly the same thing, they both reference to the same concept of all-powerful, and mrj1007 saying that she's not arguing for that concept is a clear case of obfuscation.

4) A preposterous non-sequitur:

Comment #257836 by mjr1007:
There is a big difference between an idea used to describe the strong nuclear force and the standard models description of the strong nuclear force. This argument would allow you to say that relativity was just a natural evolution from classical physics. [Even though it was]. Which would mean Einstein was just a hack, and not one of the most revered physicist in history.

The part with emphasis added.

Comment #257846 by decius:
What a preposterous non sequitur. :shock:
You don't understand how new theories build on pre-existing ones. Relativity couldn't have been formulated prior to Newtonian physics and the theory of electromagnetism, and it branches from them. This fact doesn't in the least diminish Einstein's stature, but even without Einstein, relativity would have been formulated in the same decade by others. Poincare and Lorents were responsible for the necessary breakthroughs.

5) Then there's the hundreds of cases of co-dependent behaviour: "It's not true until you cite me somebody else saying it!" (as to how a citation of someone saying it is so would validate anything is a mystery, especially if all I'm doing is applying Occam's Razor)

One in particular is glaring. Supposedly, Occam's Razor isn't even a logical principle unless I have a citation that says it is:

Comment #257085 by Invisible Talker:
I guess you could be a stickler for words and insist it's a choice. But all it really is, is a sound logical principle that says you should not make answers more complicated than they need to be. I agree with this principle. It seems that you do not. Feel free to argue against it being a sound principle.

Comment #257836 by mjr1007:
do you have a proper citation for Occam's Razor being a principle of logic, sound or otherwise?

19. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258186 by Invisible Talker on October 1, 2008 at 2:33 pm

While Occam's Razor may not be part of symbolic logic, it's an important part of the real world, the whole of which you, mrj1007, completely omit. You can't detach your claim from the real world and the principles of how competing answers should are chosen. Your claim is in the real world, whether you like it or not.

20. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #257731 by Invisible Talker on October 1, 2008 at 3:07 am

mrj1007:
I assume this is your way of conceding my original point. Not nearly as gracious as Goldy but I will accept it anyway. It really is the only point I was trying to make.

I'm saying I understand why you are taking this position. I understand your logic. But you can only hold on to your claim if you think only very narrowly in terms of symbolic logic, not when you think of how answers are chosen in the real world in which, if you haven't noticed, we happen to be. It's my way of highlighting the logical principle that more reasonable answers are always to be chosen over less reasonable answers. Therefore, your counterexample isn't a viable position (it's not the most reasonable position) and your claim for it being a reasonable interpretation therefore fails.

Again, feel free to argue against "We should always choose a more reasonable (asserts less unknowns) answer over a less reasonable answer". Yet you can't, and you'd be a fool to try, because there is no good criticism of it. It's a very solid principle with a wide application in science.

mrj1007:
Now after all of this what do you think the chances are that I won't be a stickler, really, come on now you must realize it's vanishingly small that I won't.

I guessed as much. That's why I dealt with it right in the next sentence:

IT:
I guess you could be a stickler for words and insist it's a choice. But all it really is, is a sound logical principle that says you should not make answers more complicated than they need to be. I agree with this principle. It seems that you do not. Feel free to argue against it being a sound principle.

mrj1007:
you've also refused to cite and you've refused to give the simpler explanation that you claim exist. To this point an existence with no verifiable proof. An existence claim that to this point seem scantly different then any of my claims.

And yet I have cited Occam's Razor like a hundred times. How would further citing affect my argument from Occam's Razor in any way? Now, I'm not making the argument "This specific interpretation exists". All I'm doing is pointing out that your "reasonable interpretation" is THE most complex interpretation possible (because it includes an entity that is all-powerful that is therefore "all-complex"). And therefore, it's not a reasonable interpretation. Again, feel free to argue against Occam's Razor. Have a nice day.

21. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #257085 by Invisible Talker on September 30, 2008 at 3:43 am

mrj1007:
Again, something we can agree on. Which is why I couched my argument in terms of a formal system, so I could stay consistent. I never claimed to uncover some deep underlying truth about the Universe, just about the consistency of an argument.

I understand your position very well, but it is a misguided one because you have barricaded yourself into a formal logical system, and completely forget the real world.

mrj1007:
You can stand by your words, you can sit by them, hell you can take them in a carriage for a stroll for all I care, it doesn't change how unreasoned they are.

My position is that it's reasonable to always choose a more reasonable answer (one that makes less assumptions). I don't see what's so unreasonable about that.

Because of this principle, your counter-example fails as there are more reasonable answers. Yet you're still making your argument. So, you indeed are arguing against "We should always choose a more reasonable answer over a less reasonable answer" and arguing for "We should not choose (always, or only in this case) a more reasonable answer over a less reasonable answer". Tell me more. What possible argument could you conjure in its favour?

mrj1007:
Now for one, hopefully, last time with IT. Occam's Razor is not a law of physics. [...] It's, as you correctly pointed out, a preference. An as the dictionary pointed out, a preference is a, wait for it, choice. God, I really do hope you finally see this.

I guess you could be a stickler for words and insist it's a choice. But all it really is, is a sound logical principle that says you should not make answers more complicated than they need to be. I agree with this principle. It seems that you do not. Feel free to argue against it being a sound principle.

Besides, everyone uses Occam's Razor nearly daily. When you can't find your car keys, you assume you are just forgetting where they are. You don't assume an all-powerful unidentified entity moved them. Or maybe you do, and that's part of the problem.

Anyhow, without Occam's Razor, we've got nothing by which to decide which answer is more reasonable, and suddenly leprechauns causing gravity starts to sound like a possibility.

You think ANY interpretation of the evidence is reasonable. What you omit is that it's easy to come up with an infinite number of theories that match with the observable evidence. What is needed from an accepted scientific theory is not only that it best matches the observable evidence, but also that it makes the least unwarranted (unrequired) assumptions of all the competing theories. Even if Occam's Razor is not science per se, it's an important guideline in science.

Therefore, it's justifiable to use Occam's Razor in this case to say that your answer is intrinsically unwarrantedly complex, and not reasonable.

22. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #256710 by Invisible Talker on September 29, 2008 at 11:59 am

Comment #256660 by mjr1007:

[..Insert contemptious language here..]

Have you noticed there's something in common with your every post?

They have a bile about them that is so strong that they are all look like you just vomited the contents of your frustrated brain all over the board. I've never gotten the thing about strongly wishing to offend people you've never met. It strikes me as a variant of troll-behaviour where you want to drive overboard people you haven't even ever seen and quite probably never will.

It is especially hilarious when you can't resist fiddling with the names of the people you're addressing. I don't know why you would so desperately want to offend that you go yourself overboard into the opposite direction and completely embarass yourself. I mean, 'the invisible twit'? 'Little stevie'? They're all the more hilarious because they weren't intended as such.

Comment #256663 by mjr1007:

I would love to learn more.

I sincerely doubt you're here to learn anything.

Now to the main argument:

I stand by my words. If there's a more reasonable answer to a question, you should take it. That way you're being reasonable. If you don't, then you're not being reasonable. The reasonable way is that answers are not chosen by an act of will, rather they are chosen by how reasonable they are. A more reasonable answer should always be preferred. This is the way answers should be chosen. As you yourself have admitted that your answer is not the most reasonable answer, you do realize that to make your claim you have to argue against "We should always choose a more reasonable answer over a less reasonable answer" and to argue for "We should not choose (always, or only in this case) a more reasonable answer over a less reasonable answer"? How can you possibly make that argument?

23. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #256194 by Invisible Talker on September 29, 2008 at 12:12 am

Comment #256166 by mjr1007

Sigh.. This is one of those bad debates.

Mjr1007, I hate to be a stickler, but your counter-example still isn't reasonable. We can argue about this 'till the cows come home, but the fact remains that this experiment has multiple interpretations.

An inconclusive experiment with multiple interpretations is not reason to believe. Nor is it to say (like you have) that therefore we choose not to believe by choice. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. Your answer is intrinsically more complex than it needs to be. You yourself have admitted this (you have said it's not the most reasonable interpretation).

I mean, listen to yourself for a second. You claim that because you think there is one possible interpretation of the evidence which allows for a COG, therefore we choose not to believe as others choose to believe. Do you realize just how far out that is? As if answers to questions was a free pick-your-answer -situation. It's not. It's done by how reasonable the answer is. And if there's a more reasonable answer, then guess what, that answer is preferred.

24. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #255885 by Invisible Talker on September 28, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Comment #255487 by mjr1007:

I don't need to show the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence, just a reasonable interpretation. This is a very low bar for me.

I can see that you do have a very low bar for accepting a god into the equation. Your 'a reasonable interpretation' is due to its nature overly complex --> It's not reasonable. It hardly matters what definition of 'all-powerful' or 'infinitely powerful' we're using. What matters is that it's anathema to reason to assume something infinitely complex as an answer if that complex answer isn't strictly required. And in this case, it's not required.

Comment #255353 by Steve Zara:

No, you are missing the whole point of the discussion. There are countless valid statements, but the real problem is how these statements are tested against reality.

Ontological arguments never work, as you can't get to what actually exists from logical or language-based investigations. What you need to test a model against reality is hard evidence. And which models you start testing against reality is determined by the use of Ockham's Razor.

Exactly! Mjr1007, listen to Steve here. We don't live in a formal logical system. We live in a Universe.

Indeed, this is someone far far away from his home field, and genuinely confused that symbolic logic is not the prime tool for discovering the universe around us.

25. Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

Comment #255236 by Invisible Talker on September 27, 2008 at 5:30 am

Comment #255228 by Oystein Elgaroy:

Expanding space is a confusing concept.

Truly, it is. And I'm by no means an expert on it.

26. Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

Comment #255224 by Invisible Talker on September 27, 2008 at 4:24 am

So we would expect to see space expanding, the repulsive forces pushing the Universe outward at an accelerating rate never being able to escape because it is repulsive to all matter outside of it.

It would be strange if curving space would make it expand. Sort of anti-gravitation particles couldn't be responsible for the expansion of spacetime, at least according to the current knowledge of gravitation.

27. Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space

Comment #255222 by Invisible Talker on September 27, 2008 at 4:13 am

Comment #254246 by jamesstephenbrown

It wouldn't work because these repelling particles would not produce a flow into a uniform direction. It would just repel the mass everywhere in a 3D arc.

Edit: Unless they were distributed very precicely.. And then you'd have the question: 'Why is it they are distributed so?'

28. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #255171 by Invisible Talker on September 27, 2008 at 2:00 am

You've just conflated the Universal Observer with infinitely powerful and then made the leap from infinitely powerful to infinitely complex, again with nothing but you're rather lame opinion.

You have yourself said that your UO-entity would be all-powerful. And now you're saying it isn't. All-powerfullness necessarily implies 'all-complexity'. To say otherwise is to imply an all-powerful machine would not necessarily have to be complex. Pure lunacy. Go ahead and build your all-powerful machine then. Shouldn't be complex, right?

The sun is much more powerful then anything energy source here on earth, but is it really much more complex. Given enough hydrogen in a given area you will get the same thing. In fact controlled fusion is much more complex, which is why we still don't have it.

Oh my Gawd, you did not just say that! You seriously think the Sun is complex? And you think that a controlled blob of hot plasma would be 'much more complex'? As a plus, you ignore that we've already gotten fusion to work for short periods of time.

Clearly you have no idea what complex even means. The fact that enough hydrogen stacked together produces a sun should be a hint to you towards it not being that complex, but rather simple. Complexity is all about structure. The sun, as an ever-shifting ball of pulsating plasma, has little structure. Stack gigantic amounts of hydrogen together, and presto: a Sun!

This is really getting ridiculous. I am wondering, why am I debating about the complexity of answers with someone who has no idea what complexity means? And this is all from the guy who earlier in this very same thread has said that because there are mathematical non-existence proofs there are non-existence proofs in the real world.

I stated that non-existence proofs are very difficult so there was no point in them here. I did give an example of one, which was then roundly criticized for being mathematical in nature.

Isn't it obvious to everyone what we're dealing with here, or does someone really want me to go on?

29. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #254625 by Invisible Talker on September 26, 2008 at 2:40 am

What the hell? Rd.net swallowed retroactively my very long post. It had even already appeared here.

I really don't have the patience to write it again. I'll say only this:

Like making it axiomatic that the UO will always be a more complex answer.

An infinitely powerful entity would necessarily be infinitely complex. Assuming an infinitely complex answer is NOT reasonable. It's intellectual suicide.

30. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #254313 by Invisible Talker on September 25, 2008 at 2:36 pm

I have just caught up with this, and I would like to complement you for an excellent job.

The Ockham's Razor argument, as you say, is all the citation needed.

Thanks. I really appreciate your appreciation.

Like I said, it's pretty obvious how Occam's Razor works. If you're left with several answers, just apply it again. It's been like 10 posts simply haggling over this. But at least we've all seen the extent of his argument. It's a brand of selective half-application of Occam's Razor.

On a more positive note, we've got mjr1007 stating above that he is pleased with this outcome. So in a manner, everybody wins. Although some will have to do with only thinking they did.

31. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #253832 by Invisible Talker on September 25, 2008 at 12:46 am

I am wondering as to why should I take responsibility for alleviating your ignorance on the subject? It's pretty obvious to everyone that there's only one reasonable answer left after applying Occam's Razor. If for some reason you have several, you can just apply it again and again until there's only one left. All the others are unneededly complex.

Let's just both agree the other is wrong, because that's what we're going to do anyways. However, as the issue hinges only on the application of Occam's Razor, one day you'll actually read a book on it, and you're going to find out that Occam's razor after all eliminates all but the most reasonable answer. You'll also find out that making answers more complicated than they need be isn't reasonable. In this case, we may not exactly know what the most reasonable answer is (lack of data) but COG, as THE most complex answer possible, isn't a reasonable answer. At least until an experiment strictly requires it.

But I doubt such data will ever come from an experiment. If I could bet money on it, I would.

32. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #253539 by Invisible Talker on September 24, 2008 at 2:24 pm

You've misapplied Occam's Razor. You need to show a citations [..]

No, I haven't. It's a perfectly legitimate and quite common application of Occam's Razor. Do try reading a book. There are many books by good authors on this subject, say for example by one Wilhelm von Ockham.

Just a hint though, I didn't change your statement. Occam's Razor always eliminates all but THE most reasonable answer. And by your own admission,your COG certainly isn't it.

33. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #252579 by Invisible Talker on September 23, 2008 at 11:25 am

This isn't a sidetrack it's the main point. By trying to make it a side issue you can continue to spout off for no real reason. This is the point and until you can show that you translation is correct you have failed

I don't spout off, I am trying to clarify my position to you, in vain apparently. My argument has little to do with translating logical statements and everything to do with the application of Occam's Razor. I doubt anyone other than you thinks this is relevant, but if you feel I'm missing a vital point in your argument, please restate the argument.

I have little patience for someone who claims there own uninformed opinion is fact, and then refuses to show any evidence for it. This should sound familiar.

This really is getting repetitive. There is no evidence to be had from my side because I only need to show that since the experiment doesn't strictly require a COG, assuming a COG as an answer is unreasonable, because a COG is THE most complicated answer possible. Then the COG is eliminated by Occam's Razor. ANY other explanation will do. And the article says there are other explanations.

Stop conflating science with symbolic logic, they are not the same thing. Science is empirical and inductive, symbolic logic is deductive. Different tools for different purposes. You can apply Occam's Razor to logic but not in the way you are using it.

Of course they aren't the same thing. But in this case, we don't have sufficient empirical data to say which claim is more likely (COG vs. natural law). The experiment left us with a lot of questions. Therefore, logic enters the field and we use Occam's Razor to determine the most reasonable answer. Then we can say that in the meantime as we gather more empirical data, making the answer more complicated than it needs to be isn't sound logic nor sound science. What exactly is your problem with my application of Occam's razor?

You've conflated several different things to try to come up with a reasonable sounding argument, which I'm sure you brethren will just love and agree is right, no matter the flaws.

Again, be more specific. What exactly are the 'obvious flaws' in my argument? Produce specifics and we'll talk.

You've attacked the experiment without any proper citations. You've also failed to give a serious alternative to the experimental data, just repeating over and over again that the interpretation of the physicist was overly complex.

True. I haven't included citations mainly because the experiment didn't have a clear conclusion, but also because pure Occam's razor removes any COG from the equation. An infinitely powerful entity would also have to be infinitely complex, and thus would be THE most complex answer possible. All-powerfulness is about the most complex thing imaginable. ANY counterintuitive natural law is simpler. This is why I don't need to give an example of the natural law in question. Occam's Razor rules out a COG every time, unless it's strictly required. And like the article says, there are other possible explanations which aren't disclosed in the article. I (as not a researcher of the field) don't know the possibilities, but this hardly prevents me from pointing out that this isn't sufficient reason to say the sentence "There is no evidence or reasonable interpretation of evidence for COG" is false, like you claim.

Now, specifically what is your problem with this line of reasoning:

COG = horribly complex, Law of nature = always simpler. Occam's Razor: One shouldn't make a more complex answer than is required --> Assuming a COG is not reasonable because it is more complex than is required --> The claim "There is no evidence or reasonable interpretation of evidence for COG" remains true.

It seems clear you would rather discuss anything but that in it's proper form.

Oh, please. I am all for discussing the main argument. You say the claim "There is no evidence or reasonable interpretation of evidence for COG" is false. I say it's still true because the assumption of a COG where none is strictly required is unreasonable. I'm here because of personal interest in the subject, not out of allegiance to a cause or to preach. So stop trying to infer otherwise. Its sort of a 'poisoning the well' -tactic.

34. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #252361 by Invisible Talker on September 23, 2008 at 1:44 am

I'm getting a lot of hostility and lines upon lines of ad hominems from your general direction. Care to tell me from which crevice of your mind arises the constant need to insult me?

Just show me a proper citation that states a logical statement like the one I made can be translated into any formal logical system the way you claim, and I will concede the point.

I fail to see why I would want to be sidetracked to such an argument. Besides, why would I want to involve any other people in this by quoting them? All that you have to do is examine my argument and say with which specific part you have a problem with.

"IT: In a logical argument, in the absences of differentiating data, the more reasonable answer is ALWAYS takes prevalence, not the slightly-reasonable-answer."

mjr1007: Just look at your argument, it's not an argument of symbolic logic.

No, that sentence isn't a symbolic argument. It's how Occam's Razor is utilized in a logical debate. It slices off competing explanations that are less reasonable. And this sliced bunch includes your COG/UO.

All that really should matter is that you claim the following sentence is false:
"There is no evidence or reasonable interpretation of evidence for COG". You do this by saying that there is one possible explanation that would permit for a god to exist and perform a function at the quantum-level.

I point out that it's not the most reasonable explanation because a COG/UO would be horridly complex. A much simpler explanation is that a simple law of nature is responsible. I also point out that making a more complex answer than is required is unreasonable (Occam's Razor). Therefore assuming a quantum-level COG/UO is unreasonable and not a reasonable explanation. Therefore, the claim remains true. This is all that I really argue.

That is, modeling the interactions of every molecule with it's neighbors and getting a verifiable result. For the equations to actually be correct there would have to be some mechanism (COG perhaps), which informs each individual molecule where it is and how to conform to the equation.

Again: COG = horribly complex, Law of nature = simple. Occam's Razor: One shouldn't make a more complex answer than is required --> Assuming a COG is not reasonable because it is more complex than is required --> The claim "There is no evidence or reasonable interpretation of evidence for COG" remains true.

Which part of this line of reasoning do you not agree with? I'm guessing it's the part that says 'you shouldn't make more complex answers than are required'. You can't seriously be advocating that we indeed should make more complex answers than are required?

35. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #249083 by Invisible Talker on September 17, 2008 at 2:16 pm

To any other readers of this exchange,

I apologize for any heated moments in this debate, but an argument that is chiefly based on the selective half-application of Occam's Razor shows a level of intellectual conceit that is really reprehensible. And if there's something I can't stand, then it's dishonesty.

36. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #248329 by Invisible Talker on September 16, 2008 at 4:16 am

I do hope we could be without "straight up" ad hominems here. It would be nice if you didn't make them. If you must, make them about an issue, not "you are dense"-types.

This truly grows tedious now. It's just come down to you saying "is not, is not, is not".

Don't worry, I'm almost finished with your argument.

I'm not "saying is not, is not, is not", I actually have reasons for every single objection, reasons which I have outlined every time I've voiced them. I don't like to pull the "straw man"-card, but this really is one.

At the time of the ToR, Einstein in fact ignored some data, which later turned out to be inaccurate. Classical physics was know to be wrong from Mercury's orbit for quite some time, while people still clung to it. String theory has been dismissed by some because there is no there there. The list goes on. But all of this is beside the point.

I agree, it really is beside the point. But let's haggle over this a little anyways, if just for a warm-up for those brain-cells.

In physics, there is always the possibility that a given data set is erroneous. So what if Einstein disregarded a data set that he thought was in error? For example, if you measure g=100m/s^2, the only reasonable conclusion is that your measurement is in error.

As for classical physics, the orbit of Mercury did not outright invalidate Newton's laws. There could have been unusual mass concentrations that would have explained the aberrant behaviour. This eventually lead to the search of the mysterious planet Vulcanus, which of course wasn't there. So no it wasn't that "people clung to it even though it was invalidated". It couldn't be explained, but it didn't outright invalidate Newtonian mechanics.

As for String theory, there is no observable evidence for it, so I wonder why bother bringing it up at all. But, as we both know, this is all beside the point. Let's get to real business.

I really don't know how to say this any differently, this is a Logical argument, there is a difference between reasonable and most reasonable.

Now we come to the main argument. Read carefully here. In a logical argument, in the absence of differentiating data, the more reasonable answer ALWAYS takes prevalence, not the slightly-reasonable-answer.

Your position is that while your answer isn't the most reasonable answer, it's still reasonable.

HOWEVER: It's unreasonable to postulate a more complex answer than is needed. And you're doing just that. That's why your argument for "your answer being a reasonable answer" simply fails.

I'll say this again: It's not reasonable to make a more complicated answer than is required. It's the end of the line. Your argument fails. Get over it.

37. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #248094 by Invisible Talker on September 15, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Is it just me or does, going silent for long periods of time, seem like a sure fire way of NOT getting the last word?

No, it's not just you. I too wonder about the no doubt fascinating line of reasoning behind that statement.

38. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #248082 by Invisible Talker on September 15, 2008 at 2:29 pm

History shows that what is considered the most reasonable (simplest) usually does not explain all data points. Gravity is actually curved space/time, wave particle duality, ...
(Emphasis added)

Oh, please. Lying? This was the last thing I expected of you. You know perfectly well that at the time of its conception, the Newtonian theory of gravity explained all the data that was available at the time. People knew of nothing that would invalidate it. As was and still is the case with the Theory of Relativity. It explains ALL data sets concerning its domain. Not "just some data sets", "because it's the simplest answer". Just because we can't find gravitons, doesn't mean that the predictions of the ToR are not accurate to the highest degree (has been tested more than 50 times). At least their inventors showed some intellectual honesty, unlike what you've displayed here.

You have a very high bar here, not just to say that this not the most reasonable explanation, but that it is an UNREASONABLE explanation.

No, I actually don't. The most reasonable answer must always take prevalence, even if you really like your answer. I really like my answer that some deep sea creature reproduction is caused by the famed Invisible Penguins, but my superfluous supernatural entities are cut off by Occam's razor, much like yours concerning the Bell/Legget inequalities.

But have it your way: It is unreasonable to postulate, in the abscense of sufficient data, an answer that is more complex than is required. That really is UNREASONABLE. And that's what you're doing. We have some data --> We have some possibilities --> And you're not choosing the most reasonable possibility, because of personal preference?

Also using you epistemological argument is insufficient. You would have to actually use the Bell/Legget inequalities to demonstrate some flaw in his interpretation.

You seem to forget that the interpretation was that there were many interpretations. And of these, you must choose the most reasonable answer. Only that is actually being reasonable. Otherwise it's just looking where the line of reasoning leads, not liking where you're headed and steering yourself off-course. However, the scientific process must be excempt from taking such a position, because it has to make a null-hypothesis first so that the hypothesis doesn't influence the data, do tests and then make a conclusion. But we're not phycisists just about to do an experiment, now are we?

This argument was crafted to make it as easy as possible for me and as difficult as possible for you. In the grand scheme of things it's a very minor victory but the fact that you and your atheist brethren can't bear to give up even the most obvious of points seem both comic and tragic. You seem to have as much fervor for your atheism as fundamentalist have for there religion. This includes the use of rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, and my favorite, going silent for long periods so that you can have the last word.

I'm sure your argument was crafted as such. Yet it still fails. For intellectually honest persons, in the absence of differentiating data, the most reasonable answer ALWAYS takes prevalence. Even if you're emotionally attached to yours.

I know when to give ground and when not. And this is an argument where none has to be given. Your point simply fails. By the way, the "Atheists with fundamentalist fervor" is really such an old oxymoron. Yeah, old me being such a stickler for insisting that you be reasonable. Such fundamentalism indeed, applying Occam's razor and being intellectually honest with the results.

This includes the use of rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, and my favorite, going silent for long periods so that you can have the last word.

Now this was way too funny to leave it be, so I just have to bring it up separately. For me, writing is a passion. You can use enjoyable rhetoric and still be logically sound. It raises the readability level of the post considerably for many people. As for ad hominems, was it not me who said we shouldn't focus on such things and instead focus on the issues?

Going silent for a while would be explained by the fact that I actually have a life. And as a proud owner of a life, I can't sit in front of my computer nearly as often as you'd like me to. Well, you must excuse me for that of course. No rhetoric intended by it.

If you claim to be a bastion of reason then you should probably know more then most about symbolic logic.

As you may or may not be aware, I am not the embodiment of RD.net, but I do find it rather amusing you're addressing such an entity. My symbolic logic is sound. It's watertight no matter how you look at it. If it was not, you'd have already refuted it. But you can't, because I don't argue for unreasonable positions.

39. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #247968 by Invisible Talker on September 15, 2008 at 11:30 am

And all I'm really saying is that it's not a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

I'm not trying to convince you to believe.

Yet you did say there is reason to believe. And I'm arguing against that claim. I'm always open for reasons to believe. It's just that there is none. Here's a quote from you:

"There is no evidence or reasonable interpretation of evidence for the existence of COG, therefore there is no reason to believe in COG"
By pointing out a reasonable interpretation of evidence for the existence of COG, it invalidates the previous statement. Now just because there is a reasonable interpretation of evidence for the existence of COG does not prove the existence of COG it merely invalidates the previous claim. Which forces atheist, like yourself, to now admit you chose not to believe in COG, much as other chose to believe in COG.

To make it clear to you, whatever my argument might seem to you, I assure you this is the line of reasoning I'm arguing against.

All I am saying is that it's a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, not the only one, not even the most popular one. What can I possibly say to convince you of that.

Probably nothing, because it simply isn't the most reasonable interpretation. I'll tell you why and for your convenience, I'll do it step by step.

Let's start at things we do agree with. You and me both agree that there are many possible explanations. Now I gather we also both agree that Occam's razor can tell us which answer is simpler and thus more reasonable by telling us which answer asserts the least unknowns.

As the experiment is inconclusive, and we don't really know the reason why things happen as they do, it leaves us with different intepretations. One is that all events must be observed at the quantum level for anything to happen at our level. This (in your opinion) would suggest a single 'UO' (i.e. a god) and that it's all-seeing and all-powerful. All the other possibilities are naturalistic in nature, and they revolve around there being some counterintuitive law of nature about for ex. an object's 'place' at the quantum level, which explains this phenomenon.

Now, of these possibilities, which claim is asserting the least unknowns: Asserting that there is an immensely complex all-powerful and all-seeing entity who, no matter where, observes every event, interacts with (observes and affects) every single particle in the universe, or that there is no immensely complex all-powerful all-seeing entity, and that the results of the experiment are simply an another law of nature of which we don't yet know?

The UO is always a more complicated answer because it's by definition all-seeing and infinitely powerful and thus infinitely complicated. And don't try to claim infinitely powerful is something simple. There's nothing more complicated than an all-powerful entity. You can't build a simple device/being that's all-powerful. An all-powerful device/being would have to be mind-bogglingly complicated. Whatever counterintuitive law of nature is the other choice, it's always simpler because for that answer, we don't have to assert such a complex entity with so many unknowns. Just imagine the complex design of such a creature, an untold number of parts swinging in perfect unison, never failing or constantly repairing itself. We humans are pretty complicated, but a being of that caliber is made of pure complexity and deep-fried in utter improbablility.

Assuming a UO/COG where none is needed is NOT a reasonable assumption. And that is what I've meant every time I've mentioned the good old Argument from Ignorance and the God of the Gaps.

40. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #247436 by Invisible Talker on September 14, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Now to address your claim a UO is never the simplest answer. This one should be very easy to prove, just come up with a simpler example. Otherwise admit your error.

How about the possibility of there being no 'UO'? Simple enough for you? There are other possible interpretations of these inconclusive experiments. That, as you seem to forget, was even mentioned in the article. That's why, at its root, your argument is an Argument from Ignorance. And that's also why, unlike you've claimed, this isn't a reason to believe.

Assume that all quantum events must be observed for anything at the classical level to occur.

Great, let's assume that shall we? No need to actually have data to ascertain if this is the case, right? And no, the physicswed article doesn't say all quantum events must be observed. Guess what, you actually have to have supporting data to get anyone take you seriously on that. And here's where your whole construction fails.

So what is the simplest answer here? [..] Clearly a single UO is the simplest solution.

No. It's not. Even if there were need for events to be observed at a quantum level, it doesn't follow that a single observer is the simplest answer. I'd say all-powerfulness is pretty complicated. If you looked at the pyramids, would you say that it's obvious a single being is responsible for them? The same applies more or less here.

Let me just tick of a few of the claims I'm not making that you insist on replying to:
God is responsible for everything,
You need to believe in God
This proves God exist.
COG and the God of Abraham are the same thing.

You're pretty overzealous of these things. I don't recognize even one of these arguments as my own. For one complaining of staw men, you sure are good at making them.

But these are all distractions at best, and ad hominems at worst. So let's both ignore these and focus on the core issues, one of which is your lack of ability to provide supporting data for your claims, as opposed to providing articles that simply allow for your version of the God-of-the-Gaps to exist. As far as supporting evidence goes, you've got jack, and I still have no reason to believe.

So don't hold your breath for me to do so.

41. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #246745 by Invisible Talker on September 13, 2008 at 2:27 am

IT, hate to argue about stylistic issues like editing but your post are difficult to decipher. You've edit out much of what I had to say, leaving the rest without context. Again good rhetoric but lousy reasoning.
Now that I know you find it annoying
"This is really disappointing for the self proclaimed bastion of reason "

Well, at least I respond to all of your points instead of ignoring the fact that 'God'/'UO' is never the simplest answer. It's always eliminated by Occam's razor, unless there's something that strictly requires it. And to this date, there isn't.

Yes, I removed stuff from your posts that wasn't relevant. Every word doesn't have to be there, because I know the context. However, I didn't think I removed anything important. Moreover, RD.net swallowed my first long and coherent reply and I didn't want to write an another one.

If you've read my previous postings then you would know that what I really proposed was a Universal Observer (UO) who was all seeing, at the quantum level. Since observing quantum events actually influences quantum events the UO would also, in a very real quantum sense, be all powerful. For many the idea of an all knowing all powerful being (UO), is a very reasonable COG.

Whatever. Your argument is still an argument from ignorance. Which is still instant fail.

This is clearly just one of many possible interpretations of the events, which are in fact, wait for it, supported by experimental data. Try reading the physicsweb article.

No. It's not supported. I've already read the article. You can interpret anything as "God does it". One interpretation of gravity is that "god does it". Yet is it more reasonable? No. That this one experiment perhaps leaves the door open for one version of the God of the Gaps, doesn't mean it's reasonable to suggest it's there.

Once again, contrary to what you seem to think, ignorance is not a reason to believe. One 'possible interpretation' is that the Invisible Penguins are the 'UO'. At least they would not be 'all-powerful' (rather just powerful enough) and are thus a much simpler answer. Yet you dismiss these simpler (less asserted unknowns) answers. COG (being an infinitely complicated answer) is eliminated by Occam's razor from the possible interpretations.

I hate to rain on your parade, but you really don't seem to be worth the attention you're seeking. It's still 'God of the Gaps'. Which still isn't a reason to believe.

42. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #246622 by Invisible Talker on September 12, 2008 at 3:15 pm

We never FULLY know how anything works. There are always constraints that are unknown. Science is just trying to fit the data to a theory. As the data grows, so too does the theory. Look at gravity. Newton's theory lasted for 300 years, until Einstein included relativity. We still haven't seen a graviton yet. Get used to it.

Of course we don't know everything. But I find it preposterous to postulate an infinitely complex answer when there are simpler ones available, and when we just don't know yet to boot. Again: Your argument is simple argument from ignorance.

The case here was actually different. Experimental data was used to expand our knowledge. I'm sure you would have been just as adamant about the ridiculous theory of wave particle duality at the time of it's introduction.

Thank you for telling me what I would have thought. The wave-particle duality is supported by experimental data. God, however..

2)No, every explanation is not equal, there is something called Occam's Razor. A single simple explanation is better then multiple complex ones. This is exactly how one claims an explanation more reasonable then others.

Great, you know Occam's razor. That will speed things up. You definition of it however, is incorrect. The simplest answer is the one which requires the least unknowns. God is not a simple answer. It's a mess of unknowns.

As for the second possible question, IPs are not the simplest answer so they are not equally likely.

Great, you got it. The point was that neither is a god.

This is really disappointing for the self proclaimed bastion of reason.

I really wish you'd stop saying that. It's like you enjoy hearing yourself say it time and time again. My answer was satire.

Edit: Updated quotebars.

43. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #246246 by Invisible Talker on September 12, 2008 at 2:45 am

Seriously,

your argument is simple argument from ignorance.

Basically, it's just:
1) We don't fully know how X works
2) Therefore, all explanations are equal and everyone can choose whatever they believe ; all positions are equally plausible. Nobody can claim they're more reasonable than others.

Do you think the Invisible Penguins are reasonable? If not, why?

44. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #246240 by Invisible Talker on September 12, 2008 at 2:38 am

"By pointing out a reasonable interpretation of evidence for the existence of COG, it invalidates the previous statement."

Yes, certainly.

Because we don't know, it must be supremely reasonable to suggest that it is indeed the Invisible Penguins on Pluto that are observing everything with their faster-than-light-quantum-entanglement -arrays, thus keeping the Universe in check. Therefore, everyone who doesn't believe in the Penguins do so by choice, as much as others choose to believe in the Penguins. Feel free to argue against the Penguins!

45. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #236709 by Invisible Talker on August 25, 2008 at 6:22 am

Is it only me, or are most of the callers really unintelligible? They have so strong accents I can't hear what they're saying.

46. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #182921 by Invisible Talker on May 21, 2008 at 5:57 am

I was stupefied when reading the heated debate between elfinabout and mjr1007 on page 2. I am so disappointed to be here so late (as this thread has been silent for many months now). The base argument of mrj1007 was just "you can't disprove my concept of god". Are you people thinking the same as I am? Invisible Pink Unicorn, anyone?