501. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90130 by phasmagigas on November 23, 2007 at 5:45 am

its quite common to have creationists trounced in an argument on evo who then go on to god arguments. The most recent intereaction I had was when an evo discussion suddenly turned into the 'can you prove you love your wife' session, yawn.....

502. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90014 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 11:51 am

To hanker for such explanations is natural. To indulge in them is understandable. To proselytize and seek to displace scientific endeavour with them is disgraceful.

nice, more constructive than my chin stroking!

503. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90010 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 11:42 am

rhut

But seeing it and explaining it are two different things.

i accept that generally, I saw a jewish guy vigorously praying in an airport lounge a few months ago (and he has every right and should have every right to do that and im happy he can imitate being totally crazy in a public space) there were several things about the whole spectacle that i didnt understand, i didnt understand why more people werent looking at him out of sheer curiosity, i also didnt understand why he wasnt dragged away by security as at the same time over the PA system the following (or similar to) was being said: 'in the interests of security please report any suspicous activity'. Had the guy been islamic and praying on the floor he might well have had a very different reception by people waiting to get on the plane.

anyway it has nothing to do with the thread but i just remembered it and felt compelled to write!

edit: actaully i know fullwell why nobody was looking at the guy (irrespective of what they were thinking), its because they were being (or playing at being) fully accepting of this extremly odd head banging, holding a book and chanting bacause its part of his religion, so thats ok and if i look at him oddly then im being rude and inconsiderate and even hostile and i dont want to seem uncultured in this crowded public space.

504. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90006 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 11:34 am

I consider God to be able to do anything he is capable of doing.


And in anticipation of your next probable question (something which I don't usually try to do in a place like this), since I am not able to explain infinity, then I am not able to explain the infinite. But even though infinity is 'invisible' in that aspect, nevertheless I can still 'see' it though, by seeing its 'shadow.' But seeing it and explaining it are two different things.

We are a finite living inside of an infinite. We operate with created laws and physics, inside of non-created infinite laws and physics that we are not capable of knowing while operating in the finite. But nevertheless we know they are there; unless one wants to claim that infinity does not exist, but which is impossible.

i prefer the evo stuff, all i can do now is stroke my chin and say hmmmm...........im beginning to wonder if this i actually RD having a little joke with us :)

505. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89999 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 11:15 am

The kinds of evidence we have for the existence of god are exactly the kinds of evidence we would espect to find if there were no god at all, but rather just a whole lot of wishful thinking, ignorance, tradition and cultural inertia.

J, a nicely written little piece. This morning i saw one of those pieces of evidence, walking my happy, warm(ish) dogs we passed a gaggle of canadian geese at the river bank, one was limping and the poor beast had its foot literally hanging by a thread, of course a similarly cruel fate is to be had by all the said geese (and every other living thing, including people). A religious person might console themselves with 'oh, its gods will' or even 'it will enter ducky heaven soon' i just see what youd expect if there was no god, no god atall, some fine healthy bird the product of 3.5 billion years evolution, unceremoniously hopping in pain and soon to die (thankfully)by cold, microbe or coyote.

506. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89994 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 10:49 am

ruht:

Explain how either to destroy or not to destroy makes one any less 'perfect' than the other.

ok, my last non evo post (we were discussing ID vs evo ruht, i was enjoying that more) if i can resist! so its a bit like going past a train wreck and seeing some poor child missing a leg and seeing the perfection in her tears.

507. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89992 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 10:39 am

eepeist. ah, the new avatar, the swords are very clear now, no more mistaking you for a golfer!!!! :)

508. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89961 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 8:29 am

Are you asking me which one I believe is true, or are you asking me to guess which one you prefer, or are you asking me which one you'd like me to pick for you.

which one you believe in.

either way im going to ignore the god sections here and concentrate on the evo posts, i wish dianelos would come over and he can take over the god bits.....i gotta take the bloody dogs out....

edit: i was suggesting dianelos only as he might well enjoy showing believers that their view of god is wrong, as its not quite like his. we might as well get the believers to agree on stuff before they start debating.......and besides this was an evolution thread, when i accept something is true, i at least like it to be falsifiable, i can at least to be demonstrated wrong in my 'beliefs' and thats got to be a good thing.

509. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89957 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 8:26 am

Perfectly confusing! If God is omniscient, then he knows when and why he'll change his mind. Therefore he would just start off with the "correct option", hence not changing his mind at all! I've also blogged about this, it doesn't get easier to explain with time!

whats interesting to me is that in the company of believers I could come up with any old nonesense about god, i could randomly make it up, something like 'well i think god is everywhere, in me, on me, but at the same time totally separate which allows me to make my own choices upon which i'll be judged' and i can bet theyd all accept that was a perfectly reasonable thing to say (and i did just make that up) and they smile and say what a nice thinking christian i am. Its also interesting that its not so easy to masquerade as a pro evolutionist (not that thats anything to do with masquerading as a christian), im not sure of my point but seems that religion allows for any old dishonest/honest BS where ANYTHING can happen. remember that twilight zone? episode where an omniscient/omnipotent being says it can do anything, until some guys says 'get lost' at which point the said being vaporises in faliure!!

510. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89951 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 8:16 am

Your question is flawed. Only one God is the real one. I believe what you're trying to ask is how do we decide what is written on him is true or not.

so which one? a know many muslims who say its allah and hes VERY distinct from krishna (for eg) if there is a god i know nothing of him/it/she, you are the one who can enlighten here.

511. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89943 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 8:10 am

quetz

If he decided to do something else, then obviously his first choice was incorrect or worse than the second. Therefore, not perfect.

come on quetz, remember god works in mysterious ways, perfect in its imperfection!!

512. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89940 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 8:02 am

You ask for evidence, and then you dismiss it because you refuse any evidence that contradicts darwinism. You create your so-called 'scientic method' to purposely exclude anything but darwinism even if something is the truth, as stated by your own beloved but clearly insane Judge Jones:

as of yet there is not one, not one piece of evidence that contradicts evo, none that i know of! Evolutionary scientists constantly try to falsify their own ideas (thats how science works), and as of yet the falsification hasnt yet done any falsifying so the theory as a whole remains the best known account for lifes diversity.

'beloved' judge jones, well im not sure hes beloved of any of us here, he merely did his job, upheld the constitution, had a hindu asked for equal time on hindu creation myth im sure youd have agreed with him when he rejected it as unconstitutional and not science. the judge may be insane but he doesnt seem to show it publically.

"While ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." - The honorable but totally insane Judge John E. Jones III, United States District Court, Case No, 04cv2688, Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

ID hypothesis may be true but there isnt anything (zero, zilch, 0 )to demonstrate that it is so for now we have to assume it isnt. heres another version of it:

'While maori creation arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, maori creation is not science." - The honorable but totally insane Judge John E. Jones III, United States District Court, Case No, 04cv2688, Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District'

Even if something's the truth, if it goes against evolution it's not science, according to darwinism insanity.

there isnt a single piece of evidence that is accepted as true that contradicts evolution, i could start being a complete ass and say 'well just what do we mean by truth' as do many religious people when they get stuck in a corner, i am not yet in a corner, evo theory is no where near.

Therefore what darwinists are promoting isn't true science, it's totalitarianism; it's a cult.

im not sure my teacher suggested any horrors if i didnt subscribe to evolution, many religious people do quite the opposite. Darwinism a cult, oh the dishonour, surely a religion!! the classic case of 'your BS is just as bad as my BS'

513. For the glory of God

Comment #89937 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 7:43 am

Without religion, people would still form groups and groups would still fight over resources. Examples of non-religious groups: by location, language, political party, profession, trade union, charity, sport, etc.

very true. i remember vividly as a kid in the UK (and this will sound almost unbelievable to americans) a slightly older relative of mine from 25 miles away came to visit, his accent markedly different from mine. A walk through our local town had my relative singled out by a gang of lads, one asked 'are you from f'in 'insert town x' he actually got it wrong anyway, woefully wrong (the town hed mentioned was actually 15 miles east and not 25 miles west!) anyway a fight ensued and I remember being truly amazed that a difference in accents was enough to instigate a fight.

514. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89931 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 7:23 am

I find that mentioning this stuff usually results in a period of thoughtful silence from creationists, as a pet argument has been demolished. Of course, what usually follows is an attempt to redefine 'species' and 'mutation' and so on...

unlike 'ontlogies' posts where there is some debate to be had at least evolution is based on real evidence that once can hold and manipulate, creationists have so little to go on (actually zero) in terms of evidence over wishful thinking that the arguments are demolised very easily.

remeber 'revcort'? we were talking about the dino bird connection and archaeopteryx came up, rev said hed read that some scientist was saying that archeoperyx was actually 'just a bird', i replied by trying to explain the idea of cladistics and just what is a bird??

Cladistics and the idea of groups of organisms changing through time, that species are almost only defined through the fact that intermediates are dead/no remnants are difficult to imagine initially.

the majority of creationst questions regarding evo simply illustrate a lack of understanding of the process, a real shame as this is the stuff that should be taught in schools.

I can bet there are many non biology specialists teaching evo in schools who themselves do not have a grasp of the basics, so that when a kid throws a question such as 'if we come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?' only a teacher with a good grasp of the theory can demonstarte that the question as posed is flawed, a well armed teacher could effortlessly draw a quick family tree on the board, point out where we and modern monkeys 'are' and trace back and voila, the kid leans something, a teacher who cant do that might say 'er, well, i'll look it up and tell you tomorrow' that immediately reinforces the 'controversy', no kid is going to question a teacher on the haber process, evo needs a special place in school curriculums, esp as denying it can be an open door to ignorance for life. comments on youtube are a classic example.

pro evolution comments such as:

'HELLOOO dummy, you evr heard of ring species? go read a book and learn summit. IDIOT.'

tend not to be found and for good reason.

515. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89914 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 5:55 am

ruht

"Possibly a Christian?" you ask me for 'proof,' and then you use the word "possibly" to put forth your own assertion?

Different standards for different folks, I guess.

Typical "clear thinking" darwinists.

reasonable people prefer to use the word 'possibly' a lot, the use is can be reduced as more evidence piles in. If you use 'possibly' you are hardly making an assertion.

Assertions occur when you say someting without evidence. If a car goes past me and theres a jesus sticker on the back I can say that the driver is 'possibly' a christian, I have allowed for 2 opposing options, 1)driver IS a christain and 2)driver ISNT a christain. If i say that driver IS a christian, then ive made an assertion. The driver could be the atheist or islamic brother of the driver who is merely borrowing the car. If the car stopped outside a church, the driver gets out and is seen to have a crucifix around his neck and then enters the church i have 2 more pieces of evidence that that person is possibly a christian, however at that point most reasonable people would reasonably drop the 'possibly' at that point (unless soemthing vital hinged on the proposition of the person being a christian, akin to say a group of shia muslims wanting to be sure that the person in their midst and sweating profusely was actyually a shia too and not a sunni)

the corroborative evidence for evo is overwhelming, theres literally tonnes of it, that this can be trounced by a couple of pages in an old book is astonishing, and thats what it boils down to, id rather people be honest and say their non acceptence if evo is religious in nature and based on faith, at least i know where i stand with them, the attempt to use the scientific method to demostrate ID (and we are still waiting for the easier falsification of evo)is fine, each to their own, but it hasnt showed ONE thing pointing to design, not ONE single thing, not one thing on this entire planet points to design, well apart from cars, radios etc.

516. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89911 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 5:39 am

ruht.

Darwinism is big business these days

indeed it is.

selective breeders of animals and plants

microbiologists working on antibiotics, vaccines, anti parasite drugs

both these massive endeavours (food production and attack by microbes are our species biggest immediate concerns, i think theres a strong argument for that) work on the assumption that evolution is true, its used entirely as the framework for both these ventures.

ruht, if you find yourself with a complex chest infection an the doctor suggests you need 2 antibiotics to help reduce the chance of a resistant strain emerging would you question the doctors advice? you should to be consistent say 'oh no, i only need one, evolution doesnt happen' would you then sue the doctor if a difficult to treat strain proliferated in your chest at that point??

517. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89905 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 5:15 am

If they can't, then darwinists can never prove their theory. If they can, then they will have just inadvertently proven Intelligent Design to be a possibility and to therefore also be science, seeing how they, perhaps minute intelligent beings (I'll give a darwinist that much), created life themselves.

im late on this thread but anyway....

if humans manage to create a self replicating living system in the lab its says nothing about how life arose on this planet, it says nothing what so ever. It would be a bit like an engineer building a syscraper and concluding that mound building termites must also be intelligent in the same way that he or she is.

No scientist worth their salt says intelligent design is an impossibility, its just that given the evidence its all rather unlikely and unnecessary.

It's a sticky wicket for darwinists, and it proves that their theory of evolution is impossible.

No creationist worth their salt would say that evolution is impossible. Evolutionary theory has yet to be falsified, almost anybody can find a potential falsification but when tested the falsification just hast worked. The ultimate test for evo theroy was when scientists discovered how to read the genome and with it the ability to make some VERY specific predictions.

Had chimps and humans shared less DNA than chimps and mice, had horses and zebras shared less DNA than horses and gazelle etc it would have undermined the theory in an instant (assuming that we had the taxonomy correct) BUT, and heres the big BUT..........it didnt falsify it, it merely cemented it to practical certainty. genomes are a 'godsend' for evolutionary biologists, the detail at which organismic descent can be unravelled is so astonishing that special creation (ie that without evolution) can be utterly dismissed.

518. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89902 by phasmagigas on November 22, 2007 at 5:01 am

ruht.

Can human science artificially create or recreate evolution in a lab?

'create or recreate evolution', im not sure what that means but what i think you are asking is can 'human science demonstrate evolution', well, one can do it in a bedroom not even a lab.

1) Get some walkingsticks/stick insects (i suggest these as they tend to be easy to keep-aslong as you have leaves in your area in winter), grow them to adults and measure their lengths.

2) only breed the from the two smallest individuals.

3)continue this process for a few generations, say 4 or 5.

4)what you should end up with (all other things being equal) is a colony of stick insects on average smaller than that what you started with, what you have done is remove the genes for (or are linked to) larger individuals to an extent, you have changed the gene frequency of your little population from what it began with.

hey presto, you have demonstrated evolution!! you have changed gene frequency in your population over time which is what evo in essence actually is.

Now if you bred your insects for another 30 years you may find your self with individuals so small that if you took them back to the wild you may even find that the wild types on average are so large in comparison that they could no longer mate (insects have interesting lock/key genitals unlike our own any size fits all approach!) with your tiny stick insects, hey presto, this by definition means you now have 2 species.

if any of the above is know BS i am happy to take advice from biologists!

519. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88886 by phasmagigas on November 19, 2007 at 5:56 am

As Lord Kelvin said in 1895 of an admittedly simpler problem "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

this says nothing about god and our minds but in the same way that there was (according to the theory of evo) and gradual series of forms from say ourselves back to simpler organisms>single cell>collection of molecules and membranes>>


I suppose a similar thing can be drawn with our minds, modern mind>ancestors>>>>> we can use modern organisms to emulate what those ancestor minds were possibly like as they went through generation to generation. one could imagine (i guess its easier for a human to imagine being an amphioxus rather than the other way around) the mind of an amphioxous, a fish, a frog, a komodo dragon, a cow, a lemur, a chimp, a human, of course this does not represent a lineage as you know but we can assume our ancestors went through a stage rather like a frog brain stage, a tadpole larva stage, a segmented wormy stage, a bilaterally symmetrical collection of cell stage, a slime mould like stage ie from a stage with no mind atall, again, thats the power of evo and that which terrifies creationists.

im not sure why one has to posit the requirement for god in the human mind when its obvious (assuming evo to be true) that our minds, like our bodies got added to bit by bit, generation by generation. now god might have added a bit to us later on, or gave us a soul uniquely but im just not falling for that, assuming im not in some matrix and my dog isnt real I can be quite confident that my dog, like another person has a little mind, it may not appreciate self like a person does but only like how a lamprey cannot appreciate jawiness like a trout can(he can flap his gills though) those who suggest that minds have to be from god are no different than those who say bodies have to be from god.

An alien intelligence could arrive and scoff at us for being so primitive, 'they havent even joined minds yet over the biosilico net fusion, and they think they need god to explain themselves, hahahaha, and they still have jaws the poor wretches, oh my aching sides'

edit: i also forgot about each humans actual run through the development of conciousness, as we grow from a single cell>>>>>>>>>>>

520. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88870 by phasmagigas on November 19, 2007 at 5:14 am

Having said that, I also believe with some confidence that the many miracle stories in the Bible are mythological. Why do I believe that? Because I find these miracle stories pointless and childish, not to say often demeaning to God. These stories are probably the result of people of little trust in God trying to impress others.

this paragraph was really written by the verbose ontology king??? its simple understandable posts like this that help us see what DG is really like behind those long arguments.

'people of little trust in god' what a load of nonsense, maybe they just made it up for the fun of it, maybe they were trying to deceive, maybe they were mad and thought it true, as for 'trying to impress others' hmm, so i can now see some guy in a desert making up stuff just to impress his peers by concocting a story or two.

As for the pointless and childish nature of the stories pointing to their mythological origins, im sure they could be seen as untrue even if they wernt childish or pointless, like the ressurection, well maybe that is childish and pointless too? reads more like a horror flick.

and 'demeaning to god' really means nothing does it.

521. The joining of church and state

Comment #88736 by phasmagigas on November 18, 2007 at 6:24 pm

DUDE!!!! That was a spoof article! This is a clear thinking oasis remember? Lets not post crazy shit, not even about religious nut jobs, without making sure it's true.

the problem of course its hard to differentiate between spoof and non spoof when it comes to the religious mind.

522. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88710 by phasmagigas on November 18, 2007 at 4:00 pm

have little to do with doctrine, and much more to do with malign narcissistic traits expressing themselves in religious garb.

interesting, little more back slapping cavemen who gather on a sunday.

523. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88705 by phasmagigas on November 18, 2007 at 3:41 pm

But some atheist philosophers are already realizing that scientific naturalism is simply not viable and trying to device naturalistic ontologies beyond the restrictions of scientific naturalism.

If they accept something 'beyond' the restrictions of SN does that suggest that they are about to beome theists? how do these atheists define that which is beyond scientific naturalism???

524. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88701 by phasmagigas on November 18, 2007 at 3:35 pm

As for scientific naturalism, far from "working wonders", it has in fact offered the world nothing but hard problems (related to consciousness) and paradoxes (related to quantum mechanics).

better to have thought and found a problem than to have not thought atall.

525. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88699 by phasmagigas on November 18, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Indeed science is completely compatible with various versions of theism as evidenced by the fact that recent Nobel laureates in physics are theists.

indeed science is completely incompatible with various versions of theism as evidenced by the fact that recent Nobel laureates in physics are atheists.

should that not also be equally valid? I have no idea if it is but there you go.

526. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88689 by phasmagigas on November 18, 2007 at 2:24 pm

ive got to the point where the philosophical debates (as little as im able to engage in them anyway) are a major turn off, its something i might engage in if i really feel the need to determine of my soul is in jeopardy but right now thats not the case. The more down to earth topics like evolution beckon (with its relevence to our lives at every step:food, illness, reproduction, behaviour) as soon as the threads start on the ontological bit im finding the left click ever faster.........

527. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88685 by phasmagigas on November 18, 2007 at 2:04 pm

via pharyngula i linked to the pbs ombudsmans post show discussion.

The letters from the cdesign bunch are very revealing, there arent that many posts from the cdesign lot on these forums but at least those that do find time here are willing enough to have their assertions and arguments sliced and diced and shared accordingly and some like 'revcort' admit theres a lot he doesnt know (indeed i feel he was finding some of the biology very interesting and revealing), the posts to PBS are just what youd expect from debate virgin creationists, false arguments blended with interesting writing styles and more false arguments.

528. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88535 by phasmagigas on November 17, 2007 at 1:34 pm

theres a rather strange desperation in the ID brigade, something childlike/ish, did one guy towards the end of the show actaully shed a few tears??(my reception is terrible and i couldnt quite tell) with the notion that evolution took away mans dignity, what an absolute fool.

529. For the glory of God

Comment #88454 by phasmagigas on November 16, 2007 at 6:13 pm

a religiously inspired nuclear conflagration could wipe out half the worlds population and leave the biosphere in tatters and people would still look for crosses in the inferno, maybe the 'believe what your parents tell you' genes mean that any intelligent beings will always have the disease called belief where ever they are in the universe.

530. For the glory of God

Comment #88453 by phasmagigas on November 16, 2007 at 6:06 pm

'A Star of David would have been quite impressive, but probability alone can explain crosses.'

i love it.

lets play jack straws and see 100's of miracles.

531. Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

Comment #88448 by phasmagigas on November 16, 2007 at 5:47 pm

so no need for transubstanstiation when you eat bolognaise. Im hoping my spellings of 'need' and 'eat' are correct.

532. 'Secular Believers'

Comment #88445 by phasmagigas on November 16, 2007 at 5:33 pm

theocrapcy:

NO wonder the church is peeved, imagine all that power they used to have. They once were simply able to instruct any non-believer to be executed

so good to have been born at the end of the 20th century!! so good to have a taste of relative freedom.

533. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88354 by phasmagigas on November 16, 2007 at 6:06 am

This is not the Matrix. This is not the Simulation theory.

but remember we are possibly in a 5th level simulation, ie a russian doll of simulation, the alien originators of the first simulation dont even know we are here!! the simulations in the level 4 simulation told me (athough they are not supposed to do that). the problem is theres a belief (an unsubstantiated one, can you believe that, hahaha, such idiots) that we may be actually the 7th simulation sub branch within the second primary one, but its BS anyway as how do you differentiate the a sub branch from a primary branch eh, its all down to definitions????

534. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #88352 by phasmagigas on November 16, 2007 at 5:56 am

whoops, looks like god misheard the prayers for georgia and unleased rain over bangladesh instead, its interesting as there will be millions praying for it not to rain anymore over bangladesh. Actually, no, thats not interesting as most know here.

535. Secular Fundamentalists: There is no such thing...and the AAI conference doesn't make atheism a movement, either.

Comment #88349 by phasmagigas on November 16, 2007 at 5:46 am

I was sharing a tent with this fellow Matthew, who happened to be a budding homosexual. He was also a raging pyromaniac

haha, remids me of a line from 'dirty harry' although the chase involved an erection (i wont insert the real word!) and a zippo!!

536. Secular Fundamentalists: There is no such thing...and the AAI conference doesn't make atheism a movement, either.

Comment #88347 by phasmagigas on November 16, 2007 at 5:42 am

skyhook0

The "blind squirrels" will be every bit as unable to defend their position (though it happens to be correct) as any priest, because they don't have the intellectual chops.

so should a 14 year old boy not use condoms during sex with his girlfriend if he is unable to form a coherent argument with a priest as to why he should use them despite the priests opposition?? the boy is the blind squirrel in this case but im not sure we should hold that against him. i use this example as i suspect the average 14 year has a bit to learn re arguments, esp against priests.

537. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88340 by phasmagigas on November 16, 2007 at 5:09 am

maybe atheists deep down do realize that atheism is rather problematic

if we are wrong we go to hell, oh dear, well at least I will KNOW i was wrong, i think i'll be at least be able to hold my head up unlike the opposite situation where if the theist is wrong then they wont be able to hold up their head as they wont be there to do it. the theist will never know they were wrong if they are, but i will, maybe i just enjoy dancing with pain.

Then, no matter how deeply we study the physical laws present in our experience of the physical universe, no matter how many measurements of the moon's orbit we make, no matter how exactly we measure the weight of the Statue of Liberty, no matter how many people we ask for their opinion, no matter how often we actually bang our heads against the cold metal of the Statue of Liberty – even if all humanity would start doing nothing but collecting objective data about the moon and the Statue of Liberty until all the libraries overflow with that information: it will all not amount to even weak evidence that the moon or the Statue of Liberty objectively exist, because in fact they don't under the assumption made. So unless one assumes that the physical universe objectively exists there can't be any evidence whatsoever for the objective existence of the moon or of the Statue of Liberty. I hope you can see that.

we can all see that but in a way that is rather like imagining winning the lottery, being independent for the rest of ones life surrounded by luxuries then reawaken to realise you just burnt yor arm on that damn burger cooking hotplate, flip burger, flip, flip, flip.....

im finding this theism/naturalism thing isnt getting me anywhere, im going to read up on something a little more 'earthy'....evolution!!

538. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88186 by phasmagigas on November 15, 2007 at 6:01 am

repression of women and religious cleansing ("ethnic cleansing" is simply avoidance of what the underlying cause was).

'ethnic cleansing' is such a monstrous euphamism, why not plain old 'racial killings/murders' at least people (including children) will have a better idea of what they are hearing about. So in some cases it should really be labelled as religious killings. Interesting how religious is swapped for ethnic (and im sure there are cases of both types of 'cleansing') as if somehow ethnic killing is more acceptable than religious killing. the very word cleansing (which is what the cleansers might like to use) is thoroughly inappropriate.

539. The evolution of creationism

Comment #88012 by phasmagigas on November 14, 2007 at 6:16 am

im sure many of you watched 'judgement day' on th enova show last night, ie the dover trial events. ignoring the technicalities of the case its very illuminating that some of pro ID bunch burned art work and lied under oath (hell for them it seems) and then the judge and at least one of the parents opposed to ID in schools received death threats. A just what is it with that Phillip E. Johnson, that guy just gives me the creeps, ok so thats got nothing to do with his love of the wedge but he reminds me of the guy in poltergeist 2:

http://www.thefilmbasement.com/images/slb1.jpg

sometimes i do listen to my gut.

540. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87894 by phasmagigas on November 13, 2007 at 2:22 pm

i just realised that this thread is supposed to be one of 'my argument is....'

541. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87871 by phasmagigas on November 13, 2007 at 12:43 pm

As Lennox said in his debate with Dawkins, many of new atheism's criticisms of religion are correct.

im sure i speak for most atheists when i say we dont have a problem with god (if their was one) just the people who feel they know what it wants of us. the existence of a deity and the way people behave in accepting 'theirs' are two things entirely.

542. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87869 by phasmagigas on November 13, 2007 at 12:35 pm

But some atheists might reason that the best explanation to fit their experience is that some extraterrestrial and far more advanced civilization is playing games with us. I try to think how I would react; I think (or at least wish) I would react in this latter way too.

for sure it could be a trick by an alien intelligence, actually now thats been brought up its that atheists who might consider it a trick before the religious fundamentalists.

Of course it could go on forever, the real creator god could have created his illusion of a deist god (but he stays hidden for the fun of it) just to have the atheists feel it was an alien trick just to confuse them a bit......BUT heres the big one, the big unambiguous appearence of a god (or alien trick) just ISNT going to happen is it? well lets just say i'd be very suprised if it did, and alien or god, im not sure which would leave me more intrigued.

You see for me thats the big problem with god, it allows one to posit anything atall, anything atall without eveidence, god made the rain fall, not fall, dog die, sun shine, butterfly hatch, light bulb blow, ship sink, lose leg, god could even deliberately not answer prayers just so that people pray even more, I can come up with as many goddidits as any believer. we could go back in time (lets assume its possible even if its not by our phenomenal experience!) and see evolution happen as predicted and see no god but one could say gods playing a trick so the faithful stay faithful, interestingly an evolutionist seeing creation with adam and ribwoman would be hard pressed to say hmm, maybe god is tricking me to and what he really did was guide evolution but hes playing 'creation' with me. with god seems anything is possible, things simply seem simpler without one.

543. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87655 by phasmagigas on November 12, 2007 at 5:31 pm

'all metals melt at some temperature' cannot be falsified as all metals have been shown to have melting points yes?

544. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87606 by phasmagigas on November 12, 2007 at 3:11 pm

im talking generally here but the god of the gaps thing, i notice that when something strange presents itself and god is inserted, in no way shape or form does the inserter posit anything other than saying 'so god is there', it must have been a bit like a boy of 1000 years ago looking at tadpoles in a pond, seeing them become frogs (lets assume he actually realised they were the same things) and wondering just how the hell thay became little frogs, his elder might well have inserted god (and understandably so, just what the hell else could he have said back then) but offered no explanation atall, funny (not) how that still happens today.

545. Bill Moyers interviews Jonathan Miller

Comment #87600 by phasmagigas on November 12, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Phasmagigas, you obviously like pomegranates while I dislike them. I keep trying but find their astringency defeating. My loss, your gain.

Michael, sure not everybody will like poor old pomegranetes, my disdain for the people on the radio was less about their criticism of the offending berry as such and more the general anti intellectual tone of the whole thing, i was wondering what a 5 year old might (not) learn from these people if he or she were listening.

546. In a consumer society, browsing for belief

Comment #87596 by phasmagigas on November 12, 2007 at 2:54 pm

americans seem less sceptical (or just less cynical) that people in the UK although the gap is closing, americans seem to go all gooey eyed at the mention of words like 'faith' 'love' 'believe' and 'joy', those words tied to religion/pop culture, greed and fitting in make my stomach turn.

547. Bill Moyers interviews Jonathan Miller

Comment #87445 by phasmagigas on November 12, 2007 at 6:39 am

i like millers notion of vulgar events that are seemingly trascendental over less obvious events, the sun rise vs the ripple marks.

This contrasts nicely with some mundane conversation i overheard on a local US radiostation (equivalent to 'the view' or 'oprah' or some other equally vapid anti intellectual drivel), the conversation somehow led to pomagranetes and one person was saying words to the effect of 'i have never 'got' that pomegranete 'thing', you know, all those seeds, all that fiddling' the others at the talk were all in agreement at the obvious inadequacies of the poor pomegranete.

Now it sems trivial that i even picked up on this but it said so much about those individuals, it told me they probably knew nothing about evolution or selective breeding even. That a prized food (middle eastern friends of mine take full delight in pomegranetes)could be so ridiculed as it didnt quite fit their bill of convenience i found almost offensive, it reeked of their self importance and parochiality and that they were also probably christian and so really should have questioned why god would have created such a fiddly food to begin with.

What struck me is that id eaten several pomegranetes recenly and in simply removing all the seeds into a bowl before consumption i noted their placement in the fruit, their bright colour, the fun of extraction! and then finally that fantastic bitter sweet mix of seed and red flesh. Quite simply put, i didnt relate to their utterly ignorant stance, and once again i bet they are believers.

mere musings of mine but hey, thats how i felt.

548. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87439 by phasmagigas on November 12, 2007 at 6:11 am

Great. So this proves my point. There is no evidence that distinguishes idealistic theism from scientific naturalism. So in that case, I go for the simpler solution. The one without added 'God'.

steve99, remember though that the theistic universe isnt the same as the naturalistic one with god just 'added', its something totally different!!! sorry, i felt i need remind you of that before somebody else does :)

549. In a consumer society, browsing for belief

Comment #87220 by phasmagigas on November 11, 2007 at 2:01 pm

luckily some of us just dont feel the need for $500 handbags..........and if i want to hear loud music i'll go to a club/bar/gig where i know it will at least be something decent, did these people miss out their teens/20's??

550. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87217 by phasmagigas on November 11, 2007 at 1:51 pm

For myself, I am English, and life clearly looks very different from here. Whilst many, if not most, people in this country would probably say on a hospital form that they are Christian or rather C of E, very few would openly express the opinion that they are Christian in more than the vaguest of terms. In fact, for many it is merely a way of justifying getting married in a nice local church and being buried there too. I think (and I do not have any proper figures to hand) that church attendance is down to perhaps less than 4% of the population.

What is more, Christians in the UK (those who take it seriously) are appalled at what purports to be Christianity in the US and the (as it seems to us) hard-line right wing, unbending, unforgiving reactionary, dogmatic, ideas and views that are preached.

As for many televangelists in the US, they are seen no better than highly organised money-grabbing conmen.

Here atheism is pretty universal, on a practical basis, with some people acknowledging that maybe they believe in some sort of god. It's fairly wishy-washy, though.

a pretty good summary of christianity in the UK (im a brit), only islam in the UK can be compared to the evangelism of the USA.

If you (ie anybody) went into a pub in the UK and started talking to the guy at the bar and started bleating on about jesus christ as your saviour youd get a pretty cold reception, the guy at the bar would point you out to his friends as some weirdo christian nutter. Ive met several people in the USA who will quickly reveal their affection for jesus, its all very alien to me. one thing about churches in the UK is that at least they are very quiet if you want to do a bit of reading.

christianatiy in the UK is pretty much a nice respectable middle class thing, its more to do with keeping up appearances than god, interstingly the demographic for churches is poles apart from that of mosques, something makes them non equivalent.