Response to Shun evolution (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72401) by M. Cassidy
:cool:



Well his parents both were monkeys
Who had crawled out of the mud
He was simply made of matter
Protoplasmic crud

Formed by subatomic bumping
In a random sort of way
With no goal and no direction
Simple animated clay

Made complete by evolution
He finally learned to walk
Although nothing needed saying
He somehow learned to talk

And he built a vast dominion
In which each thing had its use
Saying all this leads to nothing
Life's a complicated ruse

The he gave himself a title
Made himself a Ph.D.
Gave himself the job of teaching
This insane philosophy

Though he claims we're going nowhere
We are told that we should hurry
And though we're only chemicals
The chemicals still worry

But now science has the answers
To the problems of our race
They've made billion dollar rockets
To bring rocks from outer space

Yes their ancestors were cavemen
And they've shown it through the ages
By their inability
To listen to the sages

Now the answer to this riddle
Should they ever care to hear it
Is that matter cannot move
Until it's touched by spirit

But it's hard to teach a monkey
The things he cannot feel
And it's hard to show a caveman
What's beyond his cave is real

But the hardest thing of all
Is showing the absurdity
Of claiming life's an accident
To men with no humility

Ignorance runs rampant, even in bad poetry.

Evolution does not claim life is an accident.

Now the answer to this riddle
Should they ever care to hear it
Is that matter cannot move
Until it's touched by spirit

Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty."

Evolution does not claim life is an accident.
given that abiogenesis forms the complete understanding of the origins of evolution, its hard to see where you are coming from

Now the answer to this riddle
Should they ever care to hear it
Is that matter cannot move
Until it's touched by spirit

Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty."

and?
:confused:

It doesn't claim life to be accident. Rather, it's an inevitability based on simple numbers.
The timing was chance, but the occurrence of life at some point is more or less inevitable.

Anyway...what he means about the spirit coming from body is in many ways true. The human "soul" is the body's bioelectric energy, generated by the chemical reactions of the body. The soul did not come first, it was a result of chemical reactions.

It doesn't claim life to be accident. Rather, it's an inevitability based on simple numbers.
The timing was chance, but the occurrence of life at some point is more or less inevitable.
its not clear how you are offering anything alternative to "life is an accident"

Anyway...what he means about the spirit coming from body is in many ways true. The human "soul" is the body's bioelectric energy, generated by the chemical reactions of the body. The soul did not come first, it was a result of chemical reactions.
life (and its absence, namely death) involves more issues than mere bioelectricity - at the very least there is no empirical evidence for your wild claims (outside of science fiction)

LG,

at the very least there is no empirical evidence for your wild claims Exactly the same can be said for spirits, gods, and souls.

LG,

its not clear how you are offering anything alternative to "life is an accident"But if life were an accident how would that give any credence to religious claims?

LG,

But if life were an accident how would that give any credence to religious claims?

I don't like it when people call like an "accident". It's like saying life wasn't supposed to happen.

If life WERE an "accident", it would give no credence to religion, just how the "non-accidental" life of today gives none.

LG,

But the hardest thing of all
Is showing the absurdity
Of claiming life's an accident
To men with no humilityOr -

But the hardest thing of all
Is showing the absurdity
Of claiming mankind is special
To men with arrogant pride

Gondolin,

I don't like it when people call like an "accident". It's like saying life wasn't supposed to happen. And why ever assume that life was "meant" to happen?

given that abiogenesis forms the complete understanding of the origins of evolution, its hard to see where you are coming from

If you knew how embarrassing such a statement is, you would never have uttered it. I almost feel sorry for you.

...at the very least there is no empirical evidence for your wild claims...

HA! Hahaha! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

It wasn't an accident, it was almost inevitable given initial conditions. Evolution itself is definately not random, but it uses chaos as an engine for change.

Are we still amusing ourselves with LG's rhetorical rants? Glad I've not missed much, the same old shit here! Or I'm aloud to say that with out having a damn warning of violating someone's feelings?

Ya Super I laugh with ya!

LG,

Or -

But the hardest thing of all
Is showing the absurdity
Of claiming mankind is special
To men with arrogant pride

you don't consider yourself possessed of any special qualities distinct from an elephant or an amoeba?

:confused:

LG,

Exactly the same can be said for spirits, gods, and souls.
still assuming that empiricism has the monopoly on evidence I see ....

LG,

But if life were an accident how would that give any credence to religious claims?

or alternatively, if life was created by god, how would that give any credence to claims that life is an accident?

:scratchin:

If you knew how embarrassing such a statement is, you would never have uttered it. I almost feel sorry for you.
yes, abiogenesis is shrouded in embarrassment

:D

yes, abiogenesis is shrouded in embarrassment

:D

Perhaps. Could you offer your perception of abiogenesis and explain why you think it an embarrassment?

LG,

or alternatively, if life was created by god, how would that give any credence to claims that life is an accident?All you are saying here is that life is caused by natural processes or magic happens.

Don't think anyone has yet ever shown that magic has ever happened. And consequently you have zero credibility for suggesting it.

lg,

you don't consider yourself possessed of any special qualities distinct from an elephant or an amoeba?Take a biology class sometime and look at the cells from different forms of life, even plant life. Their structures and the way they operate are essentially identical. In the same way that bricks can build a palace or a slum.

Given the immense size of the universe, life on this planet is but an insignficant pin point, and man is but one more species variation.

The arrogance of the theist come from their perception that such a vast universe was created by a god who holds man as a pinacle of his achievement.

lg,

still assuming that empiricism has the monopoly on evidence I see ....But lg, you said -

life (and its absence, namely death) involves more issues than mere bioelectricity - But then didn't show what else there is. You still haven't shown how something could be shown to exist outside of empirical evidence, and your convoluted attempts at explanations cannot be shown as any different to self induced brain washing.

Are we still amusing ourselves with LG's rhetorical rants? Glad I've not missed much, the same old shit here! Or I'm aloud to say that with out having a damn warning of violating someone's feelings?

Ya Super I laugh with ya!
Hey G. Yep. Same ol shite.

Perhaps. Could you offer your perception of abiogenesis and explain why you think it an embarrassment?
trying to write something off as science when its not known how, when, where or what was involved isn't an embarrassment?

LG,

All you are saying here is that life is caused by natural processes or magic happens.

Don't think anyone has yet ever shown that magic has ever happened. And consequently you have zero credibility for suggesting it.
a person ignorant of physics could also describe many things as "magic" too
- but certainly the notion of abiogenesis or that consciousness must be materially reducible involves quite a few magical components, even to the persons advocating such imaginations

lg,

Take a biology class sometime and look at the cells from different forms of life, even plant life. Their structures and the way they operate are essentially identical. In the same way that bricks can build a palace or a slum.

Given the immense size of the universe, life on this planet is but an insignficant pin point, and man is but one more species variation.

The arrogance of the theist come from their perception that such a vast universe was created by a god who holds man as a pinacle of his achievement.
and its just a coincidence that you don't find any great scientists championing for the cause of elephants or amoebas like they do for their own species?

lg,

But lg, you said -

But then didn't show what else there is. You still haven't shown how something could be shown to exist outside of empirical evidence, and your convoluted attempts at explanations cannot be shown as any different to self induced brain washing.
explaining how you can see what you are seeing with isn't convoluted?

trying to write something off as science when its not known how, when, where or what was involved isn't an embarrassment?

So, you really don't know, you're merely asserting once again.

Lg,,

person ignorant of physics could also describe many things as "magic" tooHence the existence of religions.

- but certainly the notion of abiogenesis or that consciousness must be materially reducible involves quite a few magical components, even to the persons advocating such imaginationsAbiogenesis is an arena of hypotheses and investigation about how life began. It is not a set of baseless assertions of certainty that typify religions.

The hypothesis that consciousness is a result of brain activity is derived from observations of the correlations of consciousness and brain function. It is not an assertion of fact and is an acceptance that we do not know how this would occur or whether it is true. Contrast this with the theist perspective – if it can’t be explained by science then a god must be the cause. This is the age old basis of religion – the classic logical fallacy of asserting certainty from ignorance

and its just a coincidence that you don't find any great scientists championing for the cause of elephants or amoebas like they do for their own species?I don’t see how your statement relates to the issue of the religious placing mankind on a pedestal such that a creator of the universe would see him as something special out of proportion to the enormous size of the universe. That is a significant difference between man being considered relatively more advanced via intelligence than other forms of life. However, in terms of resilience and survivability the dinosaurs existed for a far greater time than man’s entire existence. In that sense dinosaurs were more special as a lifeform than man.

explaining how you can see what you are seeing with isn't convoluted?You mean like your statement? I’m guessing here as to what you might mean. You presented concepts but were not able to show if such concepts correlated with a resultant real manifestation.

So, you really don't know, you're merely asserting once again.
lol
its not only I who doesn't know the how, what, when or where of abiogenesis

Cris
“
person ignorant of physics could also describe many things as "magic" too
”
Hence the existence of religions.
according to scientific belief, certainly


“
- but certainly the notion of abiogenesis or that consciousness must be materially reducible involves quite a few magical components, even to the persons advocating such imaginations
”
Abiogenesis is an arena of hypotheses and investigation about how life began. It is not a set of baseless assertions of certainty that typify religions.
and its just a coincidence that the popular hypothesis is that life evolved from matter?

The hypothesis that consciousness is a result of brain activity is derived from observations of the correlations of consciousness and brain function.
correction
its an interpretation of brain activity

It is not an assertion of fact and is an acceptance that we do not know how this would occur or whether it is true. Contrast this with the theist perspective – if it can’t be explained by science then a god must be the cause. This is the age old basis of religion – the classic logical fallacy of asserting certainty from ignorance
you seem to be stating with certainty that the claim of theism is ignorance
what do you base this on?
certainly nothing empircal
:D


“
and its just a coincidence that you don't find any great scientists championing for the cause of elephants or amoebas like they do for their own species?
”
I don’t see how your statement relates to the issue of the religious placing mankind on a pedestal such that a creator of the universe would see him as something special out of proportion to the enormous size of the universe.
I would have thought it would be quite clear
you state that science does not hold humankind as anything unique, yet you find that the goals of science are the pursuit of values beneficial to humans (at least quite substantially more than that of elephants or amoebas)
BTW - real religious principles teach that all life is sacred and equally valuable in the eye's of god - the only special thing about the human form of life is that it is an opportunity to be more easily conscious of this fact


“
explaining how you can see what you are seeing with isn't convoluted?
”
You mean like your statement?
actually it was a reiteration of a physicist - max born I think?
:shrug:

I’m guessing here as to what you might mean. You presented concepts but were not able to show if such concepts correlated with a resultant real manifestation.
back to the ol slamming transcendental claims into empirical holes again, eh?

Lg,

“ person ignorant of physics could also describe many things as "magic" too
”
Hence the existence of religions. ”

according to scientific belief, certainlyNonsense, there is no such thing as scientific belief. Even a fact in science is considered only provisional consent. And again no since there are numerous historical cases where ignorance of how the universe operates has led to religions and religious actions, e.g. sun worship is one of the simplest examples. Or the execution of scientists by the religious when it was proposed the world was not flat.

and its just a coincidence that the popular hypothesis is that life evolved from matter?Which is entirely justifiable because no one has ever shown there is or could be anything else.

“ The hypothesis that consciousness is a result of brain activity is derived from observations of the correlations of consciousness and brain function. ”

correction
its an interpretation of brain activityThat as well.

“ It is not an assertion of fact and is an acceptance that we do not know how this would occur or whether it is true. Contrast this with the theist perspective – if it can’t be explained by science then a god must be the cause. This is the age old basis of religion – the classic logical fallacy of asserting certainty from ignorance ”

you seem to be stating with certainty that the claim of theism is ignorance
what do you base this on?
certainly nothing empiricalIt is entirely empirical. Ignorance = lack of knowledge. Religions assert certainty with a lack of knowledge. I.e. religion is based on ignorance.

you state that science does not hold humankind as anything unique, No I have not said anything like that. Humankind may well be unique but there is no reason to consider it special when compared to the vastness of the universe.

yet you find that the goals of science are the pursuit of values beneficial to humans (at least quite substantially more than that of elephants or amoebas)And so how does that address the observation that some religions consider mankind disproportionally special?

BTW - real religious principles teach that all life is sacred and equally valuable in the eye's of god - the only special thing about the human form of life is that it is an opportunity to be more easily conscious of this factWhere in the scientific method is this stated?

actually it was a reiteration of a physicist - max born I think?If so then it is a pity you tried to use it out of context.

“ I’m guessing here as to what you might mean. You presented concepts but were not able to show if such concepts correlated with a resultant real manifestation. ”

back to the ol slamming transcendental claims into empirical holes again, eh?Either gods and/or souls are real or they are not. You only described concepts of how you thought they could be real but could not bridge the gap to show they were real, through any method.

Cris

“
“ person ignorant of physics could also describe many things as "magic" too
”
Hence the existence of religions. ”

according to scientific belief, certainly
”
Nonsense, there is no such thing as scientific belief.
well there's no empirical evidence for your claims (and as an empiricist, it doesn't leave you with too many more options) so it must be a belief

Even a fact in science is considered only provisional consent. And again no since there are numerous historical cases where ignorance of how the universe operates has led to religions and religious actions, e.g. sun worship is one of the simplest examples. Or the execution of scientists by the religious when it was proposed the world was not flat.
to say that some people are getting wrong therefore everyone is getting it wrong is not a coherent argument.


“
and its just a coincidence that the popular hypothesis is that life evolved from matter?
”
Which is entirely justifiable because no one has ever shown there is or could be anything else.
well to begin with, the hypothesis is not shown
its just a concept

the problem now is that you are assigning an authority that has its home in empiricism to a branch of knowledge, rationalism.

IOW you are doing exactly what Popper indicates as "bad science"

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

are you finished justifying your belief in a theory or do you want to continue?



“
“ The hypothesis that consciousness is a result of brain activity is derived from observations of the correlations of consciousness and brain function. ”

correction
its an interpretation of brain activity
”
That as well.
if you disagree that it is not merely an interpretation of brain activity, but an ascertained observation, you would have to establish how such a claim can be falsified
(even though there is no such suggestion from contemporary experts in neurology, please don't be shy - I want to be able to say to the world that I heard it first on sciforums)

“
“ It is not an assertion of fact and is an acceptance that we do not know how this would occur or whether it is true. Contrast this with the theist perspective – if it can’t be explained by science then a god must be the cause. This is the age old basis of religion – the classic logical fallacy of asserting certainty from ignorance ”

you seem to be stating with certainty that the claim of theism is ignorance
what do you base this on?
certainly nothing empirical
”
It is entirely empirical. Ignorance = lack of knowledge.
this does not make sense
Ignorance = lack of knowledge is an epistemological principle, not an empirical one

you said words to the effect that there is no foundation behind the theists claim of god

I asked you on what basis you state this certainty

IOW the only way you can save yourself from critical reflexivity (shooting yourself in the foot) is to explain what body of knowledge you draw on when making the certain claim that theists are wrong.



“
you state that science does not hold humankind as anything unique,
”
No I have not said anything like that. Humankind may well be unique but there is no reason to consider it special when compared to the vastness of the universe.
then I can't understand the exact difference between what you are holding as being unique as compared to being special.

“
yet you find that the goals of science are the pursuit of values beneficial to humans (at least quite substantially more than that of elephants or amoebas)
”
And so how does that address the observation that some religions consider mankind disproportionally special?
maybe you could clarify yourself by explaining at what point something is deemed "proportionally special" and at what point it becomes "disproportionate"

“
BTW - real religious principles teach that all life is sacred and equally valuable in the eye's of god - the only special thing about the human form of life is that it is an opportunity to be more easily conscious of this fact
”
Where in the scientific method is this stated?
I don't understand your question
Do you want an explanation on the methodology of theistic claims or are you trying to say something about empiricism

“
actually it was a reiteration of a physicist - max born I think?
”
If so then it is a pity you tried to use it out of context.
whatever - needless to say, just because you have an interest in science and a complete disinterest in issues related to consciousness, doesn't mean that all persons involved in science share your beliefs

“
“ I’m guessing here as to what you might mean. You presented concepts but were not able to show if such concepts correlated with a resultant real manifestation. ”

back to the ol slamming transcendental claims into empirical holes again, eh?
”
Either gods and/or souls are real or they are not.
and either empiricism is capable of explaining all phenomena or it is not


You only described concepts of how you thought they could be real but could not bridge the gap to show they were real, through any method.
practice comes after theory, and not when one is still at the stage of doubt
It doesn't matter whether we are talking about electrons or god

lol
its not only I who doesn't know the how, what, when or where of abiogenesis

Other theists like yourself?

Other theists like yourself?
no, scientists as well - even atheistic ones
:D

Lg,

well there's no empirical evidence for your claims (and as an empiricist, it doesn't leave you with too many more options) so it must be a belief Why is the definition of science a belief?

to say that some people are getting wrong therefore everyone is getting it wrong is not a coherent argument.Huh? You still don’t comprehend the basics of the scientific method do you?

the problem now is that you are assigning an authority that has its home in empiricism to a branch of knowledge, rationalism.Huh? It’s just science again.

are you finished justifying your belief in a theory or do you want to continue?Do you not understand the difference between working with a definition of something because it results in a practical outcome as opposed to belief in its certainty?

A key perspective in science is – it is essential to dogmatically stick to the assumption that whatever you think you know could actually be wrong. In that sense, the only correct way to search for truth is to know that everything is a theory, and nothing is absolute fact.

A bit more about the scientific method http://www.humantruth.info/science.html

if you disagree that it is not merely an interpretation of brain activity, but an ascertained observation, you would have to establish how such a claim can be falsified
(even though there is no such suggestion from contemporary experts in neurology, please don't be shy - I want to be able to say to the world that I heard it first on sciforums)Not sure where you are going with this. It is an obvious area of scientific study to determine how the brain can result in consciousness, since there are no other human organs that could come close and nothing else to suggest that consciousness can arise by other means.

Ignorance = lack of knowledge is an epistemological principle, not an empirical oneIsn’t that your problem since you are the one that continues to insist I am an empiricist and I have made no such claim about myself? But science is all about the discovery of knowledge – that is its purpose.

IOW the only way you can save yourself from critical reflexivity (shooting yourself in the foot) is to explain what body of knowledge you draw on when making the certain claim that theists are wrong.Where have I said to you that theists are wrong? I’ve said they cannot prove their claims. I’ve said we cannot tell whether their assertions are any different from delusion, I’ve said their claims are fantasies. You merely have to show proof for your claims, or demonstrate you are not deluded, or show that your fantasy is an actuality.

then I can't understand the exact difference between what you are holding as being unique as compared to being special.Try a dictionary. You are being obstinate here I believe.

Where in the scientific method is this stated? ”

I don't understand your question
Do you want an explanation on the methodology of theistic claims or are you trying to say something about empiricism No, I misread your statement. Ignore this.

and either empiricism is capable of explaining all phenomena or it is notI don’t care. As I said before I’m open to a demonstration that something can be shown as truth outside of empiricism. It is only you that keeps insisting that I have to use empiricism.

“ You only described concepts of how you thought they could be real but could not bridge the gap to show they were real, through any method. ”

practice comes after theory, and not when one is still at the stage of doubt
It doesn't matter whether we are talking about electrons or godNo it is not the same. Electrons are a scientific theory that results in demonstrable and practical outcomes that the layman can observe and appreciate. I don’t need to be certain whether the scientific theory is correct or not or that there are real particles that we call electrons. But I do know that repeated application of that theory results in many real world applications. Nothing similar can be said about gods. I do not believe you can point to anything and say that it is the result of the application of a god hypothesis that could not have an alternative and more believable and credible natural explanation.

Cris

“
well there's no empirical evidence for your claims (and as an empiricist, it doesn't leave you with too many more options) so it must be a belief
”
Why is the definition of science a belief?
I think you misunderstand - empiricism does not function outside of empirical claims - so to claim that it does (for instance to claim that religions are magical/delusional etc) is simply to claim an ideological stance of belief

“
to say that some people are getting wrong therefore everyone is getting it wrong is not a coherent argument.
”
Huh? You still don’t comprehend the basics of the scientific method do you?
if you think this is a claim validated by empiricism

And again no since there are numerous historical cases where ignorance of how the universe operates has led to religions and religious actions

once again you have lost sight of where empiricism finishes and your personal beliefs take over

“
the problem now is that you are assigning an authority that has its home in empiricism to a branch of knowledge, rationalism.
”
Huh? It’s just science again.
lol - no its philosophy - and bad philosophy at that since you have just switched epistemologies

“
are you finished justifying your belief in a theory or do you want to continue?
”
Do you not understand the difference between working with a definition of something because it results in a practical outcome as opposed to belief in its certainty?
sure
do you?

A key perspective in science is – it is essential to dogmatically stick to the assumption that whatever you think you know could actually be wrong. In that sense, the only correct way to search for truth is to know that everything is a theory, and nothing is absolute fact.

A bit more about the scientific method http://www.humantruth.info/science.html
then its not clear why you blowing your bugle of the truth, the light and the way when you makes statements like

Which is entirely justifiable because no one has ever shown there is or could be anything else.

either you are possessed of a dogmatic belief system or you have not seriously investigated alternative theoretical claims



“
if you disagree that it is not merely an interpretation of brain activity, but an ascertained observation, you would have to establish how such a claim can be falsified
(even though there is no such suggestion from contemporary experts in neurology, please don't be shy - I want to be able to say to the world that I heard it first on sciforums)
”
Not sure where you are going with this. It is an obvious area of scientific study to determine how the brain can result in consciousness, since there are no other human organs that could come close and nothing else to suggest that consciousness can arise by other means.
Karl Pribram can offer a few suggestions - so can a few other neurologists - one reason why there is no dearth of theoretical suggestions is because your claim cannot be falsified (its the nature of claims that can not be falsified that they are an open house of theoretical evolution of thesis and antithesis)

“
Ignorance = lack of knowledge is an epistemological principle, not an empirical one
”
Isn’t that your problem since you are the one that continues to insist I am an empiricist and I have made no such claim about myself?
OK lets clear this up right here then
Do you hold that anything that is knowable can be revealed by the examination of matter?

If you answer yes, you are an empiricist

But science is all about the discovery of knowledge – that is its purpose.
if you study philosophy however, you find a variety of stances on validity of epistemologies however
“
IOW the only way you can save yourself from critical reflexivity (shooting yourself in the foot) is to explain what body of knowledge you draw on when making the certain claim that theists are wrong.
”
Where have I said to you that theists are wrong? I’ve said they cannot prove their claims.
and theists say that they can prove their claims (prove to persons who apply the normative descriptions in scripture)
so where are you?

I’ve said we cannot tell whether their assertions are any different from delusion, I’ve said their claims are fantasies.
and what is the difference between saying a claim is fantastic and a claim is wrong?
:confused:

You merely have to show proof for your claims, or demonstrate you are not deluded, or show that your fantasy is an actuality.
given your favoured epistemology (empiricism) its not possible

“
then I can't understand the exact difference between what you are holding as being unique as compared to being special.
”
Try a dictionary. You are being obstinate here I believe.
special - Unique or specific to a person or thing or category
unique - Highly unusual or rare but not the single instance

:shrug:

“
and either empiricism is capable of explaining all phenomena or it is not
”
I don’t care.
then why do you demand that all claims of evidence meet empirical standards?

As I said before I’m open to a demonstration that something can be shown as truth outside of empiricism.
how exactly do you propose that demonstration (if you refuse to take up the practice)?
(or are you just saying "I am open to an empirical demonstration that something can be shown as truth outside of empiricism - which is a meaningless statement)

It is only you that keeps insisting that I have to use empiricism.
as indicated above, its all your insistence

“
“ You only described concepts of how you thought they could be real but could not bridge the gap to show they were real, through any method. ”

practice comes after theory, and not when one is still at the stage of doubt
It doesn't matter whether we are talking about electrons or god
”
No it is not the same. Electrons are a scientific theory that results in demonstrable and practical outcomes that the layman can observe and appreciate.
only if are in the position of no doubting the theory of it (aka faith) or in a higher rung of having applied the theory and come to the point of direct perception

I don’t need to be certain whether the scientific theory is correct or not or that there are real particles that we call electrons.
if you want to take a positive stance with electrons, you most certainly do

But I do know that repeated application of that theory results in many real world applications.
aka - faith

Nothing similar can be said about gods.
claims of god can be broken up into two categories - claims of faith and claims of direct perception

I do not believe you can point to anything and say that it is the result of the application of a god hypothesis that could not have an alternative and more believable and credible natural explanation.
alternatively, if I am not in the position of direct perception of electrons (ie totally ignorant of the theory of it) you cannot point to anything and say that it is the application of an electron hypothesis since when we discuss issues of believability and credibility they boil down to the said person's value system (for instance I can say that when you turn on a desk lamp anything from that is "sun magic" to a pre-electron model of electrical understanding - and your notions of invisible particles are simply your unbelievable and noncredible interpretations of a condensation streak )

Lg,

I think you misunderstand - empiricism does not function outside of empirical claims - so to claim that it does (for instance to claim that religions are magical/delusional etc) is simply to claim an ideological stance of beliefI’m pretty sure I don’t understand your point.

My issue is that I don’t have a reasoned method to see that what you claim is any different to delusion which is a more credible explanation than that of anything supernatural. Pretty much my only tool I use is logical reasoning. And I’m pretty sure that I am not making any claims without support.

And again no since there are numerous historical cases where ignorance of how the universe operates has led to religions and religious actionsI think you somehow imply that this is a good thing. The conclusion one would see is that you feel ignorance is a good thing since it spawns religious ideas. What historical cases were you considering here?

once again you have lost sight of where empiricism finishes and your personal beliefs take overPretty sure that I don’t hold any personal beliefs that are not based on reason. As for your vendetta on empiricism; I’m not aware I really pay empiricism any conscious attention.

then its not clear why you blowing your bugle of the truth, the light and the way when you makes statements like

Which is entirely justifiable because no one has ever shown there is or could be anything else.This is science, one can investigate what can be detected or observed, or can be logically deduced.

either you are possessed of a dogmatic belief system or you have not seriously investigated alternative theoretical claimsI don’t know what you mean here.

OK lets clear this up right here then
Do you hold that anything that is knowable can be revealed by the examination of matter?

If you answer yes, you are an empiricistAs far as I know everything that is known has been the result of natural phenomenon. I have no way to know whether anything in the future will continue to be only discovered in that way. I also do not know whether anything that exists now could be made known by anything other than natural phenomena, and I am also not aware of any such process that would allow that.

and what is the difference between saying a claim is fantastic and a claim is wrong?In science fiction warp-drive technology is a popular concept. This is a fantasy. However, perhaps sometime in the future science may well develop such technology. But until then it is a fantasy. If someone makes the claim that one day it will exist I cannot justifiably state that they are wrong, I simply cannot see the future to prove them right or wrong.

In the same way those who claim gods/souls exist and where they cannot show these things are real, lie in the same category as fantasy. But perhaps such things do or might one day exist, I simply have no means to show they are right or wrong.

“ You merely have to show proof for your claims, or demonstrate you are not deluded, or show that your fantasy is an actuality. ”

given your favoured epistemology (empiricism) its not possibleI guess I need to be convinced by an example where an alternative method can show a truth.

No it is not the same. Electrons are a scientific theory that results in demonstrable and practical outcomes that the layman can observe and appreciate. ”

only if are in the position of no doubting the theory of it (aka faith) or in a higher rung of having applied the theory and come to the point of direct perceptionNo, the term faith is conviction of truth without evidence and doesn’t apply to science. In science the dominant paradigm is inductive reasoning, degrees of evidence with certainty withheld.

“ I don’t need to be certain whether the scientific theory is correct or not or that there are real particles that we call electrons. ”

if you want to take a positive stance with electrons, you most certainly doNo I do not but I can adopt the normal inductive position that all of us use in our everyday lives. Certainty is not a necessity for making decisions.

aka – faithNo again, see inductive reasoning above.

claims of god can be broken up into two categories - claims of faith and claims of direct perceptionWhere faith is a conviction of truth without evidence or proof. The claim of direct perception is simply another version faith since delusion is a more credible explanation and the only reason one chooses non-delusion is entirely on faith and/or personal desire.

Cris - “ I do not believe you can point to anything and say that it is the result of the application of a god hypothesis that could not have an alternative and more believable and credible natural explanation. ”

LG - alternatively, if I am not in the position of direct perception of electrons (ie totally ignorant of the theory of it) you cannot point to anything and say that it is the application of an electron hypothesis since when we discuss issues of believability and credibility they boil down to the said person's value systemNo that is not correct. Believability and credibility are based again on inductive reasoning and precedence and not personal perspectives. We can objectively quantify the number of instances that material phenomena have resulted in practical outcomes. This leads to significant believability and credibility when claims are based on such criteria. We have no such criteria or precedent for showing that non-natural phenomena are believable or credible.

(for instance I can say that when you turn on a desk lamp anything from that is "sun magic" to a pre-electron model of electrical understanding - and your notions of invisible particles are simply your unbelievable and noncredible interpretations of a condensation streak )But neither you nor I would be justified in reaching any conclusions about the observation if we did not have the appropriate precedence of evidence and investigation.

Your claims of direct perception of spiritual phenomena do not match any criteria that I can verify but your claims do match significant believable and credible criteria of delusion. I cannot conclude that you are wrong or right but the inductive evidence is strongly against you and heavily in favor of delusion.

Cris

“
I think you misunderstand - empiricism does not function outside of empirical claims - so to claim that it does (for instance to claim that religions are magical/delusional etc) is simply to claim an ideological stance of belief
”
I’m pretty sure I don’t understand your point.

My issue is that I don’t have a reasoned method to see that what you claim is any different to delusion which is a more credible explanation than that of anything supernatural. Pretty much my only tool I use is logical reasoning. And I’m pretty sure that I am not making any claims without support.
If you examine the general tendency of your arguments however it's clear you don't reject theistic claims because of conceptual problems (aka rationalism, or, as you suggest, logical reasoning) - instead you tend to reject them because they bear no correlation to empirical standards of belief

“
And again no since there are numerous historical cases where ignorance of how the universe operates has led to religions and religious actions
”
I think you somehow imply that this is a good thing. The conclusion one would see is that you feel ignorance is a good thing since it spawns religious ideas. What historical cases were you considering here?
Actually it was you who posted this statement at post 30
It is referenced to indicate that this is is not an empirical claim
Its simply a claim that reflects your beliefs about religion

“
once again you have lost sight of where empiricism finishes and your personal beliefs take over
”
Pretty sure that I don’t hold any personal beliefs that are not based on reason.
generally people who are not trained in philosophy (like your average scientist for example) take it for granted that they are coming from a neutral ideological stance

As for your vendetta on empiricism; I’m not aware I really pay empiricism any conscious attention.
ditto above

“
then its not clear why you blowing your bugle of the truth, the light and the way when you makes statements like

Which is entirely justifiable because no one has ever shown there is or could be anything else.
”
This is science, one can investigate what can be detected or observed, or can be logically deduced.
do you realize you have just offered a concise analysis of the empirical ideology?

“
either you are possessed of a dogmatic belief system or you have not seriously investigated alternative theoretical claims
”
I don’t know what you mean here.
either you don't understand what it means to be an empiricist (or alternatively, you are such a fully fledged empiricist that you cannot even discuss other philosophical standards - aka dogma) or you have not completed a satisfactory investigation before you made the claim "no one has ever shown there is or could be anything else" (since persons even vaguely familiar with philosophy could name about a dozen)

“
OK lets clear this up right here then
Do you hold that anything that is knowable can be revealed by the examination of matter?

If you answer yes, you are an empiricist
”
As far as I know everything that is known has been the result of natural phenomenon. I have no way to know whether anything in the future will continue to be only discovered in that way. I also do not know whether anything that exists now could be made known by anything other than natural phenomena, and I am also not aware of any such process that would allow that.
so IOW, you are an an empiricist as far as you know - lol

“
and what is the difference between saying a claim is fantastic and a claim is wrong?
”
In science fiction warp-drive technology is a popular concept. This is a fantasy. However, perhaps sometime in the future science may well develop such technology. But until then it is a fantasy. If someone makes the claim that one day it will exist I cannot justifiably state that they are wrong, I simply cannot see the future to prove them right or wrong.
so IOW, a fantastic claim is wrong in the present

In the same way those who claim gods/souls exist and where they cannot show these things are real, lie in the same category as fantasy.
once again, if you hold the words "real" and "empirical" as non-different, you have severe epistemological difficulties (particularly since empiricism has no ability to penetrate beyond the phenomenal)

But perhaps such things do or might one day exist, I simply have no means to show they are right or wrong.
then you are misguided to use the word "fantasy" - all you can do is express your inability to either validate or invalidate a claim.
By your standard of explanation a person unfamiliar with china could encounter a chinese person and say that their claims of china are fantasy


“
“ You merely have to show proof for your claims, or demonstrate you are not deluded, or show that your fantasy is an actuality. ”

given your favoured epistemology (empiricism) its not possible
”
I guess I need to be convinced by an example where an alternative method can show a truth.
a good beginning point is to examine how empiricism has no ultimate capability to present truths that are not relative (like the example of pointing to your nose and saying what it is)

“
No it is not the same. Electrons are a scientific theory that results in demonstrable and practical outcomes that the layman can observe and appreciate. ”

only if are in the position of no doubting the theory of it (aka faith) or in a higher rung of having applied the theory and come to the point of direct perception
”
No, the term faith is conviction of truth without evidence and doesn’t apply to science.
it does however apply to a layman who is not familiar with the theory nor the practice of science

In science the dominant paradigm is inductive reasoning, degrees of evidence with certainty withheld.
that is the practice - and practice comes after theory

“
“ I don’t need to be certain whether the scientific theory is correct or not or that there are real particles that we call electrons. ”

if you want to take a positive stance with electrons, you most certainly do
”
No I do not but I can adopt the normal inductive position that all of us use in our everyday lives. Certainty is not a necessity for making decisions.
still you find that it is physicists (ie persons familiar with the theory of physics - and furthermore capable of taking that theory to the platform of practice) that take a positive stance in regards to electrons, and not even geologists, what to speak of carpenters (despite physicists, geologists and carpenters being possessed of everyday powers of induction)

“
aka – faith
”
No again, see inductive reasoning above.
once again, geologists and carpenters do not accept electrons on inductive reasoning (unless they have a second portfolio of being qualified physicists)

“
claims of god can be broken up into two categories - claims of faith and claims of direct perception
”
Where faith is a conviction of truth without evidence or proof.
much like a carpenters claim that electrons exist

The claim of direct perception is simply another version faith since delusion is a more credible explanation and the only reason one chooses non-delusion is entirely on faith and/or personal desire.
basically what you have just said is "god does not exist and the evidence is that people who claim he does exist are deluded"

If want to accept such a standard for a coherent argument, we can also accept "electrons do not exist and the evidence is that people who claim that they do are deluded"

Making such an argument tends to suggest that the person making it is deluded
:o


“
Cris - “ I do not believe you can point to anything and say that it is the result of the application of a god hypothesis that could not have an alternative and more believable and credible natural explanation. ”

LG - alternatively, if I am not in the position of direct perception of electrons (ie totally ignorant of the theory of it) you cannot point to anything and say that it is the application of an electron hypothesis since when we discuss issues of believability and credibility they boil down to the said person's value system
”
No that is not correct. Believability and credibility are based again on inductive reasoning and precedence and not personal perspectives.
and inductive reasoning is dependent on the information one has at one's resources to make reasonable decisions - for instance if a person is bereft of theory and practice, what will be reasonable for them will quite different from what is reasonable for a person who is well versed in theory and practice

We can objectively quantify the number of instances that material phenomena have resulted in practical outcomes. This leads to significant believability and credibility when claims are based on such criteria. We have no such criteria or precedent for showing that non-natural phenomena are believable or credible.
thus empiricism lands itself into strife (as popper suggests) when it makes claims that are not falsifiable
(eg - radius of the milky way, nature of the universal creation, origins of life etc)

“
(for instance I can say that when you turn on a desk lamp anything from that is "sun magic" to a pre-electron model of electrical understanding - and your notions of invisible particles are simply your unbelievable and noncredible interpretations of a condensation streak )
”
But neither you nor I would be justified in reaching any conclusions about the observation if we did not have the appropriate precedence of evidence and investigation.
that is precisely my point
claims are dependent on theory (or precedence of evidence) and practice (or investigation)


Your claims of direct perception of spiritual phenomena do not match any criteria that I can verify but your claims do match significant believable and credible criteria of delusion
if I am not versed in the theory and practice of identifying electrons, your claim of electrons existing also matches a model of delusion too

I cannot conclude that you are wrong or right but the inductive evidence is strongly against you and heavily in favor of delusion.
if you can't conclude whether i am right or wrong then all you can conclude is that you don't know - anything more than that simply reflects your belief or value system

Cris

If you examine the general tendency of your arguments however it's clear you don't reject theistic claims because of conceptual problems (aka rationalism, or, as you suggest, logical reasoning) - instead you tend to reject them because they bear no correlation to empirical standards of beliefNo you are not quite there yet.

I have no urgency or great need to “believe” something, and I see absolutely no need to make a choice where support for either choice is lacking in any real significant manner. You selected the phrase “empirical standards of belief” as if it is a faith-like religious concept. Belief of any type, where belief means being convinced that something is true, either through some degree of evidence or just personal desire, is still not a necessity.

One can quite meaningfully work with a world where one can be suspicious of everything but still work with things that show high degrees of inductive consistency. That makes me open to change and new ideas.

This is science, one can investigate what can be detected or observed, or can be logically deduced. ”

do you realize you have just offered a concise analysis of the empirical ideology?Ideology? It is the essence of science.

… or you have not completed a satisfactory investigation before you made the claim "no one has ever shown there is or could be anything else" (since persons even vaguely familiar with philosophy could name about a dozen)Hmm, I see those ideas as speculative rather than approaches that have actually revealed truths.

As far as I know everything that is known has been the result of natural phenomenon. I have no way to know whether anything in the future will continue to be only discovered in that way. I also do not know whether anything that exists now could be made known by anything other than natural phenomena, and I am also not aware of any such process that would allow that. ”

so IOW, you are an an empiricist as far as you know – lolApparently not since that could imply a closed perspective.

I have the suspicion that you have difficulty discussing issues with others unless you can label them. I’m not a scientist, neither am I a philosopher. I am a technologist and work with real world practical issues.

so IOW, a fantastic claim is wrong in the presentNo. One wouldn’t know; that is the point and why it is called fantasy rather than asserting it is wrong.

once again, if you hold the words "real" and "empirical" as non-different, you have severe epistemological difficulties (particularly since empiricism has no ability to penetrate beyond the phenomenal) Then don’t label me as an empiricist.

“ But perhaps such things do or might one day exist, I simply have no means to show they are right or wrong. ”

then you are misguided to use the word "fantasy" - all you can do is express your inability to either validate or invalidate a claim.
By your standard of explanation a person unfamiliar with china could encounter a chinese person and say that their claims of china are fantasyNo because then it comes down to a debate about precedent, believability, credibility, and probability. Fantasy expresses the perception of low values on all those scales.


I guess I need to be convinced by an example where an alternative method can show a truth. ”

a good beginning point is to examine how empiricism has no ultimate capability to present truths that are not relative (like the example of pointing to your nose and saying what it is)I don’t understand the example.

it does however apply to a layman who is not familiar with the theory nor the practice of scienceNo, it is a misuse of the term and or ignorance of what it means. This leads to a typical mistake by religionists by claiming their faith is no different to someone having faith in their doctor or wife. One is an irrational belief without support and the other is valid logical inductive reasoning.

“ In science the dominant paradigm is inductive reasoning, degrees of evidence with certainty withheld. ”

that is the practice - and practice comes after theoryI don’t see them as separate but as part of an iterative cycle.

still you find that it is physicists (ie persons familiar with the theory of physics - and furthermore capable of taking that theory to the platform of practice) that take a positive stance in regards to electrons, and not even geologists, what to speak of carpenters (despite physicists, geologists and carpenters being possessed of everyday powers of induction) Whatever point you had has become elusive.

Where faith is a conviction of truth without evidence or proof. ”

much like a carpenters claim that electrons existWhy would a carpenter claim that electrons exist? Your point seems entirely obscure.

“ The claim of direct perception is simply another version faith since delusion is a more credible explanation and the only reason one chooses non-delusion is entirely on faith and/or personal desire. ”

basically what you have just said is "god does not exist and the evidence is that people who claim he does exist are deluded"No. Go back and read what I said. Delusion is simply the more credible explanation. It makes no assertions about whether gods exist or not or that people are deluded or not. You are prematurely trying to jump to a conclusion where there is insufficient support. I do not need to reach a conclusion but simply be aware of the contrasting probabilities.

If want to accept such a standard for a coherent argument, we can also accept "electrons do not exist and the evidence is that people who claim that they do are deluded"I think you have tied yourself in knots here because you didn’t study what I said properly.

Making such an argument tends to suggest that the person making it is deludedHuh?

and inductive reasoning is dependent on the information one has at one's resources to make reasonable decisionsOr learnt from others who have demonstrated appropriate probabilities.

- for instance if a person is bereft of theory and practice, what will be reasonable for them will quite different from what is reasonable for a person who is well versed in theory and practiceOr if they are rational simply recognize they have inadequate information to make a choice.

“ We can objectively quantify the number of instances that material phenomena have resulted in practical outcomes. This leads to significant believability and credibility when claims are based on such criteria. We have no such criteria or precedent for showing that non-natural phenomena are believable or credible. ”

thus empiricism lands itself into strife (as popper suggests) when it makes claims that are not falsifiable
(eg - radius of the milky way, nature of the universal creation, origins of life etc)I’m not sure I care. From the perspective of inductive reasoning the quality and quantity of the data lead to high or low levels of credibility and believability.

that is precisely my point
claims are dependent on theory (or precedence of evidence) and practice (or investigation)Well good and how do you use that to justify a claim that a god exists?

“ Your claims of direct perception of spiritual phenomena do not match any criteria that I can verify but your claims do match significant believable and credible criteria of delusion ”

if I am not versed in the theory and practice of identifying electrons, your claim of electrons existing also matches a model of delusion tooNo it doesn’t since we have significant inductive evidence to support electrons from significant practical applications. There is no equivalent for spiritual claims.

“ I cannot conclude that you are wrong or right but the inductive evidence is strongly against you and heavily in favor of delusion. ”

if you can't conclude whether i am right or wrong then all you can conclude is that you don't know - anything more than that simply reflects your belief or value systemNo it doesn’t. I have significant levels of confidence in whether you are right or wrong based on inductive reasoning. That adds a significant qualification to “don’t know”, and makes a big difference to whether any of your claims should be pursued further.

Cris

“
If you examine the general tendency of your arguments however it's clear you don't reject theistic claims because of conceptual problems (aka rationalism, or, as you suggest, logical reasoning) - instead you tend to reject them because they bear no correlation to empirical standards of belief
”
No you are not quite there yet.

I have no urgency or great need to “believe” something, and I see absolutely no need to make a choice where support for either choice is lacking in any real significant manner. You selected the phrase “empirical standards of belief” as if it is a faith-like religious concept. Belief of any type, where belief means being convinced that something is true, either through some degree of evidence or just personal desire, is still not a necessity.
and as indicated previously, you admit that you believe that anything that is "real" can be determined by the investigation of matter
- hence empirical belief


One can quite meaningfully work with a world where one can be suspicious of everything but still work with things that show high degrees of inductive consistency. That makes me open to change and new ideas.
and as mentioned previously, your bias is that you only work with inductive models that correlate to empiricism

“
This is science, one can investigate what can be detected or observed, or can be logically deduced. ”

do you realize you have just offered a concise analysis of the empirical ideology?
”
Ideology? It is the essence of science.
yes, empiricism is the essential ideology of what you choose to term "science"

“
… or you have not completed a satisfactory investigation before you made the claim "no one has ever shown there is or could be anything else" (since persons even vaguely familiar with philosophy could name about a dozen)
”
Hmm, I see those ideas as speculative rather than approaches that have actually revealed truths.
hence when push comes to shove you argue not as a rationalist (who is capable of dealing with concepts) but as an empiricist 9one who deals exclusively with what is dictated by the senses, or more specifically what is dictated by one's own senses or the senses of others that one holds as similarly authoritative)

“
As far as I know everything that is known has been the result of natural phenomenon. I have no way to know whether anything in the future will continue to be only discovered in that way. I also do not know whether anything that exists now could be made known by anything other than natural phenomena, and I am also not aware of any such process that would allow that. ”

so IOW, you are an an empiricist as far as you know – lol
”
Apparently not since that could imply a closed perspective.
as indicated above, you certainly do have a closed perspective

I have the suspicion that you have difficulty discussing issues with others unless you can label them. I’m not a scientist, neither am I a philosopher. I am a technologist and work with real world practical issues.
I am not contending your dealing with practical issues - i am contending that dealing with the issue of god is something you are not practically equipped with to approach

“
so IOW, a fantastic claim is wrong in the present
”
No. One wouldn’t know; that is the point and why it is called fantasy rather than asserting it is wrong.
but you are asserting that it doesn't exist at present, or that it is not known how it exists at present

“
once again, if you hold the words "real" and "empirical" as non-different, you have severe epistemological difficulties (particularly since empiricism has no ability to penetrate beyond the phenomenal)
”
Then don’t label me as an empiricist.
then you had better start offering some explanations of your ideology that are not empirical

“
“ But perhaps such things do or might one day exist, I simply have no means to show they are right or wrong. ”

then you are misguided to use the word "fantasy" - all you can do is express your inability to either validate or invalidate a claim.
By your standard of explanation a person unfamiliar with china could encounter a chinese person and say that their claims of china are fantasy
”
No because then it comes down to a debate about precedent, believability, credibility, and probability.
or alternatively it comes down to a debate about who is appropriately experienced

Fantasy expresses the perception of low values on all those scales.
particularly amongst persons ill equipped with experience - for instance electrons could also rate as fantasies amongst assemblies of high school drop outs


“
I guess I need to be convinced by an example where an alternative method can show a truth. ”

a good beginning point is to examine how empiricism has no ultimate capability to present truths that are not relative (like the example of pointing to your nose and saying what it is)
”
I don’t understand the example.
if you carry on explaining what your nose is you will eventually arrive at the limit of your relative knowledge
(empiricism is the working medium of the mesocosm and has no entrance into the microcosm or macrocosm - the obvious reason is because the senses are limited)

“
it does however apply to a layman who is not familiar with the theory nor the practice of science
”
No, it is a misuse of the term and or ignorance of what it means. This leads to a typical mistake by religionists by claiming their faith is no different to someone having faith in their doctor or wife. One is an irrational belief without support and the other is valid logical inductive reasoning.
its not clear how your statement addresses the issue that a person not familiar with the theory of a said science has no choice but to accept (or reject) the claims of science on faith.
IOW you are yet to offer any coherent argument why there exists no knowledge base in religion (despite you not being familiar with the theory nor the practice of religion) aside from your convictions of faith

“
“ In science the dominant paradigm is inductive reasoning, degrees of evidence with certainty withheld. ”

that is the practice - and practice comes after theory
”
I don’t see them as separate but as part of an iterative cycle.
practice and theory are quite closely related in the sense that practice has theory as a foundation

“
still you find that it is physicists (ie persons familiar with the theory of physics - and furthermore capable of taking that theory to the platform of practice) that take a positive stance in regards to electrons, and not even geologists, what to speak of carpenters (despite physicists, geologists and carpenters being possessed of everyday powers of induction)
”
Whatever point you had has become elusive.
powers of induction become dynamic when they are attributed to a theory base - this is what makes the essential differences between a physicist, geologist and carpenter (its not like some of them do not require induction).
that is why persons outside of the theory base (and hence outside of the practice) of a said field have no other option but to accept (or reject) the claims on faith.
hence your claim that there is no knowledge base in religion is simply an argument of faith

“
Where faith is a conviction of truth without evidence or proof. ”

much like a carpenters claim that electrons exist
”
Why would a carpenter claim that electrons exist? Your point seems entirely obscure.
according to your logic, there is no reason why a carpenter cannot claim an electron exists, since it is entirely a matter of induction

“
“ The claim of direct perception is simply another version faith since delusion is a more credible explanation and the only reason one chooses non-delusion is entirely on faith and/or personal desire. ”

basically what you have just said is "god does not exist and the evidence is that people who claim he does exist are deluded"
”
No. Go back and read what I said. Delusion is simply the more credible explanation.
why?

It makes no assertions about whether gods exist or not or that people are deluded or not.
you've just said that theistic claims are deluded
:confused:

You are prematurely trying to jump to a conclusion where there is insufficient support. I do not need to reach a conclusion but simply be aware of the contrasting probabilities.
when you use words like "probabilities" it indicates an empirical foundation of sorts - what body of empirical work are you consulting to make the claim that "the probability of theistic claims being true are low enough to rate as delusional" aside from your personal belief on the subject?



“
and inductive reasoning is dependent on the information one has at one's resources to make reasonable decisions
”
Or learnt from others who have demonstrated appropriate probabilities.
then you have just regressed the argument to a further level without answering the question
(if those persons you are accepting as truthful are just as equally bereft of qualification as yourself, how does that make their claims any more valid?)
still, it makes it more convenient to isolate your words as statements of belief - since now you are saying that you are simply accepting the words of others on good faith

“
- for instance if a person is bereft of theory and practice, what will be reasonable for them will quite different from what is reasonable for a person who is well versed in theory and practice
”
Or if they are rational simply recognize they have inadequate information to make a choice.
then I guess you had better offer a rational argument why that is the case instead of asserting statements that are fantastic.
for instance suppose the statement "god exists" is accepted as a hypothetical macrocosmic claim
when you say you recognize the inadequacies of the claim, how do you distinguish that from the inadequacies of empiricism (the inadequacy of a mesocosmic methodology to approach a macrocosmic one)

“
“ We can objectively quantify the number of instances that material phenomena have resulted in practical outcomes. This leads to significant believability and credibility when claims are based on such criteria. We have no such criteria or precedent for showing that non-natural phenomena are believable or credible. ”

thus empiricism lands itself into strife (as popper suggests) when it makes claims that are not falsifiable
(eg - radius of the milky way, nature of the universal creation, origins of life etc)
”
I’m not sure I care. From the perspective of inductive reasoning the quality and quantity of the data lead to high or low levels of credibility and believability.
and the point is that when you are calling on such bodies of reasoning and data to determine the nature of god you have nothing to work with (since the tons of data available to you are all 100% relative) - by default what authority does that leave you with (hint - faith)


“
that is precisely my point
claims are dependent on theory (or precedence of evidence) and practice (or investigation)
”
Well good and how do you use that to justify a claim that a god exists?

theory and practice - the same as any other claim
the problem is that you assert that the theory and practice is delusional without offering a coherent argument why
“
“ Your claims of direct perception of spiritual phenomena do not match any criteria that I can verify but your claims do match significant believable and credible criteria of delusion ”

if I am not versed in the theory and practice of identifying electrons, your claim of electrons existing also matches a model of delusion too
”
No it doesn’t since we have significant inductive evidence to support electrons from significant practical applications.
hence my point that inductive evidence (theory) and practical application (practice) and the absolute hopelessness of persons in approaching such claims without reference to such things

thus by your model of inquiry, the highschool drop out can get away with electrons are the claims of the deluded

There is no equivalent for spiritual claims.
why?
if you are not familiar with the theory nor practice, and your favoured authority of knowledge has no scope to either validate or invalidate the claims you are simply airing your beliefs

“
“ I cannot conclude that you are wrong or right but the inductive evidence is strongly against you and heavily in favor of delusion. ”

if you can't conclude whether i am right or wrong then all you can conclude is that you don't know - anything more than that simply reflects your belief or value system
”
No it doesn’t. I have significant levels of confidence in whether you are right or wrong based on inductive reasoning.

That adds a significant qualification to “don’t know”, and makes a big difference to whether any of your claims should be pursued further.

and once again, inductive reasoning doesn't help a carpenter perceive an electron - all he can see is a condensation streak (although it does help a person familiar with the theory of physics, ie a physicist)
your significant levels or confidence is just another way of saying "I believe"

Lg,

I am not contending your dealing with practical issues - i am contending that dealing with the issue of god is something you are not practically equipped with to approachGiven that you believe a god exists through some indefinable directly perceived mental process you believe is real, then what is your method of verification that this directly perceived entity is actually a god and not a personal aberration or delusion?

lg,

Do you subscribe to the idea that there exists an objective reality that is independent of mind and that is capable of being known?

The problem I'm trying to overcome is your concept of direct perception of an object that bypasses the senses and is not merely a thought you have generated yourself. If the object you claim is independent of your mind then there should be a means of independent verification.

lg,

Do you subscribe to the idea that there exists an objective reality that is independent of mind and that is capable of being known?

The problem I'm trying to overcome is your concept of direct perception of an object that bypasses the senses and is not merely a thought you have generated yourself. If the object you claim is independent of your mind then there should be a means of independent verification.
You are clearly missing the role of qualification in assessing the nature of any evidence or claims regarding what is or is not reality. To a highschool dropout, electrons are not real. How can you hope to assess the reality or existence of things that are beyond your ability to approach without the proper training?

See? Who needs LG anymore? I have a patented LG response for anything you care to bring up.

super,

See? Who needs LG anymore? I have a patented LG response for anything you care to bring up.Yeh I know, oh well. You're right it is time to move on.

super,

Yeh I know, oh well. You're right it is time to move on.
It's hard though. It's like some kind of compulsion...

Must... resist... temptation to debate... with... ... LG! Arrrggghhhh!

hahaha

Not really hard to avoid LG, I've been here quite a while and I hardly ever respond to any come back LG posts, VitalOne is moving in the same direction, not worthy of having any meaningful discussions, since they both pretty much delusional beyond any reconciliation!

The military term is FUBAR their mind is a total FUBAR and that's what the problem is. "FukUpBeyonAnyRecognition"
I suppose in a way is not their fault since they probably been brain washed since childhood!

You are clearly missing the role of qualification in assessing the nature of any evidence or claims regarding what is or is not reality. To a highschool dropout, electrons are not real. How can you hope to assess the reality or existence of things that are beyond your ability to approach without the proper training?That was... spooky! :shiver:
It was as if LG had spoken through you... that you had received the spirit of LG and spoken in tongues... or at least words not your own!

:D

See? Who needs LG anymore? I have a patented LG response for anything you care to bring up.Does that mean I have to licence it from you if I want to use it??? Doh!

LgSpeakTM

Now available for MAC and PC platforms.

Minimum System Requirements:

- 1MHz 8080 processor
- 100 bytes of RAM
- Cassette tape drive

IllogiComTM driver required for full reality denial semantics.

Supe

“
Originally Posted by Cris
lg,

Do you subscribe to the idea that there exists an objective reality that is independent of mind and that is capable of being known?

The problem I'm trying to overcome is your concept of direct perception of an object that bypasses the senses and is not merely a thought you have generated yourself. If the object you claim is independent of your mind then there should be a means of independent verification.
”
You are clearly missing the role of qualification in assessing the nature of any evidence or claims regarding what is or is not reality. To a highschool dropout, electrons are not real. How can you hope to assess the reality or existence of things that are beyond your ability to approach without the proper training?

See? Who needs LG anymore? I have a patented LG response for anything you care to bring up.
great - perhaps now we can move onto a different argument apart from the narrow minded approach of atheistic empiricism

(since you are still saying (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72995&page=3)things like

Given the fact that religions are convoluted man-made labrynths of self delusion

it appears that I am notthe only one with a few repetitive habits)
:D

Cris

Do you subscribe to the idea that there exists an objective reality that is independent of mind and that is capable of being known?
certainly - so does empiricism

The problem I'm trying to overcome is your concept of direct perception of an object that bypasses the senses and is not merely a thought you have generated yourself.
perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly

the argument from theism is that the senses are not the final last word of our selves - IOW our ability to have functional senses is dependent on the mind and our ability to have a functional mind is dependent on consciousness - IOW sense perception is not the same for everyone since there are differences of mind (like education for eg - forensic detective, physicist etc) and differences of consciousness (anger/lust/wrath/etc)

If the object you claim is independent of your mind then there should be a means of independent verification.
certainly

“
I am not contending your dealing with practical issues - i am contending that dealing with the issue of god is something you are not practically equipped with to approach
”
Given that you believe a god exists through some indefinable directly perceived mental process you believe is real, then what is your method of verification that this directly perceived entity is actually a god and not a personal aberration or delusion?
your question tends to indicate a lack of theoretical understanding - for instance suppose we were discussing horses, the first thing is that there must be an agreed understanding of what qualifies for the category of "horse".
In the same way, there is not much point in discussing how to see god without first understanding what "god" means

as for the process being indefinable, its actually quite straight forward eg -

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.

lightgigantic thas so beautiful

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
I knew it! It really is all about ME! I rule! Yesssss!

lg,

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.And where such a state of mind and belief cannot be differentiated from a personal delusion.

My last point about this was not about how you could demonstrate such a difference to me but how would you demonstrate to yourself that you are not deluded. Do you have any such safety mechanism? And if not how do you know you are not deluded?

lg,

perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly

the argument from theism is that the senses are not the final last word of our selves - IOW our ability to have functional senses is dependent on the mind and our ability to have a functional mind is dependent on consciousness - IOW sense perception is not the same for everyone since there are differences of mind (like education for eg - forensic detective, physicist etc) and differences of consciousness (anger/lust/wrath/etc)I fully appreciate that our minds can construct and create entirely new ideas and concepts without the direct use of senses. This is indeed the area of imagination that gives rise to the notions of gods and souls. What the mind cannot do on its own is verify whether such concepts and ideas have any representation in reality.

i'm not going to argue with you people all i'm going to say is that evolution happened whether you like it or not the big bang happened deal with it and life goes no where because god does not exist and has no plan for anyone i have a challenge for you pray to this supposed god for some one who is termanilly ill ask him to make a miracle and heal them and i'm 100% positive he'll give you a deaf ear and not help because he doesn't exist or if he does he just doesn't care

Devildriver,

While evolution is fact, big bang theory is currently seriously broken. For BB to be true some 96% of the universe must comprise dark matter and dark energy, of which there is absolutely no sign. The math for BB simply doesnt work without these fantasy substances.

Devildriver,

While evolution is fact, big bang theory is currently seriously broken. For BB to be true some 96% of the universe must comprise dark matter and dark energy, of which there is absolutely no sign. The math for BB simply doesnt work without these fantasy substances.

Evidence (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html)

Interesting.

(Q),

EvidenceCloser look shows thier claim of "direct" proof somewhat premature. It remains a speculation of the interpretation of their observations and not a direct observation.

lg,

And where such a state of mind and belief cannot be differentiated from a personal delusion.

My last point about this was not about how you could demonstrate such a difference to me but how would you demonstrate to yourself that you are not deluded. Do you have any such safety mechanism? And if not how do you know you are not deluded?
it would be interesting to hear how you prove to yourself that you are not deluded about anything.

For instance even to say something as simple as the world actually exists is impossible to establish without accepting something a priori



lg,

I fully appreciate that our minds can construct and create entirely new ideas and concepts without the direct use of senses. This is indeed the area of imagination that gives rise to the notions of gods and souls. What the mind cannot do on its own is verify whether such concepts and ideas have any representation in reality.
unless you have direct perception that god and souls do not exist you are using your imagination to make such a claim.
With theism, however there is the claim of direct perception (which does involve the mind and the senses) and also a process to attain such a state (namely purify the consciousness) - do deny both is simply an issue of opinion (at best)

i'm not going to argue with you people all i'm going to say is that evolution happened whether you like it or not the big bang happened deal with it and life goes no where because god does not exist and has no plan for anyone i have a challenge for you pray to this supposed god for some one who is termanilly ill ask him to make a miracle and heal them and i'm 100% positive he'll give you a deaf ear and not help because he doesn't exist or if he does he just doesn't care
first of all - evolution remains a theory for as long as it is not falsifiable

secondly, its not clear what carrying out your proposed test is upposed to prove - the ability of the living entity to control god? ("Listen up god, this is fred and I am praying right now so you better do what I say")
:shrug: :confused: :shrug:

first of all - evolution remains a theory for as long as it is not falsifiable

As is the theory of General Relativity for gravity.

It would give me great pleasure to witness you personally attempting to falsify it.

Evolution, that is, not gravity. :D

This anti-science thread has existed long enough. Time for it to find a new home.