The Hard Problems Of Consciousnes - One of the best cases for Intelligent Design

Discussion in 'Religion' started by LFiess1942, Oct 13, 2014.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,649
    Which you are keeping secret for some reason. Why is that?

    The evidence here is that you have not even bothered to acquire a basic understanding of Darwinian evolution. You keep making simple mistakes.

    We don't follow Aristotle and Plato and Socrates around until we find a mistake or some ambiguous wording, and then declare our interpretation of it to be scientific evidence for anything. Why do you abuse the memory and reputation of Einstein in that manner?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282




    The question i have for bigfoot is, where does philosophy (a descriptive world of unverifiable ideas) fit into your worldview? It seems you have just as much of a problem with accepting things as unverifiable as those types of people who misunderstand the boundaries of science, and think it can do the work of philosophy.


    To me, philosophy rules the world of experience. And science rules the wold of experiments. But then, what is experience but a series of experiments? So, when I find philosophy invading science, or science invading philosophy, I have no problem.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,323
    So you're a lab rat?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282






    Please post the "irrefutable evidence of Intelligent Design" and we will happily show you why it can (and should) be refuted.

    Well, I think I have pretty much tried to give you, but so far you have decided to refute it. Therefore I will give you one more example. You can choose to refute it, too. A third example will be given to you. But I am afraid, it will be too late, and you wont like it.

    Now, my second evidence of Intelligent Design is this, dude; go look in the mirror. If that evidence is not good enough for you, nothing will convince you.


    If it was merely choosing between the two camps, why make a choice at all? Why not conclude "I don't know!"? Or is it that you need to have an answer?

    Because my creator knows He gave me commonness with which, looking at His creation, it should convince me of His existence. That’s good for me.


    And given that you are quoting Einstein in support of your position, with no actual substance to support it other than it being Einstein who said it (hence it being an appeal to popularity and celebrity), on what basis do you discount the scientists who make claims that there is no God?

    Well it’s a subjective decision based on what I have studied, and conviction of those who are more learned than me, Ie, Paul Davies, Sir Fred Hoyle David Bolm Freeman Dyson etc.


    There is no impasse... just an incorrect view of of what you are claiming as being scientific.

    That’s a subjective opinion. When I see a brick-wall, I see a brick-wall. A state of probabilistic is just that. No certainty-which is require in science. I.e reducibility, observable , testable evidence. Beyond the Quantum Real, the world is Metaphysical and no-local. You mark-time on the edge and refutes to embrace what Quantum Theory has told you-Its your choice, not mine.

    And how does this negate the point I made, other than to accentuate the point of your appeal to authority/celebrity with regard Einstein?

    Well, for the reason that if you found yourself in a foreign land, any local fellow is assumed a good guide, as long as he does not turn against you. Am not a scientists, what I have are guides, and what they have been telling me so far, makes sense. But for you, I have my doubts. You are standing alone-I guess.

    No, you have introduced nonsense through the unwarranted assumptions.

    Again, a subjective opinion.

    Sometimes fallacious thinking is simply fallacious thinking. It is your arrogance that the ridicule is a sign of the veracity of your claims and arguments that is most concerning. If you think you are being ridiculed then it is a case of being ridiculed for thinking 2+2=3, yet you take the ridicule as meaning you are on the right track.

    Time will tell, will it not?

    Having scientists on your side is not the same as it being scientific! You do understand the difference between the two, I hope? Or are you going to cling to your appeal to false authority? You do realise that scientists can do other things other than conduct science? And that you don't need to be a recognised scientist to conduct science?

    Well, take it the way you want. I am vey well aware of the conflicts amongst scientists, and in many cases there is no consensus, therefore it’s a case of connecting dots on your own, (as a non-scientists) quoting the scientists who have does experiments and figured it, and waiting for the next dot. It’s an adventure am enjoying, in spite of snide attacks.
     
  8. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    That is quite poetic, but not too illustrative to me. What does that mean? The reason i ask is that it seems that you believe some philosophy is science. Not informed by science, if that is what you mean by "invade", but that unprovables are provable. For example, someday there may be a way for quantum energy to carry dna information and create a virgin birth, and that particular religious idea will be scientific, but it is only sci-fi right now. And we live here now. I just wonder which parts of your ideas you see as being unprovable and evidenced only by mental processes. Just to make the distinction in order to possibly understand what you could even mean by "irrefutable evidence" of the creator. Edit - I don't aim for a distinction in order to say you shouldn't talk about a creator, but rather wonder why you can look in the mirror and talk about your personal impressions as "evidence".
     
  9. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282


    Which you are keeping secret for some reason. Why is that? The evidence here is that you have not even bothered to acquire a basic understanding of Darwinian evolution. You keep making simple mistakes.

    Well, if you have realized, the World, is a kind of a Matrix and Mirror Mazes. We are all trying to figure it out, and most have their own version of how the Matrix works, and the way out of the mirror mazes. Its not easy to convince each other, because you may find yourself deeper in the maze than you already were, if you did not follow certain fellows, and their opinions. I understand if you consider my opinion "fallacious" and "Unwaranted" You have your right to figure it out for yourself.
     
  10. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282




    That is quite poetic, but not too illustrative to me. What does that mean?

    “Every action, has an equal and opposite reaction” Science

    “You reap, what you sow” Philosophy

    different words, same thing: different knowledge, same advise


    - I don't aim for a distinction in order to say you shouldn't talk about a creator, but rather wonder why you can look in the mirror and talk about your personal impressions as "evidence".

    Just go and do it, and think about it.
     
  11. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,323
    If that silly supposed evidence is good enough for you, you could be convinced of anything. It is mostly chance circumstance that you are convinced of 1 silly thing rather than another or hundreds of others.
    You are proof that an omnipotent intelligent benevolent god does not exist.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2014
  12. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,323
    No. Not the same. Very different.

    I looked into the mirror before you were born. Probably more than you have now. You've fooled yourself into thinking you've examined yourself.
     
  13. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282


    We don't follow Aristotle and Plato and Socrates around until we find a mistake or some ambiguous wording, and then declare our interpretation of it to be scientific evidence for anything. Why do you abuse the memory and reputation of Einstein in that manner?



    I think you can say its because I am a "fan" of science, not a scientists. I find Science "fan" just like some like football.
     
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,502
    A fan of football at least knows the rules if they are to speak meaningfully about the game.
     
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  15. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282


    A fan of football at least knows the rules if they are to speak meaningfully about the game.

    They are not always agreeable, and you have decided to remain disagreeable.
     
  16. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,323
    Again&again you try to blame others for your failure.
     
  17. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282

    Failure..........what failure? Reality is perceived subjectively and relatively But that does not mean its so. Of course you are entailed to hold it anyway you want, and claim my view are "irrelevant, and unwarranted" In the Dream World, I guess they are..............keep dreaming.
     
  18. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,323
    It is not a matter of how I hold it or what I want. You came here making claims you fail to support & you go on&on&on&on making claims you fail to support & you try to blame your failure on others. You did it in the post I replied to & you just did it in your reply to me. Wake up!
     
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,502
    And how is my reflection evidence of ID as opposed to simply a non-intelligent mechanical process such as evolution?
    If that is the best evidence you have to put forward, such that nothing else will convince me, then you have nothing other than your belief and your desire to have your questions answered when rationally and logically the best answer we have is "I don't know".
    It's also circular reasoning, but that hasn't stopped you previously.
    It's certainly a subjective position, but one that you claim as fact and that you claim is supported by science.
    The rest of this sentence merely describes your appeal to authority and celebrity.
    Science does not require certainty, so you again show your misunderstanding.
    It merely requires falsifiability in what is theorised and tested.
    And how have I refused to embrace what Quantum Theory has told me? How does QT act as evidence for your view?
    You certainly are not a scientist, as you can not distinguish between what is and what is not science. You see the badge of "scientist" and assume that all that is said by that person is scientific. It isn't.
    As for what they say making sense, noone disputes that it may make sense for you - but that doesn't mean that it is supported by science. You have singularly failed to provide any scientific support for the notion that is not based on an unwarranted assumption.
    No, it's not. You have introduced unwarranted assumptions (unwarranted in so far as you try to claim the notion as scientific yet start from unfalsifiable assumptions). Your fallback to cries of "it's subjective" is merely a defensive posture on your part taken due to simply not understanding what is and what is not scientific.
    No. Given the information at the time, fallacious reasoning will always be fallacious reasoning.
    If new information arises, the argument may become not-fallacious, but that doesn't alter the fallaciousness of the argument when first presented.
    Furthermore, fallacious reasoning can give the correct result - by coincidence. But the correctness of the outcome does not validate the logic of the argument.
    No scientist has done any experiments concerning ID. It is not scientific. All they have is their unsupported opinion, an opinion they hold for whatever philosophical position they might hold.
    But that does not make it scientific, and your claims that ID is supported in favour of other competing notions are simply incorrect.
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,502
    If one simply does not know the rules of the game about which they make claims, it makes sensible discussion rather difficult.
     
  21. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    obfuscation or serious idea? I looked in the mirror. Nothing added. It is this kind of intense striving to make vague ideas out to be simple, easily explained, truths that plagues religion and doesn't need to anymore. Look, you think you have some scientific religious idea. You should try to say something people can understand before you think you have said anything. The useful thing about this forum is that the problem isn't usually that people are too stupid to understand you.
    Here is a scientific idea - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. However, we would have to seriously question whether a law regarding motion of bodies, or conservation of energy, holds true for thoughts or other actions not seemingly under the influence of the same forces, such as gravity etc. From what i understand, this doesn't apply on certain scales, and certainly hasn't been proven in regard to spoken words and sowing results from them, for example. This would be a great example of a probably inappropriate application of a scientific idea towards a philosophical one. Do you understand my point in the previous paragraph? Just putting aside everything, can you see why this is not a demonstratively linked pair of phrases that you have presented above? I am not saying that either idea isn't valuable but let's not pretend they work together without some square peg mashing.
     
  22. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282







    And how is my reflection evidence of ID as opposed to simply a non-intelligent mechanical process such as evolution? If that is the best evidence you have to put forward, such that nothing else will convince me, then you have nothing other than your belief and your desire to have your questions answered when rationally and logically the best answer we have is "I don't know"

    I believe that you’re an Intelligent human being, only a stubborn one. Now, Evolution does not explain you intelligence. And of course I wager you agree that there is a peculiar intelligence found in human beings, not found in the rest of creatures. So, as you look in the mirror, it should provoke you to wonder why you are different.

    Two, just look at yourself, and see just how your organs have unfolded so conveniently in your favor. And remember, you as a human being, you are the only creature which “evolutionary process” conveniently denied any defense mechanism, except your wits.

    It's also circular reasoning, but that hasn't stopped you previously.

    You’re right there.

    It's certainly a subjective position, but one that you claim as fact and that you claim is supported by science. The rest of this sentence merely describes your appeal to authority and celebrity.


    Look, at he end of the argument, which I think is nigh, we are left mark timing on the same thing, calling it differently, and claiming ownership of the discovery. We have been endeavoring to understand reality, and whether it has been manifested by a power which is Purposeful (I.E Designer) and , Intelligent . Me I claim, that yes, there is a power, and I call Him God. I claim that reality is Spiritual, Its a unity, its purposeful, and everlasting. I claim that its made of Light, which has been slowed down in form of Spherical Waves, moving back and forth, differentiated by Law, manifesting the reality we perceive, which appears, local, but its non-local.

    You, with your science and your logical reasoning, you have arrived at Quantum Realm, which has forced you to embrace an idea of reality which appears illogical. You claim that Quantum Systems which manifests reality we perceive is both particle like and wave like. You claim, its supper positioned. You claim its non-local. You claim its entangled, but you do not know what an electron is.

    I conclude that we are being childish. We are saying the same thing, differently but each want to hold on to his position. Wells, since even if I claim that it’s a Unity, this still is my subjective view, I guess we can call it a truce.

    Science does not require certainty, so you again show your misunderstanding.
    It merely requires falsifiability in what is theorised and tested. And how have I refused to embrace what Quantum Theory has told me? How does QT act as evidence for your view?


    I though “fact” were an example of “Certainty” I though you cannot deem a theory falsifiable unless you were using definite facts. Now, QM, gives you Probabilities” not certainties. You have refused to accept that QM. is different from Classical Method, and requires you to see the reality differently. It requires new thinking. QM to me, is the Game Changer. And even if I do not have a mathematical understanding of it, this does not affect my view of the Implications of Quantum View of reality. Its just astonishing. . Am excited, I guess. Its all I needed. “Entanglement” “Super positioning” “Uncertainty” etc. Of course there is no scientific conclusions. But I had a hunch, and when other scientists appeared to think so, well, I think I can say, that scientists have done a great service to the Christian Religion!

    You certainly are not a scientist, as you can not distinguish between what is and what is not science. You see the badge of "scientist" and assume that all that is said by that person is scientific. It isn't.
    As for what they say making sense, noone disputes that it may make sense for you - but that doesn't mean that it is supported by science.


    As for what they say making sense……………… that doesn't mean that it is supported by science.(?) I do not understand you. What do you mean?

    You have singularly failed to provide any scientific support for the notion that is not based on an unwarranted assumption.

    Look, Science has given us data and its for us to draw our own conclusion, based on our own subjective assumptions, which to others may be unwarranted. You have your right to draw your own conclusions, and because your conclusions are based on your subjective interpretations, they too, will be unwarranted assumptions to me and others. So, as I said, its an impasse for Atheists and Theists Any one could be right. Commonsense tells me I am on the right track.

    No, it's not. You have introduced unwarranted assumptions (unwarranted in so far as you try to claim the notion as scientific yet start from unfalsifiable assumptions). Your fallback to cries of "it's subjective" is merely a defensive posture on your part taken due to simply not understanding what is and what is not scientific.

    Boy, Oh boy!

    No. Given the information at the time, fallacious reasoning will always be fallacious reasoning.
    If new information arises, the argument may become not-fallacious, but that doesn't alter the fallaciousness of the argument when first presented. Furthermore, fallacious reasoning can give the correct result - by coincidence. But the correctness of the outcome does not validate the logic of the argument.


    Ok, you have my permission to call it fallacious if it makes you feel better, but I know sometimes logic does not make sense. (I, know I know, it sounds stupid)





    No scientist has done any experiments concerning ID. It is not scientific. All they have is their unsupported opinion, an opinion they hold for whatever philosophical position they might hold. But that does not make it scientific, and your claims that ID is supported in favour of other competing notions are simply incorrect.

    You appear to have unwarranted faith in a methodology whose capability have been found wanting. Same reason why many Scientists have abandoned it and wandered towards philosophy. Their opinions are unsupported solely because Science has failed, yes, failed to show the way beyond QM. But for guys like you, you still hope that Science will eventually find a way to a testable, reducible, and falsifiable,, factual understanding of reality beyond QM. Keep hoping.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2014
  23. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282

    I know you would want to have an exclusive treatment of science, but I differ.
     

Share This Page