|
Donations |
|
 |
|
|
|
If you found this site helpful, please donate to help keep it online
Don't want to use PayPal? Try our physical address
|
|
|
Survey |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SicPreFix
Sergeant
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 121
Location: Canada
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What if it proves the reverse of your hypothesis? Then will you deny it had any meaning? |
Absolutely not. Proof is proof. If such an experiment were to somehow prove the hypothesis that god is external and real - and I don't see how it could, but nevermind - then I would be fascinated. I would wait with bated breath for the experiment to be reproduced with similar results, which of course is the basis of proof: reproducibility, verifiability, etc. What so many religionists seem to misunderstand is that anecdote, faith, wishful thinking, dreams in the night, the word of pastors, priests, and popes is not proof whatsoever.
I think I may have mentioned somewhere in this forum that I would love it if someone came along and proved, proved mind you, that there was a god or some great power in the ether beyond. That would be a fundamental event, a truly fundamental global event that would unequivocabley affect all humanity. If god were proved, again I emphasize proved, we could do away with all the silly, angry, racist, ethnocentric, biased and hate-filled religions. I do not believe it will happen, but that doesn't mean it won't.
One of my favourite examples of how such proof could come to be is the one in Carl Sagan's book "Contact." Elly, the principle protagonist, a scientist, argues that if god as defined by the religionists and the faithful really existed it would have left some kind of inarguably specific, thoroughly provable, unequivocal sign that it was there.
Many faithful will say there is or are such signs, but that's just being silly. There is a passel of "I said it's so, therefore it's so," and further passels of ambiguous, metaphorical holy texts that also say it is so, but noe, yea, none of those are inarguably specific, thoroughly provable, unequivocal signs of the existence of a great power in the ether.
The great and fun example in the book is that when Elly digs deep enough into the mathematical equation pi she finds what may very well be a signature from god; incontrovertible proof that some great power in the ether existed. The theory being, if there is/was some great power that "invented" mathematics, then mathematics, which is the same anywhere whether it be on earth or on Scurilious Nine in the Betamine universe is the perfect place to leave behind unequivocal evidence of its existence.
I won't go into the example from the book simply because it would take too much text. But if such a thing were to happen, if a signature from some power above were actually found in something as unchangeable and incontrovertible as mathematics, then of course I would become a believer.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MrsHoppes
Sergeant
Joined: Feb 08, 2004
Posts: 122
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So your very existence is just a cosmic freak of nature? And mine? And your parents? And my son? We are all just cosmic coincidences?
_________________
God said it. I believe it. That's that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SicPreFix
Sergeant
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 121
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So your very existence is just a cosmic freak of nature? And mine? And your parents? And my son? We are all just cosmic coincidences? |
Yes. Absolutely. Unequivocabley. Until proved otherwise. Proved mind you, proved.
Though, I would like to say that I don't think the accidental or without purpose status of our existence means we are freaks of nature, nor necessarily cosmic coincidences. I would say we're all probably lovely little pieces of the evidence of nature, and maybe lovely wee little pieces of the coincidence of the cosmos. But still and all pieces without purpose - ultimate purpose, that is. Yes.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrsHoppes
Sergeant
Joined: Feb 08, 2004
Posts: 122
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/...1d9166ab57
http://www.evidenceofgod.com/
http://www.godandscience.org/
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html
http://www.doesgodexist.org/
Those should get you started on the evidence you are looking for.
_________________
God said it. I believe it. That's that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SicPreFix
Sergeant
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 121
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well my dear Mrs. H., this is going to take some time. And of course you just know I'm going to do my very best to debunk them, don't you?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekrubtap
Captain
Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 302
Location: Geez if you believe in Honkus
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
From the first cited site..... http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/...1d9166ab57
Dr. William Hatcher. "...an illusory self, contemplating an illusory universe, is still something that exists"
Uh-huh, yup, right, sure, whatever you say (get the rubber room ready..). Illusion exists only as deceit, just like "scientific" creationism.
.."Further, he (Hatcher) said, everything that exists does so because of some cause, and the "principle of sufficient reason" states that every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself, but never both. "Everything that exists has to have a reason for existing," he said.
The Principle of Sufficient Reason has very few contemporary defenders of any of its versions. (For a recent critique of this principle, see [Post 1991, 1987; Smith and Craig 1993, pp. 178—1911])
Scientific creationism is a total BS construct of Xtianity that evolved out of the late eighteenth century philosophy known as Scottish realism, was seized and extrapolated upon by the Presbyterians via the conservative Presbyterian controlled Princeton University of 1837, emphasising the inerrency of the bible..The "science" is always outdated, obtuse, or incomprehesible. SC"ism is the last, desperate gasp of Xtian Fundies attempting to get their "science" (read "religion") taught in public schools at taxpayers expense. Scientific Creationism is, in short, a lie, which is allegedly against the rules for Xtians, but, hey, when has a mere commandment of "God" kept Xtians from pursuing an end.
I'm not going to bother purusing the rest of the sites, (I went through your previous list of recommended sites, Mrs Hoppes, all the same, which brings up the point that Xtians seem to go through life with blinkers on, reading only that which fortifies their preconcieved ideas, eschewing alternate viewpoints as the work of Satan (how handy, saves having to think)) And, no, don't be tempted to turn this accusation back on me. I read the bible, I also make a point of seeking out religious apologists. I even read the Catholic newspapers my relatives get. In fact I read just about everything I can re religion, as long as it doesn't get too repetitive.
Along those lines, I have to chuckle when I see Xtians exorting non-believers to "keep an open mind" (a little juvenile attempt at reverse psychology?) I prefer Ayn Rand's advice to keep an "active" mind. A concept foreign to that of dogma. I would think one would recognise the inherent danger in any controlling entity, whether government, religion, or your husband, that would exhort you to accept dogma in place of thought. Big Brother is thinking for you.
_________________
------------------------------------------------
He was a wise man who invented God.
Plato (427? - 348? CE)
------------------------------------------------ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekrubtap
Captain
Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 302
Location: Geez if you believe in Honkus
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, I just had to look. http://www.evidenceofgod.com/
| Quote: |
| A former atheist and hardcore Bible skeptic, Ralph Muncaster spent 15 years conducting research to dispute the Bible. To Ralph, it seemed that the Bible could not possibly be consistent with such sciences as anthropology, molecular biology and physics. Armed with an engineering education and a critical, questioning mind, to his surprise the more he searched, the more evidence he found - evidence that supports the Bible's claims. |
We have to look at two possibilities here. Either this guy spent 15 years debunking the bible then suddenly out of the blue suffered an epiphany or we have to take the statement "the more he searched, the more evidence he found - evidence that supports the Bible's claims" and apply it to the 15 years of alleged skeptical research. Neither one of these ring true. I suspect this is a fable designed to instil a sense of veracity in the author of the books which this site is attempting to foist on a (perceived) gullible public.
_________________
------------------------------------------------
He was a wise man who invented God.
Plato (427? - 348? CE)
------------------------------------------------
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SicPreFix
Sergeant
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 121
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I'm afriad Pat is right on this for sure. What we see on those sites is misused and abused scientific principles mixed randomly, and illogically with both real, and real but misinterpreted, and false scientific theorems, principles, history, and so on. And that makes it so hard if not impossible to clearly debunk the horsehockey from the few bits of possible reality. Very, very shoddy practices going on there.
They also, the second one in particular, include groundless, evidence-free anecdote from extremely dubious, questionable, if not outright deceitful quacks who are misusing language, taking advantage of gullible uninformed lay people, and so on. Quite disappointing I'm afraid.
Oh well, on to the races.
I would post some more rational, reasonable, and logical counter proofs from my "pal" James Randi, but I know that he is considered the devil around these here parts, so I won't put him through that old meat grinder again.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrsHoppes
Sergeant
Joined: Feb 08, 2004
Posts: 122
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Post. Please. I'd love to go through them and point out their errors.
_________________
God said it. I believe it. That's that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SicPreFix
Sergeant
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 121
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well I have to disappoint you Mrs. H. I just do not have the time or energy to wade through so much data to post a rebuttal to an argument I do not have that much concern over - well, that's not entirely true; I do have a lot of concern over it, but I don't think the results would warrant the effort. Suffice to say:
| Quote: |
| Since the layman is untrained in the basic intellectual aspects of science, he often cannot distinguish between legitimate scientists and their imitators. All around him, every day, he hears or sees apparent authorities — often with titles, genuine or assumed — who exhort him to believe their assertions. The resolution of this quandary is an overwhelming task for the layman, for who and what is reputable — and therefore reliable — in science, is a question demanding knowledge both of science in general and of the particular field involved. Therefore, the non-specialist is very often confused by conflicting claims made in the name of science. The legitimate scientist himself, at times, can be thus misled when faced with seemingly cogent arguments that lie outside of his field of special knowledge. In parapsychology, this is frequently found: parapsychologists — in common with other scientists — are often unwilling to call in specialists such as conjurers, who may very well have the specialized expertise required to explain factors that would otherwise not be understood — or even noticed — by the observer untrained in that respect. --- James Randi |
The point being that I cannot effectively debunk much of what is posited in the illegitimate pseudo scientific articles posted in those sites you linked to - even tho I know it to be either dishonest, disinformative, or just plain wrong - because I do not have the necessary in-depth scientific knowledge and expertise to do so both effectively and accurately. I do not want to display the same mendacity and flaws as do the persons on those sites by arguing a point without full accuracy, validity, and precision.
The other and possibly more valid point is that those sites and much of what is stated there is designed to hoodwink the faithful who do not have any scientific background, and to make them believe that those of us who have "faith" in scientific principles are denying the clear and present evidence supplied by the persons on those sites. A sort of double-whammy, doublethink lie is being perpetrated, and apparently you're gobbling it up wholesale.
Please excuse the mascu-centric pov of the quote. It's part of the new grammar, wherein half an article refers to she, and the other half refers to he. This part came from the he side.
Lastly, and with all due respect to you Mrs. H., neither you nor I, nor, I suspect, anyone who posts here has the scientific credentials, experience, or teaching to accurately, effectively, and precisely point either side's errors or accuracies. At least so far as the gobbledygook posted on those sites is concered.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CCglider
Cadet
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
Posts: 6
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Since the layman is untrained in the basic intellectual aspects of science, he often cannot distinguish between legitimate scientists and their imitators. All around him, every day, he hears or sees apparent authorities — often with titles, genuine or assumed — who exhort him to believe their assertions. The resolution of this quandary is an overwhelming task for the layman, for who and what is reputable — and therefore reliable — in science, is a question demanding knowledge both of science in general and of the particular field involved. Therefore, the non-specialist is very often confused by conflicting claims made in the name of science. The legitimate scientist himself, at times, can be thus misled when faced with seemingly cogent arguments that lie outside of his field of special knowledge. In parapsychology, this is frequently found: parapsychologists — in common with other scientists — are often unwilling to call in specialists such as conjurers, who may very well have the specialized expertise required to explain factors that would otherwise not be understood — or even noticed — by the observer untrained in that respect. --- James Randi |
| Quote: |
The point being that I cannot effectively debunk much of what is posited in the illegitimate pseudo scientific articles posted in those sites you linked to - even tho I know it to be either dishonest, disinformative, or just plain wrong - because I do not have the necessary in-depth scientific knowledge and expertise to do so both effectively and accurately. I do not want to display the same mendacity and flaws as do the persons on those sites by arguing a point without full accuracy, validity, and precision.
The other and possibly more valid point is that those sites and much of what is stated there is designed to hoodwink the faithful who do not have any scientific background, and to make them believe that those of us who have "faith" in scientific principles are denying the clear and present evidence supplied by the persons on those sites. A sort of double-whammy, doublethink lie is being perpetrated, and apparently you're gobbling it up wholesale.
Please excuse the mascu-centric pov of the quote. It's part of the new grammar, wherein half an article refers to she, and the other half refers to he. This part came from the he side.
Lastly, and with all due respect to you Mrs. H., neither you nor I, nor, I suspect, anyone who posts here has the scientific credentials, experience, or teaching to accurately, effectively, and precisely point either side's errors or accuracies. At least so far as the gobbledygook posted on those sites is concered. |
ROFL! Unfortunately for you, James Randi doesn't have those credentials either. If you replaced "faithful" with "atheist" in what you've just said, you would be talking about James Randi!
DNA is not at all "random" and predates man by...gee...how long? Forever? Yet people still have a deathgrip on "evolution" having "randomly happened".
Bad news bubba, scientists aren't Gods and neither is Randi. What they want you to believe is that the world is flat. They want you to believe they know, but they don't. For everything man can see, there are an infinite number of things he can't see. And because he's never seen them, he doesn't look for them and can't measure them.
It doesn't have to be a God of religion, but whatever it is, it is the truth. We were created, whether by the statistically impossible "happy accident" or by the statistically probable, perfectly functioning, physical mechanism.
Science has to say it was all an accident to provide an excuse for "improving" it. Fortunately, this mechanism has been operating just fine for ...well...forever, as far as we're concerned, and will continue to do so, even if it means ridding itself of the cancer of stupid puny human beings.
You've heard the old adage that both sides can't be right? Well, there's a third possibility...or in this case probability...both sides are wrong.
The only difference between religion and science is that while religion claims to know God, science claims to be God. They're both beyond ignorant and governed by absurdly ridiculous human pride.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SicPreFix
Sergeant
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 121
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CC, your ignorance and misunderstanding of science, scientists, and scientific principles is profound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekrubtap
Captain
Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 302
Location: Geez if you believe in Honkus
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Science "proves" nothing, and knows that ultimately nothing can be proven. Science postulates best case scenarios for given data.
I'm not sure what your point is re DNA. DNA has not always been, having been preceded by RNA and single strand DNA, and who knows what other amorphous mass of nucleic acid and precursors. And DNA has continued to evolve since the first double helix model appeared.
| Quote: |
| What they (scientists) want you to believe is that the world is flat. |
I think you're ascribing this sentiment to the wrong side of this particular debate.
| Quote: |
For everything man can see, there are an infinite number of things he can't see. And because he's never seen them, he doesn't look for them and can't measure them.
|
The first sentence is obviously true. The second is nonsense.
| Quote: |
It doesn't have to be a God of religion, but whatever it is, it is the truth. We were created, whether by the statistically impossible "happy accident" or by the statistically probable, perfectly functioning, physical mechanism.
|
This is really obtuse. If not a god of religion, then what, a god of culture? of sports? of plastic lawn ornaments?
"whatever it is, it is the truth" You don't know what it is, but you know it is the truth?
You say, "We were created." That's meaningful, clearly articulated, and indicative of your position. I think. Do you deny evolution? And these days, every time I get to utilize the statistically probable, perfectly functioning, physical mechanism, it's nearly always a happy accident. 
| Quote: |
| Science has to say it was all an accident to provide an excuse for "improving" it. |
What is "it"? Life? We should not improve life?
| Quote: |
the cancer of stupid puny human beings.
|
Got yourself a little self esteem issue here, CC?
| Quote: |
| The only difference between religion and science is that while religion claims to know God, science claims to be God. They're both beyond ignorant and governed by absurdly ridiculous human pride. |
A straightforward statement re religion, hyperbole re science. Is this indicative of bias? Yes , science has it's rogue element that we all wish we could somehow subvert. The difference between science and religion is that quite a bit of science is useful, whereas the only use I can see for religion is social. One of the few chances a person gets to meet their neighbours these days.
_________________
------------------------------------------------
He was a wise man who invented God.
Plato (427? - 348? CE)
------------------------------------------------
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SicPreFix
Sergeant
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 121
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm voting for God of plastic lawn ornaments.
Woe betide he who desecrates my flamingo! Death unto the Jockeys and the Faeiries, for they are unclean!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CCglider
Cadet
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
Posts: 6
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SicPreFix wrote: |
| CC, your ignorance and misunderstanding of science, scientists, and scientific principles is profound. |
ROFL! Let me get this straight...you don't believe in the paranormal and yet you presume to know someone you've never spoken to in your life? Granted, your "reply" was the only reply you were capable of making but I don't know that because I'm psychic. I had several of your other posts to go by in forming my opinion of you. You had...what? Nothing. Oh, wait, you were offended therefore I must be stupid...hmmm...well...I'm sure that makes perfect sense to you.
This is SOP among the religious, too. Regardless of what their Omnipotent Creator of All Things does, if they don't like it then the fault lies in creation rather than in their perception of it. Just like you. Both sides of the science/religion conflict are exactly the same. You have beliefs, you find theories that seem to support them and hang on for dear life. The religious have beliefs, find religious text that seems to support them and hang on for dear life. If there ever was "evolution", terror-driven folks like you have brought it to a screeching halt.
I can't imagine how frightening it must be to believe something that might be disproven at any moment. I don't understand why people hold their beliefs so tightly in the face of mountains of evidence against them. I couldn't live being so frightened all the time and feeling I had to shoot down anyone and everyone who spoke against my beliefs for fear they might be proven false. How do you do it? Or, more importantly, WHY do you do it?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8a © 2001 phpBB Group
Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
Version 2.2 by Paul Laudanski © 2003-2004 Computer Cops
|
You can syndicate our news using the file RSS 0.91, ultramode.txt, or RSS 1.0.
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
