3RU7AL

Only the ideological premise of the explanations have changed.

i prefer a zero percent chance at millions annihilated when it comes to someone with iran's history, whereas you prefer a non-zero percent chance. doesn't sound too rational to me. 

I am with you until measure and test for reliability. These things, at least in this particular dream, cannot be done scientifically. Well, you can do them, but you are never actually have a proper treatment and control group, because they would need to be identical. (I would understand if you need me to flesh this out)

As you open with calling me a dummy, I have ignored everything else you said. 

Grace is given to the humble, not the arrogant.

what if iran gets nukes and wipes out israel, which they said was their intent?

what if israel does what it said it'd do a few years ago and attacks iran because it won't let in inspectors? we shouldn't get their back?

what if iran arms terrorists with nukes and wipes out washington DC, and it may or may not be clear that iran was responsible? you said you'd only act if it was officially iran. how naive and stupid can ya be?

what if iran wipes out a few usa cities? and any retaliation would be met with more nukes going off in the usa? it's easy to think tit for tat would be implied, but to someone as crazy as iran, they might not see it that way and want more pot shots in than the usa gets. assured mutual destruction works well in theory, but isn't full proof.... assured mutual destruction might happen. 

what if iran gets hundreds of nukes and holds the human race hostage? it only would take a hundred nukes going off just right to bring a dooms day situation because of the environmental effects globally. 

How come The U.S.A. is allowed to enrich nuclear fuel and Iran isn't.

Who are the dictators here?

The scientific method works in your dreams?

The rules are even consistent within one dream? What if I dreamed I was dreaming, which rules apply? Let's say I have lucid dreams regularly where I'm consistently omnipotent, and it works, does that mean I'm omnipotent? 

I just believe that because the environment of an experiment affects the experiment, you can never say for certain what is quantifiable

You say God is creation.

I'm certainly not in favor of solipsism, but used an example similar to solipsism to show a point. If you were the only person, there is no way to create a firm distinction between reality and what we call hallucinations. And we quite literally do not have the ability to distinguish scientifically quantifiable things from things that aren't. Are scientific experiments reproducible in everyone's dreams? Unless you can come up with a way of distinguishing for certain whether one is in a dream, you can't be sure it isn't all a fluke and all your experiments have been done under "unreal" conditions. 

And as you make no effort to verify these things yourself, but instead rely soley on your ability to rationalize these things with your mind, your opinion has hardly any value.

You are, after all, unwilling to go through the process necessary to have these things revealled to you.

The Ultimate Reality exists, and that is our God. You don't understand what that means so you associate this with space aliens. Which is STUPID.

But if you really desired theophany, theoria, and even theosis, this is in the experience of the church.

The Ultimate Reality is not a hypothesis, it is a certainty.

It is not possible that a scientific theory can refute this reality.

I continue to repeat that "seem" is not an argument because it isn't an argument. "Seem" is your impression. If I didn't state it, then I did not state it. And once again, I do not take a position. I merely observe. At best, you may be able to state that I'm characterizing both evolution and religion as comparably rational or irrational. I don't have any proclivity toward either. My original statement if you remember assessed young Christians' leaving the Church for (more) rational beliefs, and noting that Evolution was mentioned. You and some of the others took grievance with my characterizing evolution as an ideology. It only "appears" that I'm claiming invalidity if one holds the scientific method as the primary metric for discerning information about one's environment.

To me, it's all the same. Science is no less abstract than religion. 

Here you go. [LINK]

That's not proof. Do better.

You've repeatedly stated that theory is not an ideology, but fail to demonstrate even in juxtaposition to that which you do consider ideology that it isn't an ideology. Thus far, you've argued Ipse Dixit.

It would appear that the one would have no effect on the other (they are not obviously in conflict).

Anti-christian in that it contradicts the account of creation in Genesis. 

How exactly does "subjective idealism" conflict with "natural selection"?

Where did I state that it did?

You stated this: 

If a theory provides testable predictive power and efficacy, then it is considered a valid theory.

And I responded by characterizing it as a gambler's fallacy. The gambler's fallacy can also be described as the logical fallacy in which random process become less random, and more predictable, the more often they're repeated. (That's how I incorporated the gambler's fallacy in my statement.)

Bacteria have no goals.

Prove it.

I do not provide definitions for entertainment. Also, are you presuming that scientific theory and ideology are mutually exclusive?

Such a school would be difficult to describe as "non-religious" but instead of being "pro-religious" I'd say it's probably more accurately described as "pro-christian", since christians are not generally "pro-religious" in any broad or general sense.

I'm speaking to function. I'm not denying that there are Christians at schools, and that they may or may not discuss their beliefs. However, the extent to which this occurs is not explicit; I can say with certainty that information about Evolution being taught to students is explicit because it's part of the school curricula. Even if 99% of the attendees are Christian, it's just as possible that only two people talk about religion as it would be with the entire school. It's conjectural. Evolution being taught at school is a fact. 

And, all scientific discoveries and theories are technically "provisional" (which is a feature, not a bug).

All the more reason that believing in Evolution is no more "rational" than believing in god or gods. 

If a theory provides testable predictive power and efficacy, then it is considered a valid theory.

Or it's nothing more than a gambler's fallacy. 

The theory of evolution has led us to discover genetics and we have been selectively breeding plants and animals for desirable traits (intuitively) even before that.

Then the theory of evolution has led to what per se, since as you correctly assessed plants and animals have been bred long before modern consensus of evolutionary thought? And which discoveries of genetics inform Evolution?

Ok, hold up.  If you're in the "intelligent designer" camp, I'm 100% Deist, so we should be able to figure this out.

I take no position. I merely observe. Philosophically, I lean toward subjective idealism. 

Consequences are inevitable regardless of intentionality.  Water does not have a "goal" of flowing downhill.  Survival is a consequence of "not dying".

Water's flowing down hill is a phenomenon, not a consequence. Consequence implies action; action implies agency. Even your statement "survival is a consequence of 'not dying'" implies a goal since it can be written as "to survive is to not die." To not die is the end of the effort to survive. Now if you're stating survival=not dying, that's another thing. But relating the two by incorporating the concept of consequence is counterintuitive. 

Your definition is of critical importance if we want to communicate with each other.

Obviously it isn't, otherwise you wouldn't have asserted this, "Evolution might be described as a hypothesis or a theory, but it most certainly does not qualify as an 'ideology'" before the fact. You're arguing either all definitions of "ideology" do not fit my description, or one which you've selected in particular is operant in this discussion. (Yes, I'm busting your chops over this because it's futile to seek definition when you've already presumed one.) 

More so than non-religious ideologies?

Please present your preferred definition of "ideology".

My definition does not matter since your argument has already operated on one which you've already selected, or is there are reason you quoted, "ideology"?

...since consequence would still imply a goal. 

Natural selection is no more substantive than orthogenesis. The only real difference is that more scientists agree with the naturalist ideology. Factual verification favors neither.

And that brings us to your description of evolution, which is just another way of stating that you're making provisional statements of fact based on that which you assume you know about your environment. 

I have nothing to do with governmental policies.

The word 'objective' has been used a certain way since the year dot, but you seem to insist on a non-standard meaning. 

Evolution is an ideology.

It's one on-going teleological argument without a single fact as its premise.

It's a series of presumptions based on assumptions (e.g. orthogenesis, and genetic traits.) 

'The melting point of gallium is 29.76 °C'

'The melting point of gallium is 29.76 °C'

'The melting point of gallium is 29.76 °C'

Of course we are to love foreigners, but foreigners in those times were no more Hebrews than those living outside of them were.

To see where you want to go with this, I will use

'The melting point of gallium is 29.76 °C'

for all 3.

Of course it being red and pretty is just my opinion -  a colour-blind philistine might well disagree.  But even a colour-blind philistine will agree it has 7 thorns!  The properties of colour and prettiness are observer-dependent or subjective.  The number of thorns is observer independent or objective.

What I mean by 'objective' is that something is independent of the observer.

I'd be careful to explicitly distinguish Quanta from Qualia.

What do mean by those terms?   If it helps, I imagine that quanta are objective and qualia are subective, so an example is the wavelength of light (quanta) and the colour of light (qualia).   Quanta can be measured by a device but qualia are perceived by a mind.

Reality { primary } is the set of truths and facts  existent in our observed experiences. 

Dreams { 2ndary } are a semi-false reality that stem from  observed experiences of truth and facts.

What is the basis of human rights?

Empathy and access to rational, logical common sense ergo the golden rule.

No person can do this, it is about what others around you call the dream world and reality, then we agree and move on. In other words, distinctions between "real" or "extant" facts and hallucinations are only conventional.

Loving a god is not enough.

There is One True God.

The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.

Should one person's rights be sacrificed for the potential benefit of humanity?

In the real world, it's rarely one person's rights.  What gets sacrificed are entire armies, cities and peoples.

It's possible to imagine something existing.

That depends entirely on whether or not you love God, because loving mankind is like loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind.

If you love God, would you defile His image?

As keithprosser just noted, it depends what you mean by Sherlock Holmes and a 10-headed person. You would only say that which exists is necessary for whatever effect being investigated to occur. Like if someone becomes a Detective in honor of Mr. Holmes, is it necessary he actually solved crimes? or just stories about him solving crimes? If there was a person in jail, stories might not do. It's not like "stories exist" so this thing has a corporeal form. You have to ask, is the corporeal form necessary? Is something traceable back to it too? Things are, as I have said before, a combination of different entities. So you have to consider the different entitites individually really. 

We could extend the meaning of 'X exists' so that it includes 'thoughts about X exist' , but I think that is asking for confusion and misunderstanding/  I much prefer a narrow sense of exist,albeit it means having to be a it pedantic about what it is that exists.  

I'd say the defintition of knowlege as 'justified true belief' is so widely used you need a very good reason to define 'knowlegde' as anthing else, and if you do it has to be made very clear. 

If you tacitly drop the requirement that an item of knowlege is true then chances are a lot of talking at cross-puposes will ensue!