Total posts: 511
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
I don't need to base my opinion on personal experience. Things like long-term low unemployment and high standard of living speak for themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Reading this I couldn't help but wonder what world you are living in. The one I live in does not resemble what you describe at all. The job market is so good now that employers are having trouble finding warm bodies to fill positions. The standard of living in the U.S. is better than it ever has been. I don't see how anyone could call this a systemic failure.
Created:
-->
@Athias
If I read you right, you are essentially saying that something exists as long as the concept of it exists. There is, however, a distinction between the concept of something and that something. Because the concept of God exists does not mean God exists, just as the concept of Santa Clause existing does not mean Santa Claus exists.
Created:
-->
@Athias
That's the error in your reductio ad absurdum: you haven't substantiated a contradiction, let alone a "self-contradiction"; if person A believes there's a house, and person B believes there's a factory, then what changes? Person A still believes there's a house, and person B still believes there's a factory. If they invite Person C to observe and person C agrees with person B, all that changes is the number of people who believe it's a factory. You cant test for its material composition, but that would not yield much of a result.
In reality there cannot be both a house and a factory. Belief does not change this. At least one of them does not exist at that address.
Not to mention, using your example, there's nothing that excludes a factory from being a house...
Obviously I had in mind definitions of "house" and "factory" that preclude each other. But if you want an example that leaves no semantic wiggle room, then let person A believe that there is a building at a certain location with exactly three stories, and person B a building with exactly ten stories.
Be mindful of your reasoning. Nothing you've argued actually excludes one from the other. Some early henotheistic religions believed that there was one God and that all gods were manifestations of the original. Even polytheistic religions operate on the premise of a single God having many manifestations (e.g. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Hindu, etc.)
And some people believe there is exactly one God, and claims of all other Gods are false. The point is, people believe mutually exclusive things.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Can you present the absurdity?
Sure. All you need are people who believe self-contradictory things. One person, say, believes there is a house at a certain address. Another believes there is a factory at that address. At least one must be wrong, therefore we have a reductio ad absurdum and the argument is not sound.. Or, sticking with religion, some people believe one God exists. Some believe many Gods exist. Both cannot be right.
Created:
-->
@Athias
1. All things that are perceived must exist (given that the nonexistent can't be perceived.)2. God is perceived (believed in by his adherents.)3. Therefore God exists.
That is among the most absurd arguments I've seen. It essentially says that anything someone believes must exist..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It is possible to walk ten meters, but there is no way anyone could ever walk a thousand kilometers- The guy that came up with the term 'microevolution'
Well put.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
All evolution is microevolution. So-called macroevolution is just the cumulative effects of microevolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Life is only present here, there are no signs of ANY life anywhere EVER. The universe was designed for us becuase if the universe was designed for different life species, why dont we see them and why is it just us>
This reasoning is flawed on several levels.
First off, saying the universe was designed for us ignores the millions of other species on Earth. If you want to go that route, then the universe is better designed for insects than for us, since there are so many more insects.
Second, even assuming life exists on only one minuscule planet, that is hardly an argument for design. Quite the opposite. It means the vast majority of the universe is hostile to our kind of life.
Third, it ignores the central flaw of the fine tuning argument, which is puddle thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The fine-tuning argument gets things backwards. The universe is not tuned to fit life. Life is tuned to fit the universe. If the universe were tuned differently, then any life that formed would be tuned differently..
It's often called puddle thinking. A puddle, observing the hole it fills, notes how perfectly the hole fits its shape, and concludes that the hole must have been designed just for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
That is not what I said. I said, "Doesn't that argue against the idea that personhood is only in the physical structure of the brain?"And it certainly does.
I don't see how. It is merely evidence that personhood (whatever that is--we have not really defined it) is stored redundantly in the brain.
People wake up from the operation with their personhood intact. When did the brain adapt?
The brain's redundancy allows other parts to take over when one part is damaged.
Also, when we say that personhood is intact after a brain injury, we don't mean it is entirely unaffected. Even when the recovery seems remarkable, there are still profound effects from loss of brain tissue on things like cognitive function, memory and emotions.
I did not say personhood was independent of the brain. But there is a way to look at personhood that keeps the physical brain necessary, AND, still be true that personhood is separate from the brain.
Ok, so we agree that a brain is necessary for personhood. Sure, there may be some other component outside the brain, too. But to show evidence of this, you would need to show that changing something outside the brain affects personhood. It is not enough to show that damaging the brain doesn't always affect personhood, especially when we know that the brain is highly redundant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
There are experiments where a person undergoes a lobotomy and retains his personhood with half his brain gone!Doesn't that argue against the idea that personhood is only in the physical structure of the brain?
A lobotomy only severs connections to the prefrontal cortex, it does not actually remove part of the brain.
That detail notwithstanding, yes, there are instance where "personhood" is retained even when ;large areas of the brain are damaged. That is not evidence for personhood lying outside the brain, however, only of the brain's ability to adapt. For irrefutable evidence of personhood outside the brain, you would need to show me someone who retains personhood with no brain at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Obviously I meant your symbols are odd as in strange, not odd as in not divisible by two.
Assuming the reason people don't understand you is because of heir ego is itself ego on your part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think what he meant is that in an airplane the angular diameter of the Sun is precisely the same as from the ground. That is because the Sun is so far away that a few miles difference is negligible--any increase in angular diameter is too small to be measured..
The Sun is 93 million miles away. An airplane flies about 5 miles high. So you are only 1/18.6 millionth closer to the Sun in an airplane. Not enough to make any measurable difference in angular diameter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
WTF?
Using odd symbols and technical sounding words does not mean you have a coherent mathematical idea. From what I can tell you don't. If you did, you should be able to communicate it using standard grammar and mathematical notation. You don't need some wacky notation that no one can decipher, where asterisks represent bilateral eyes (or maybe arms, or legs, or testicles...).
Sorry, but I've read many of your "explanations." They are invariably just more gibberish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You can accept it but still be afraid of it. Calling it irrational is like calling survival instinct irrational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Religion is an attempt to overcome irrational fears.
I would not call the fear of death irrational. It seems quite rational to not want to cease to exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
My point was that you should not call people out for being amateurs when you yourself are an amateur.
As far as your "points", I don' bother to respond because they are mostly incoherent gibberish. The only appropriate response would be WTF?
the ultra-micro least comprehensive ex a graviton { gravity } or darkion { dark energy }.
This is a perfect example. WTF does this mean? It's not even a sentence.
...........................................................Space( Time *) i (* Time )..........................................
Another example. WTF do the asterisks signify? WTF do the long string of dots mean? WTF idea s it trying to convey?
The fact that you constantly encounter people who find your pseudo-math incoherent should make you stop and consider that maybe not all the fault lies with them..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
Sure,. Even if you believe abortion is immoral and evil, it falls under the "for all have sinned" doctrine.
A better question would be under what circumstances, if any, would Jesus condone abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
I would have to see an example.There may be some grey area between extraordinary and non-extraordinary. Or rather, some extraordinary claims are more extraordinary than others. But I think you will find that most people would agree on what constitutes extraordinary. Most theists would admit that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim, even though they believe it and incorporate it into their worldview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
The reason for differing levels of evidence is that claims differ in their implications to our worldviews. If you tell me that you have a penny in your pocket, I would accept that as true on minimal evidence--perhaps even your say so. Doing so in no way requires a change in my worldview. But if you claim that aliens abducted you, then believing that requires a fundamental change in my worldview..
If someone wants to claim God exists, what makes that claim Extraordinary, compared to claiming the Big Bang happened? Why can't we approach them both as claims, and decide if we accept the claim based on its merit?
Scientists do treat both claims the same. The Big Bang is an extraordinary claim. The difference is that there is extraordinary evidence for the Big Bang. There is no such evidence for any theistic claim.
I found this article abstract that argues "Extraordinary Claims" should be precisely defined as a claim that is contradicted by a wealth of factual observations. The author defines "Extraordinary Evidence" as a massive number of supporting observations.
I wouldn't define extraordinary claims that way. Rather, I would say a claim is extraordinary to the extent that it affects one's worldview.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
You are aware that animals adapt to their environment, right? That is all the explanation that is required to understand why animals seem so well-suited to particular conditions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Or maybe there were dogs that shed and dogs that didn't shed, and the dogs that didn't shed got too hot and died, leaving only dogs that shed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Even if it is unexplained, all that means is that we don't yet know. It does not mean it requires supernatural intervention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You are right that Difficulty emulating ambiogenesis in the laboratory suggests that the process is extremely improbable, But improbable is not impossible. I fact, we know it happened, therefore i obviously cannot be impossible. When you consider vast oceans with processes all taking place in parallel, then even exceedingly improbable events become much less so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The exact details of the self-replicating molecule that led to life may never be known, but it is clear that life arose in the Earth's oceans. One hypothesis that has gained traction in recent years is the RNA world hypothsis. It says that the first self-replicating molecules were not DNA, but RNA. The oceans contained RNA mocules which possessed the only two things you need for evoltuion to proceed: self-replication and variability. We have been able to synthesize RNA in the laboratory, lending credence to the idea that it could arise naturally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
DNA must be arranged in such a manner as to do something.
More accurately, the order of DNA determines which proteins get synthesized.Pretty much all the processes of life involve interactions between proteins.
But how does it know what to do?
It doesn't, any more than water "knows" to flow downhill or acid "knows" to dissolve metal.
While DNA has physical properties it also has information, where does that come from in not a designer
The fact that a certain combination of DNA produces proteins that assemble into function biological constructs does not imply a designer. The fact funcDNA is ordered to produce biological function is the result of those sequences that are non-functional or dysfunctional getting weeded out. You can call the remaining functional orderings "information" if you want, but they do not imply conscious intent.
If abiogenesis happened where did the information come from that tells the DNA how to replicate, what to produce etc all those things needed for "life"?
You may as well ask where the laws of physics came from.
If life's only purpose is to self replicate, where did that come from, how did that come to be?
Saying replication is its "purpose" is anthropomorphism Replication is simply what it does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
What are the chances that all the planets go in an elliptical
100%. Elliptical orbits are a consequence of gravity.
What are the chances that all the asteroids in the asteroid belt go in an elliptical
100%. Elliptical orbits are a consequence of gravity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Under the Einsteinian view, the big question was whether the universe was open, meaning it would keep expanding forever, or closed, meaning its expansion would eventually slow down and stop, at which point a giant contraction would begin. Which scenario would occur depended only upon the average density of matter over the entire universe. If the density was high enough, then the universe was closed. Otherwise it was open.
The discovery in the 1990's that the expansion of the universe was actually accelerating threw a wrench into this view. The current hypothesis is that this is some unknown form of energy, named dark energy, although really we have no clue what it is. "Dark energy" is just a placeholder for "that which causes space to expand" .
With dark energy and an accelerating expansion, it now seems clear that the expansion of the universe will go on forever. And because the expansion is accelerating, there are places in the universe that will never be observable from other places. They are beyond each other's event horizons. It's fascinating to think that there may already be more beyond our own even horizon than within it--perhaps much, much more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
There have been many candidate theories of evolution. Most are now disregarded because they did not fit with observation.
Theories under serious consideration by the scientific community today tend to differ only in how much they emphasize the relative importance of a particular mechanism of genetic change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Yes, pretty much, although I n also curious whether any theist thinks they have a way to distinguish the two.
If theistic evolution looks exactly like non-theistic evolution, then Occam's Razor would dictate that we prefer the non-theistic version
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
What I mant was, what characteristics would we expect theisttic evolution to have that non-theistic evolution would not,and vice versa.
If they both look the same, then in practice they are functionally equivalent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
How would you distinguish theistic evolution from non-theistic evolution?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You could say the same thing about t flat earth vs round earth, or evil spirits rather than germs as a cause of disease, Both sides have access to the same set of facts. It's just a matter of interpretation, right?
Obviously, some interpretations are more reasonable than others. When one side routinely commits logical fallacies, as creationism does, it is a good indication that it is the less reasonable interretation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Sorry for your loss. Losing a long-term pet is like losing a family member.
There is actually a much b bigger source of cognitive dissonance for Christians, however. Namely, not all of their loved ones will be in heaven. some few will die not a accepting Jesus. How can heaven be a perfect place with limitless joy if all your loved ones are not there?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
The goal in a debate is not to convince your opponent. You will never do that, especially when it comes to religion.. The goal in a debate is to persuade the audience. Here, the audience are the readers. If your arguments move those who are undecided a little bit in your direction, then that is about the most that you can expect to achieve.
It's still worth doing, for the simple reason that bad ideas need to be opposed. They tend to spread, otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
There seems to be a consensus among biologists that there is no biological bassis for race. I think this is too simplistic, however, a reflection of today's policital correctness rather than based on solid science. The biologists reasoning is that, first off, "race" really just means "geographic origin", which implies no biology. Their main objection, however, is that race is not a very good proxy for all the types of diversity found among humans. It is far too crude to be useful.
Yet there are obvious phenoype difference between, say, Asians and Africans. Any six-year-old can identify one or the other with very high accuracy. There are quite obviously biological and genetic reasons for the differences. To say such differences are not meaningful or useful is not true, either. In medicine, for instance, knowing a person's race can help a doctor reach a correct diagnosis, since some races are more prone to certain diseases. It can help with treatment, too, since race often determines how aggressive a particular disease tends to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Rational just means based on reason or logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
First, do you mean that there is just no Bible, or that there is no religious texts of any kind? If you mean no Bible,
then some other religion would have the place of Christianity. If you mean no religious texts at all, well, I doubt
that is possible given human nature. If there were no religious texts, someone would come along and write some
to fill the void. So in that sense you question is academic, since such a state could never exist without a
fundamental change in human nature.
But if for some reason there were no religious texts, and no world religions, yet God really did exist, then I would
approach the question of the nature of God the same way as any other inquiry of nature. I would ask what we
could infer about the nature of God from observing how the universe works. For one thing, we would
probably infer that he does not take a very active role in events, given that so much in nature seems random and
capricious. We would conclude (if anyone would think to pray) that God either does not hear prayers or does not
care to answer them, given that they are no more effective than non-prayers. There would be no reason to think
that God wants our worship. We would likely conclude that God does not care to alleviate suffering, or forestall
death. As for the latter, we could conclude nothing about life after death due to lack of evidence. There would be
no reason to expect God to provide everlasting life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps "reality is objective", HowEVer, it is impossible for a human to DESCRIBE it OBJECTIVELY.Every statement made by humans is necessarily contaminated with sample bias and motivated by emotion and colored by opinion.
I never argued that humans could be perfectly objective, only that objective reality exists. Such reality exists regardless of consensus. Consensus does not define reality. Hence the thread's topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If reality was wholly subjective... then humans would have to rigorously define Quanta. Do we use metric or do we measure the King's foot?If reality was wholly subjective... What's your proposed alternative? Are you suggesting that reality is wholly objective? Is it 50/50?
I suggest that reality is objective, almost by definition. Reality is the state of things as they are, not as we imagine them to be.
There is a difference, however, between being part of reality and being knowable. They may very well be aspects of reality which are unknowable to us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And as far as "subjective" being exclusively "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." THIS BEGS THE QUESTION OF WHY ANYONE IS MEASURING ANYTHING AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE. PERHAPS IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE INFLUENCED BY PERSONAL FEELINGS (DESIRE FOR MONEY FOR EXAMPLE) TASTES (PERHAPS THEY ARE DRIVEN BY SOME INNATE FEELING OF CURIOSITY) OR OPINIONS (MAYBE THEY FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE KNOWING CERTAIN THINGS).Basically, if humans are doing it, it is definitely "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" (SUBJECTIVE).
People measure things because measurements provide useful information about reality..If reality was wholly subjective, then people would never agree on measurements, and things like houses and cars would never get build.
It's (EITHER) relative (OR) objective. It can't be BOTH.
Yes it can be both. Relative does not mean subjective. I already explained why.
Even Helen Keller? What if the observer was a kitten?
Yes, assuming Helen Kelly and a kitten had some means to observe.
Depending on your personal subjective goal. Different models are sometimes more and sometimes less useful for different applications.
The problem with Ptolomy's model is that its most basic assumption, that the Sun and planets orbit the Earth, is directly contradicted by observation. The simplest such observation is that all the planets go through complete phases. This would not occur in a geocentric solar system.This does not just make Ptolomy's mode slightly less accurate that the Copernican model. It makes it flat out wrong.
Einstein did not supersede Newton in the same way. The basic assumptions of Newtonian physics are still valid; they just need adjustment to take relativistic speeds into account. At everyday values for velocity and mass, most of Einstein's equations reduce to one of Newton's equations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
IA shifting frame of reference is the very definition of SUBJECTIVE.
No, subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." If has nothing to do with a frame of reference. Your frame of reference, in the Einsteinian sense, is not a matter of opinion.
Without a "view from nowhere" you are forced to pick a SUBJECTIVE viewpoint.
No, you don't need a view from nowhere. All you need to know is the frame of reference. That is why I was careful to say that, given a frame of reference, the trajectory of an object relative to that frame of reference is objective. Any observer in any frame of reference will observe the trajectory, when calculated relative to the given frame of reference, will come up with the same answer.
In the framework of a Ptolemaic solar system model, the Sun makes a perfect circle (orbit) around the planet Earth.The Ptolemaic model is not "wrong" or "false" any more than Newton's Principia is "wrong" or "false".
The Ptolomeic model was shown to be wrong by, among other things, the fact that planets like Venus go through a full set of phases. These phases could only be accounted for a a heliocentric solar system. It's not a matter of opinion. The solar system turned not to work like the model said.
Certainly there are arguably "better" models to choose from, depending on your (personal subjective) desired level of accuracy, but for many things, like figuring out when Mars is going to be closest to the Earth, the Ptolemaic model seems particularly well suited.
Just because a model provides close approximations in the short term does not mean it matches reality, most especially if there is another model that makes better estimates. The Copernican model make much better estimates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Depends on the frame of reference, of course. But the speed and trajectory relative to a frame of reference is an objective fact. For insance, anyone in any frame of reference would say that, from your friend's point of view, the ball took such-and-such trajectory.
Often the frame of reference is implied. For instance, if you hear that Randy Johnson threw a 100 mph fastball, it is implied that this is relative to the baseball field. Same with you and your friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Yes, breaking with the Earth-centered view was a major paradigm shift that met heavy resistance from those who saw it as a challenge to their philosophical and religious worldview. If something is objectively true, it can overcome even the most deeply held objections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is objectively true from any frame of reference that you threw the ball to your fried.
Back to the revolution example. I would argue that the frame of reference is implicit in the definition of revolve, which means to orbit. Object A and object B orbit each other if they move in an elliptical path around their common center of mass. Implicit in this definition is that the elliptical path is relative to the common center of mass; The center of mass itself may of course be bobbing and weaving through space relative to other objects, but even if your frame of reference was one of those objects, you would still observe object A and object B orbiting each other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Actually, to be precise, the Earth and Sun each revolve around their common center of mass. Because the Sun is so much more massive than the Earth, the Earth-Sun barycenter is actually inside the Sun, very close to the center.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I was not suggesting that the Earth's revolution around the Sun provides a complete description of its movement through space. But the fact is, the Earth does revolve around the Sun. Just because that revolution does not fully account for all the Earth's movement does not make it a relative truth.
Created: