Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Loudmouth]

Most embedded things in the physical to be discovered and used by society have "spiritual shadow" implications from the Creator.

Based on what?

It is the limitations of Naturalism, the observation and detection of only the physical that is problematic. A whole other dimension of existence is unrecognized and said to not exist.

Then demonstrate to us that it does exist.

 

[Michael]

Again, more deflection to steer people away from the vacuity of your claims.

My claims? What claims did I make? It's not my fault that your hypothetical menagerie is a complete dud in the lab, and falls outside of anything even remotely like "naturalism".

You ignore the empirical observations that occur outside of the lab, as usual.

So do you! No human reports having a relationship with something they called "inflation", but they do report having a relationship with something they call "God". You just dismiss their claims randomly apparently. In terms of cause/effect justification, you've got absolutely *no evidence* to support your claims that inflation, dark energy or exotic matter has any effect on even a single photon. The *observation* of photon redshift doesn't tell us the *cause*, and not a single photon even told you that 'inflation did it".

Nowhere in the scientific method does it say that observations can only be made within the arbitrarily defined walls of a lab. Nowhere. Let me repeat. Nowhere in the scientific method does it say that observations can only be made within the arbitrarily defined walls of a lab. Is that clear enough, Michael? Do I need to repeat it again? Are you so simple that you can not fathom this concept?

The amusing part from my perspective is that you simply 'handwave away" every human claim about having a relationship with God, so effectively you "cherry pick" from pure observation when it suits you, and you demand cause/effect demonstrations when it suits you too. You have a total double standard in play! If the *effect* is all that's required to claim "dark energy did it", then the *effect* of God on people's lives should be plenty enough "empirical evidence" to claim that "God did it". You're employing a complete double standard as it relates to observational evidence.

I am asking for EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. That does not confine it to the lab.

Then I have *empirical* (observational) evidence that humans report having a relationship with something they call "God". Why do you simply ignore that observational data when it suits you?

Yes, just as I can find the lumbering history in the upper midwest that surrounds the mythos of Paul Bunyan. I can also study the Celtic history that surrounds the mythos of Leprechauns.

Those were *fictional* characters to start with. Epic fail in terms of a useful comparison.

The rest of us are in the real world working with these things called facts. You should try it.

The only "facts" you have are redshifted photons. You have never shown any cause/effect demonstration that your mythical menagerie of invisible friends even has any effect at all on *any* photon.

Already done to death in other threads. Each and every time you are supplied empirical evidence.

Somehow a pure uncontrolled observation is "empirical evidence' when it suits you, and it's not empirical evidence when it suits you too. Total double standard in terms of '"evidence". All you have evidence of is an observation of "redshift', and not a single cause/effect link to even one of your invisible buddies! Pure hypocrisy on a stick!

 

[Michael]

FYI, I'm still waiting for someone (else) to define "awareness" in a "naturalistic" way. How on Earth can we discuss matters of "spirit' without defining awareness?

 

[bhsmte]

FYI, I'm still waiting for someone (else) to define "awareness" in a "naturalistic" way. How on Earth can we discuss matters of "spirit' without defining awareness?

I don't know the answer to your question, but experts in the field of both neuro science and psychology would likely make some sense out of this.

Cognitive scientists would be a good area to look and Daniel Dennett has done some good talks at TED and other venues and he is well respected.

 

[Michael]

I don't know the answer to your question, but experts in the field of both neuro science and psychology would likely make some sense out of this.

Cognitive scientists would be a good area to look and Daniel Dennett has done some good talks at TED and other venues and he is well respected.

Whatever it is, awareness is not easily explained via "naturalism". It's not even possible to discuss "spiritual" experiences without defining awareness first since "spiritual" experiences are typically an experience *of awareness*.

 

[bhsmte]

Whatever it is, awareness is not easily explained via "naturalism". It's not even possible to discuss "spiritual" experiences without defining awareness first since "spiritual" experiences are typically an experience *of awareness*.

Brain activity and how it relates to our perceptions has always been a challenge to fit them into other areas of discovery that are more objective, or should I say easier to test.

Neuro science, cognitive science and psychology has made significant strides though and they do happen to be dealing with (by far) one of the most complex structures known to man and they have their hands full.

I think I understand the basic premise you have tried to push forward; there is a force out there (that we don't really understand) that may have the ability to impact our brain activity. Maybe I screwed that up, I'm not sure. If that is true, that would likely increase chances of a deism vs theism, IMO.

Sort of like George Carlin explained in his skit about religion - "The Big Electron". I don't say this as a joke, because I happen to think the guy was extremely intelligent.

 

[Michael]

Brain activity and how it relates to our perceptions has always been a challenge to fit them into other areas of discovery that are more objective, or should I say easier to test.

Neuro science, cognitive science and psychology has made significant strides though and they do happen to be dealing with (by far) one of the most complex structures known to man and they have their hands full.

I think I understand the basic premise you have tried to push forward; there is a force out there (that we don't really understand) that may have the ability to impact our brain activity. Maybe I screwed that up, I'm not sure. If that is true, that would likely increase chances of a deism vs theism, IMO.

Sort of like George Carlin explained in his skit about religion - "The Big Electron". I don't say this as a joke, because I happen to think the guy was extremely intelligent.

I liked George.

You're essentially correct by the way. I am suggesting that external electromagnetic fields might have a tangible effect on human awareness. In other words there is a known and identified physical 'mechanism' that might explain how and why humans have experiences that they associate with something that they call God.

 

[bhsmte]

I liked George.

You're essentially correct by the way. I am suggesting that external electromagnetic fields might have a tangible effect on human awareness. In other words there is a known and identified physical 'mechanism' that might explain how and why humans have experiences that they associate with something that they call God.

Ok, I think I understand.

I have mentioned Daniel Dennett a couple of times and I'm not sure if you have ever watched his youtube stuff or read his books, but he is a cognitive scientist/philosopher, who discusses his theories on how man is "pre-wired" to believe in a greater force or God. He likely keeps his theories more "between the ears" as opposed to connecting them to an external force, but it is interesting reading/watching.

He is a non-believer, but he certainly appears to have a terrific understanding of the human mind and how it works.

 

[Loudmouth]

My claims? What claims did I make?

Plasma cosmology to begin with. There are entire threads dedicated to your dishonesty and denial.

[qutoe]It's not my fault that your hypothetical menagerie is a complete dud in the lab,[/quote]

Nowhere in the scientific method does it say that observations can only be made within the arbitrarily defined walls of a lab. Nowhere. Let me repeat. Nowhere in the scientific method does it say that observations can only be made within the arbitrarily defined walls of a lab. Is that clear enough, Michael? Do I need to repeat it again? Are you so simple that you can not fathom this concept?

So do you! No human reports having a relationship with something they called "inflation",

Yes, they have, and you have been given the empirical data over and over and over. Why do you keep lying about it? Why the dishonesty?

Until you can show one scintilla of honesty you can not discuss science. It is that simple.

 

[Michael]

Plasma cosmology to begin with.

More mass was found in plasma in 2012 than was known to exist in the whole of human history prior to that discovery. PC theory stands on it's on empirical merits, and photon redshift is *known* to be *caused by* inelastic scattering, and the movement of objects. PC theory is fine because it's based on pure empirical lab tested physics.

There are entire threads dedicated to your dishonesty and denial.

The dishonesty and denial is related to attempting to exclude EM fields from cosmology theory. Virtually the *entire* universe is made of moving plasma.

Nowhere in the scientific method does it say that observations can only be made within the arbitrarily defined walls of a lab. Nowhere. Let me repeat. Nowhere in the scientific method does it say that observations can only be made within the arbitrarily defined walls of a lab. Is that clear enough, Michael? Do I need to repeat it again? Are you so simple that you can not fathom this concept?

Again, the highly ironic part is that you *insist* on cause/effect demonstrations between 'awareness' and the 'observation of spiritual experiences', and God, when the observers themselves *say that it's caused by God*. On the other hand you wave at some photon redshift and *insist* that your invisible friends did it, without a *shred* of cause/effect support for your claim. Pure hypocrisy on a stick.

Yes, they have, and you have been given the empirical data over and over and over. Why do you keep lying about it? Why the dishonesty?

If "empirical data" is based on pure observation alone, then billions of humans have already offered you 'empirical data". Why do you keep lying about it? Why the dishonest? Why the hypocrisy?

Until you can show one scintilla of honesty you can not discuss science. It is that simple.

The only *honesty* that is lacking is your complete unwillingness to accept *uncontrolled observation* as "empirical data" on the topic of God, yet you accept 'uncontrolled observation' as empirical data on the topic of cosmology theory. You've got two completely different standards in play. Your "supernatural" cosmology constructs have never been shown to have any effect on any photon in any controlled experiment. Your *supernatural* constructs do not even have a tangible effect on anything on Earth.

God however has a tangible effect on *humans*, but you wave all human testimony aside, and ignore it as it relates to 'uncontrolled empirical data'. Why?

Pure hypocrisy!

 

[Michael]

Ok, I think I understand.

I have mentioned Daniel Dennett a couple of times and I'm not sure if you have ever watched his youtube stuff or read his books, but he is a cognitive scientist/philosopher, who discusses his theories on how man is "pre-wired" to believe in a greater force or God. He likely keeps his theories more "between the ears" as opposed to connecting them to an external force, but it is interesting reading/watching.

He is a non-believer, but he certainly appears to have a terrific understanding of the human mind and how it works.

When I get some free time this weekend I'll try to watch a video or two.

The interesting question that one has to ask themselves is *why* we might be 'hardwired' to experience God? We're "hardwired' to experience photons, and sound, and smells, and touch, and even feelings as well, but only because they provide sensory input from the world around us. Why wouldn't God simply be a part of the world around us? In such a case, it's quite easy to understand why we became "hardwired" to experience God, just like we became hardwired to experience light.

 

[bhsmte]

When I get some free time this weekend I'll try to watch a video or two.

The interesting question that one has to ask themselves is *why* we might be 'hardwired' to experience God? We're "hardwired' to experience photons, and sound, and smells, and touch, and even feelings as well, but only because they provide sensory input from the world around us. Why wouldn't God simply be a part of the world around us? In such a case, it's quite easy to understand why we became "hardwired" to experience God, just like we became hardwired to experience light.

He actually addresses this question if you watch the right videos (and there are a bunch of them). The analogy he gave was we are also pre-wired to crave sweets, because this was an important survival mechanism for man.

 

[BarryDesborough]

When I get some free time this weekend I'll try to watch a video or two.

The interesting question that one has to ask themselves is *why* we might be 'hardwired' to experience God? We're "hardwired' to experience photons, and sound, and smells, and touch, and even feelings as well, but only because they provide sensory input from the world around us. Why wouldn't God simply be a part of the world around us? In such a case, it's quite easy to understand why we became "hardwired" to experience God, just like we became hardwired to experience light.

I don't think I was ever hardwired to experience God. Brought up in a family that was not exactly atheistic, but for whom god never appeared above the radar, I had to be exposed to the idea later in life before I could evaluate it. I gave it a value of zero.

 

[Michael]

He actually addresses this question if you watch the right videos (and there are a bunch of them). The analogy he gave was we are also pre-wired to crave sweets, because this was an important survival mechanism for man.

I guess my response would be that 'sweets' actually do exist in nature, and therefore they might indeed provide an important survival mechanism for man. It's therefore easy enough to then believe that God also exists in nature, and he's also an important survival mechanism for man.

All sensory input to awareness, *evolved* to provide sensory input of the universe around us to our awareness. It only makes sense that we evolved to become 'aware' of God, just as we evolved to become aware of photons, and the "taste'' of various chemicals.

 

[Michael]

I don't think I was ever hardwired to experience God. Brought up in a family that was not exactly atheistic, but for whom god never appeared above the radar, I had to be exposed to the idea later in life before I could evaluate it. I gave it a value of zero.

Do you meditate? Pray? If so, how often? If not, why would you expect to gain any value from that part of the wiring?

 

[BarryDesborough]

Do you meditate? Pray? If so, how often? If not, why would you expect to gain any value from that part of the wiring?

I have tried both. Nothing. Why should I expect to gain anything from such activities? I prefer to learn and teach stuff.

 

[bhsmte]

I guess my response would be that 'sweets' actually do exist in nature, and therefore they might indeed provide an important survival mechanism for man. It's therefore easy enough to then believe that God also exists in nature, and he's also an important survival mechanism for man.

All sensory input to awareness, *evolved* to provide sensory input of the universe around us to our awareness. It only makes sense that we evolved to become 'aware' of God, just as we evolved to become aware of photons, and the "taste'' of various chemicals.

He expands on it in much more logical depth than I ever could.

 

[Michael]

He expands on it in much more logical depth than I ever could.

I'll watch the videos. Even by my way of viewing the Universe as God, it only makes sense to me that we're "hardwired" to experience God, just like we're hard wired to experience light.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't think I was ever hardwired to experience God. Brought up in a family that was not exactly atheistic, but for whom god never appeared above the radar, I had to be exposed to the idea later in life before I could evaluate it. I gave it a value of zero.

He doesn't claim that every human is hard wired to the same degree, just as some people don't crave sweets as much as another and or some people have the ability to resist the cravings.

Dennett is not claiming that this hardwiring proves the existanse of a God (he is an atheist), but he tries to explain how some are more prone to believe in the super natural.

 

[Michael]

I have tried both. Nothing.

Well, that adage about "If at first you don't succeed...." comes to mind.

Why should I expect to gain anything from such activities?

Well for starters, pretty much everyone that claims to have an "experience' of God typically engages in such activity. Most 'experts' on the topic of God also suggest it, including Jesus.

I prefer to learn and teach stuff.

So did Jesus. It was just different 'stuff' than you.