SHEEPEOPLE

[Loudmouth]

No. The universe is a temporary creation made to bear children to God. It is like a placenta, and when the gestation is over, it is [was] discarded.

So the universe's purpose is to take care of humans in the same way that a placenta's purpose is to take care of a baby?

Seems to me that you think the universe was created just for humans. That is quite a human-centric view.

 

[Michael]

c.

Nope. Unless you can demonstrate that awareness itself (not just various thinking processes) is somehow limited to C, you're whistling Dixie. There's more than enough circuitry in the sun to do plenty of 'thinking' and 'signal processing' right here within the confines of this specific solar system.

Or are gods not subject to that limitation?

I'm not even sure that my own awareness is necessarily limited to C, even of the various signals and thinking processes inside of my brain are limited by the speed of light.

The issue is propagation delays.

Propagate how, and to where?

Immensely. Are you projecting the modern philosophy of mind onto this "awareness"?

Not intentionally.

 

[Michael]

That is not my claim.

Every single time that you try to handwave away some concept of God over some personal need you have about "falsifiability", you step outside of the boundaries of science. You keep whining about falsification as though it's a necessity in science, but it's not.

 

[Michael]

Yet you ask questions like this is all new to you.

Er, no. I ask you various questions on various topics to find out if you know anything at all about those topics, not because I personally need help understanding the topics. Get that?

I do not care how you resolve it in your head. Post pictures that you would label as "the Christian God".

I really don't think you grasp the whole Panentheism concept, or the concept of monotheism. It's just *one* God, and lots of religious concepts held by humans. Nobody owns the universe, likewise nobody can own God. You can call him whatever you like, attribute whatever dogma you wish, but it's not going to change the actual universe. It's all the same God.

 

[Michael]

Take that up with Michael.

Why? I agree with him actually. It wouldn't be more, nor any less either.

 

[ScottA]

Why? Demonstrate to us why the supernatural could not be detected by science.



Do you have something more than assertions to back this up?



Show me the evidence.

1. I just did. Again, it is because science can only detect those things produced within the natural realm (the product, not the source), because it can't see beyond its own realm.
2. Demonstrate? If I demonstrate something where I am, you cannot see it...because you are not here. I am.
3. We are communicating (roughly), but you are there and refuse to come and see what we describe. Sorry, we don't do takeout.

 

[ScottA]

So the universe's purpose is to take care of humans in the same way that a placenta's purpose is to take care of a baby?

Seems to me that you think the universe was created just for humans. That is quite a human-centric view.

No, the universe is God-centric, with a human benefit, a gift really.

 

[Davian]

Fair question indeed.

The answer, is because there is something more.

So you assert.

And good people don't sit idle and watch others struggle without offering assistance. We

Who is this "we" that you speak for?

have the answers to the proverbial questions of life, of science, as it were.

What was the question?

So as science struggles with questions like which came first, the chicken or the egg,

The egg - that was settled some time ago. Is this news?

we have a choice of raising our hand, or giggling. Some giggle, some raise their hand...and that is what we are doing here. And we presume, that you are here to hear the proverbial questions answered...but are mystified at your response, much of which is ingratitude, as if we didn't have better things to do.

You did not address my question: Why should any of your claims be taken seriously, in the context of a Physical & Life Sciences forum?

 

[Smidlee]

The egg - that was settled some time ago. Is this news?

When did science prove the egg came first?

 

[Davian]

That is just disrespectful.

Not by intent. I have no intention of putting down the beliefs of others, but it may be that there is no polite way of critically assessing the personal beliefs of others.

If you asked what a word meant in a foreign language, and were given the translation, would you respond the same way?

That is exactly the case here. As an ignostic, the word "spiritual" has no meaning to me, in the absence of a robust, testable, falsifiable definition for it. Hence my question.

You not knowing the language...is the problem. Don't be so rude.

I do not carry the presupposition that gods are more than characters in books.

If this "spiritual discernment" of yours is any different from guessing, then demonstrate how.

 

[Davian]

Nope. Unless you can demonstrate that awareness itself (not just various thinking processes) is somehow limited to C, you're whistling Dixie.

I consider the asking others to prove a negative to be intellectually bankrupt.

There's more than enough circuitry in the sun to do plenty of 'thinking' and 'signal processing' right here within the confines of this specific solar system.

Different goalposts.

I'm not even sure that my own awareness is necessarily limited to C, even of the various signals and thinking processes inside of my brain are limited by the speed of light.

Get back to me when you are sure. And you can demonstrate it, either way.

Propagate how, and to where?

Within the brain.

Not intentionally.

Then what philosophy of mind are you using for your "universe-god"?

 

[Davian]

Every single time that you try to handwave away some concept of God over some personal need you have about "falsifiability", you step outside of the boundaries of science. You keep whining about falsification as though it's a necessity in science, but it's not.

Is your problem with falsification that it is particularly unfriendly to your god-concepts?

 

[Davian]

Er, no. I ask you various questions on various topics to find out if you know anything at all about those topics, not because I personally need help understanding the topics. Get that?

That is not how it appears.

I really don't think you grasp the whole Panentheism concept, or the concept of monotheism. It's just *one* God, and lots of religious concepts held by humans. Nobody owns the universe, likewise nobody can own God. You can call him whatever you like, attribute whatever dogma you wish, but it's not going to change the actual universe. It's all the same God.

That is word salad to me. You go on and on about your lab, and now you say it is no good for the Christian "God". A dud in the lab, it would seem.

 

[Davian]

Why? I agree with him actually. It wouldn't be more, nor any less either.

He didn't say that.

 

[Davian]

When did science prove the egg came first?

Science does not prove anything. Restate your question.

 

[Michael]

1. I just did. Again, it is because science can only detect those things produced within the natural realm (the product, not the source), because it can't see beyond its own realm.

Actually, I tend to agree with LM on this particular point, and it comes right back to the difference between 'scientific evidence' vs. 'empirical evidence'.

"Science", and specifically the scientific method can explore the "supernatural" in terms of it's effect on the physical universe. For instance, the whole concept of dark energy is postulated based upon the presumed effect of said invisible agent upon the process/speed of "space expansion" (another supernatural concept/agent by the way). There is no empirical evidence that "dark energy" has any physical empirical effect on a photon. The whole concept of dark energy is actually a supernatural agent/construct, that is built upon another supernatural agent/construct because "space expansion" has also never been demonstrated to have any net effect on any photon, in any lab.

You "might" be correct that "empirical physics" may be limited to studying the "natural realm", but even the empirical method has some ability to delve into cause/effect relationships in some instances.

If the supernatural agent in question cannot be controlled in experimentation, the empirical method may become limited, but not "science", or the scientific method. "Scientific evidence" isn't technically limited to demonstrated or to demonstrating cause/effect relationships in controlled experiments. If it were, Lambda-CDM could not and would not survive since it's built upon no less than four supernatural agents/constructs, none of which enjoy any cause/effect support in a lab in controlled experimentation.

String theory is another example where theoretical physics meets supernatural agents that include extra spacetime dimensions.

I'd have to agree with LM that science can indeed study supernatural agents based upon their net effect on the natural world.

The danger of course is that such supernatural agents may or may not exist in nature. In other words, like 'dark energy' theory which was built upon a premise that may or may not be true, it too may or may not exist based upon the validity of the original premise, or premises in this case.

Empirical physics allows us to delve into the cause/effect relationships in controlled experimentation. That's an optimal sort of evidence, but it's not a requirement in science, and in some areas of physics it's quite rare. Only 5 percent of current Big Bang theory enjoys empirical cause/effect support in the lab. The vast majority of the theory is based upon supernatural agents, and evidence that is 'scientific' to a degree (but quite dated today), but the cause/effect relationships are all assumed, they are not demonstrated empirically.

 

[Smidlee]

Science does not prove anything. Restate your question.

Then it's not settle after all.

 

[Michael]

He didn't say that.

If you'd bothered to read that whole spiel I gave you about Panentheism and monotheism, and the fact nobody can own 'God', you'd grasp the concept. Alas, apparently you didn't read it.

 

[Davian]

If you'd bothered to read that whole spiel I gave you about Panentheism and monotheism, and the fact nobody can own 'God', you'd grasp the concept. Alas, apparently you didn't read it.

I did read it. I still do not know what you mean by "God".

 

[Michael]

Is your problem with falsification that it is particularly unfriendly to your god-concepts?

Actually no, it's far more unfriendly toward mainstream 'science'. There may be a way to falsify the concept of a living universe, if not now, maybe someday. On the other hand exotic matter theory has become an exotic matter of the gaps claims these days. They already falsified all their 'popular' SUSY theory maths, so up the energy spectrum they go, praying for a miracle. LHC does of course have energy limits, and assuming they don't find any long lived particles that are not baryonic in nature, don't interact with light, and have all the various ad hoc properties required by Lambda-CDM, they can always claim it's due to a lack of energy at LHC, and they need bigger machines!

If the fact that standard candles aren't actually "standard" after all doesn't falsify 'dark energy' theory, then nothing can.

If the whole concept of "space expansion causes photon redshift" cannot be falsified or demonstrated to occur, then it too is beyond falsification.

QM concepts of gravity via gravitons is another example of a theory that cannot be falsified by present technology or any conceivable future technology.

Few if any concepts in 'science' are "falsifiable" as you seem to demand when it comes to any and all concepts about God.