SHEEPEOPLE

[Michael]

Cool. For the next three days, decide to completely accept modern cosmology,

I did that in my youth, but alas I *chose* a different cosmology theory. Both my rejection of Lambda-CDM, as well as my belief in EU/PC theory were conscious choices that I made. Even the rejection of Lambda-CDM is a conscious choice that I make.

and that gods are simply characters in books. then switch back,

I did that too in my youth when I labelled myself an atheist for about 9 years. Both the switch to atheism, as well as the rejection of atheism were both conscious choices that I made.

 

[Michael]

Considering it to be of scientific significance is.

Not at all. Only your reaction to the similarities is silly.

My reaction is only an echo of that of the bulk of the scientific community. Convince them, and get back to me.

Your "scientific commuity" believes in, and puts faith in, and searches for, more supernatural invisible entities than any other monotheistic religion on the planet at the moment. FYI, science isn't a popularity contest.

 

[Davian]

Nope. You did that when you demanded

I did not do so as an atheist.

an ability to falsify all concepts of God. No such requirement exists in science.

Where did I make this demand?

Why? From the concept of a Jesuit priest, I'd be an 'atheist' too!

I might consider adding this one however:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

Add it then, knowing that his concept of "God" is nothing like yours. Did he not think that personal god-type beliefs were childish?

No, I'm simply noting where you impose an obvious double standard. You impose an "empirical" standard toward the topic of God, not a "scientific" standard.

I still have no idea what you mean by "God".

 

[Davian]

I did that in my youth, but alas I *chose* a different cosmology theory. Both my rejection of Lambda-CDM, as well as my belief in EU/PC theory were conscious choices that I made. Even the rejection of Lambda-CDM is a conscious choice that I make.

I did that too in my youth when I labelled myself an atheist for about 9 years. Both the switch to atheism, as well as the rejection of atheism were both conscious choices that I made.

Do it again, right now.

 

[Michael]

To be intellectually honest, one would have to admit there are no gods, in the context of a proper sciences forum.

False. That's simply your personal opinion in the matter. There are multiple theories about God, just like there are multiple theories about gravity.

They are only hypothetical. All we have to work with are religions.

95 percent of Lambda-CDM is hypothetical in nature. By your logic the whole universe is 'hypothetical" in nature, and therefore there are no actual universes in existence, just hypothetical universes.

 

[Michael]

I did not do so as an atheist.

Sure you did. You didn't impose that requirement on any other topic besides the topic of God.

Where did I make this demand?

When you handwaved away a purely empirical theory of God based on some perceived lack of a falsification potential.

Add it then, knowing that his concept of "God" is nothing like yours.

Actually, he seems to have embraced Spinoza's concept of a pantheistic God, whereas I simply embrace Panentheism rather than pantheism. God as the universe exists in both concepts however.

Did he not think that personal god-type beliefs were childish?

I don't know. We never talked bout my 'god-type beliefs'.

I still have no idea what you mean by "God".

That's only because you don't want to know what I mean. The idea is actually very simple, you just don't like it.

 

[Michael]

Do it again, right now.

I can't. My "beliefs" don't change without cause.

 

[Davian]

Not at all. Only your reaction to the similarities is silly.

My reaction is commensurate to the claim.

Your "scientific commuity"

Mine? I had no idea that I had such control.

believes in, and puts faith in,

Faith in what?

and searches for, <snip straw-man>. FYI, science isn't a popularity contest.

Indeed. Is that why you are stuck in these forums?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The ultimate hubris of science, that all thoughts are generated by the brain, effectively shuts the door on the discussion of whether there is a spiritual universe to consider.

Why do you rule out the possibility that the brain is spiritual?

 

[Davian]

False. That's simply your personal opinion in the matter. There are multiple theories about God, just like there are multiple theories about gravity.
<snip false dichotomy>

Show me a scientific theory for the Christian "God".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why do you rule out the possibility that the brain is spiritual?

I didn't say that.

 

[Michael]

My reaction is commensurate to the claim.

Nope, it's just commensurate with your preconceived ideas and beliefs.

Mine? I had no idea that I had such control.

You're the one turning them into deacons of 'truthiness'.

Faith in what?

Faith in a menagerie of hypothetical entities, all of which have been completely impotent on Earth.

Indeed. Is that why you are stuck in these forums?

Stuck? No, it's by choice. I'm not required to change the mainstream beliefs in the first place, and science has never been a popularity contest. Earth centric ideas of cosmology were once 'popular science' too.

 

[Michael]

Show me a scientific theory for the Christian "God".

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/an-empirical-theory-of-god.7440288/

I did that for you 5 years ago.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I didn't say that.

Then allow scientists to study the brain and don't say they aren't studying the spiritual.

 

[Davian]

Sure you did. You didn't impose that requirement on any other topic besides the topic of God.

Of course I do, but you don't tend to talk about anything else.

When you handwaved away a purely empirical theory of God based on some perceived lack of a falsification potential.

Have you not admitted that your "purely empirical theory of God" is unfalsifiable at this time?

Actually, he seems to have embraced Spinoza's concept of a pantheistic God, whereas I simply embrace Panentheism rather than pantheism. God as the universe exists in both concepts however.

No alleged 'awareness' in either case, correct?

I don't know. We never talked bout my 'god-type beliefs'.

What then were all those claims of yours about the Sun/solar system/universe/lightning "affecting" the biology of this planet about?

That's only because you don't want to know what I mean. The idea is actually very simple, you just don't like it.

Are you trying to tell me what I think?

 

[Davian]

I can't. My "beliefs" don't change without cause.

You just contradicted what you claimed in post #531.

 

[Davian]

Nope, it's just commensurate with your preconceived ideas and beliefs.



You're the one turning them into deacons of 'truthiness'.

Where did I do that?

Faith in a menagerie of hypothetical entities, all of which have been completely impotent on Earth.

Burn the Strawmen

• Davian
• Apr 9, 2014

Stuck? No, it's by choice. I'm not required to change the mainstream beliefs in the first place, and science has never been a popularity contest. Earth centric ideas of cosmology were once 'popular science' too.

So what's the point of trying to change my opinion?

 

[Davian]

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/an-empirical-theory-of-god.7440288/

I did that for you 5 years ago.

Where?

 

[Michael]

You just contradicted what you claimed in post #531.

No, I didn't. You must have misread one or both posts.

 

[Michael]

Of course I do, but you don't tend to talk about anything else.

You don't reject Lambda-CDM, or SUSY theory over the same issues however, so your application of the empirical method applies strictly to the topic of God.

[quote\Have you not admitted that your "purely empirical theory of God" is unfalsifiable at this time?[/quote]

No, I just don't personally know how to falsify the idea yet. It's never been a requirement in "Science' anyway, so who cares?

No alleged 'awareness' in either case, correct?

I'd have to disagree. He's talking about an "illimitable superior spirit", and one that "reveals itself" no less. Sounds pretty "aware" to me.

What then were all those claims of yours about the Sun/solar system/universe/lightning "affecting" the biology of this planet about?

I meant Einstein and I never talked about it. I'm sure he would have agree that the sun affects the biology of Earth.

Are you trying to tell me what I think?

No, I'm just noting that the basic idea is actually very simple and if you choose not to understand it, that's your personal choice.