SHEEPEOPLE

[Michael]

Where did I do that?

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

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

What's the point of trying to change mine? It's interesting and enjoyable conversation?

 

[Michael]

Where?

In those thread(s) that you basically ignore/handwave at.

 

[Davian]

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

D: Belief is not conscious choice.
M: Both rejection of an idea and "belief" in an idea are conscious choices.
D: For the next three days, decide to completely accept modern cosmology, reject beliefs in gods.
M: I did that in the past.
D: Do it now.
M: I can't.

So, is belief a conscious choice, or not?

 

[Michael]

D: Belief is not conscious choice.
M: Both rejection of an idea and "belief" in an idea are conscious choices.
D: For the next three days, decide to completely accept modern cosmology, reject beliefs in gods.
M: I did that in the past.
D: Do it now.
M: I can't.

So, is belief a conscious choice, or not?

It's absolutely a conscious choice. Your request for me to change my opinions without any cause was simply a strawman from the beginning.

 

[Davian]

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.

I do not see how they are the same things categorically. Scroll back to the bit about astronomers lobbying to have granite monuments installed in state buildings.

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

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?

That is a good as an admission.

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.

But not a 'personal' god at all. I don't see your sig being updated.

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

My space heater affects the biology in this room. Is it a 'God'?

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.

I am not sure if you are clear on the concept of "choice".

 

[Davian]

What's the point of trying to change mine?

That has never been my intent.

 

[Davian]

It's absolutely a conscious choice. Your request for me to change my opinions without any cause was simply a strawman from the beginning.

Why would you need a "cause" for a conscious choice? Do you need a "cause" to decide what to have for breakfast? Do you need to do research, and interpret the evidence? construct a testable hypothesis?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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

Sorry, but science only studies what exists, or what it thinks might exist, and spirit isn't going to appear on their horizon any time soon.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Sorry, but science only studies what exists, or what it thinks might exist, and spirit isn't going to appear on their horizon any time soon.

Are you saying that "spirit" doesn't exist?

 

[ScottA]

Here, in a sciences forum?

One must make adjustments for class ability level, even start over for those who missed the elementary principles.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Are you saying that "spirit" doesn't exist?

I'm saying that science doesn't believe spirit exists. I believe in spirits.

 

[ScottA]

Christians make claims that the supernatural produces effects in the natural world. That puts the supernatural squarely into the realm of science. They claim that there is evidence for separate creation, a young created Earth, and a recent global flood. The miracles described in the Bible would be easily detected by science. What you claim is clearly false.


If I was there, could you demonstrate it? Describe it for me?

1. Supernatural is in the realm of natural science? Hello. Are you hearing yourself?
2. Science is free to study anything it wants. What's the problem? ...I'll answer that: The problem is that even though science can study the natural effects of supernatural activity in the universe, it ONLY considers the natural components, and therefore cannot prove what it has not studied. If you want to win, you gotta play. If you wanta know, you gotta go. And yet they stop short EVERY time.
3. If you were there (in the supernatural realm) no one would have to explain, you would have access to infinite knowledge, yourself.

 

[ScottA]

So the universe is a gift to humans? Again, that is human-centric.

No, you only got part of what I said. "The universe is God-Centered, with a human benefit, a gift really." ...God-Centered, human gift.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. Supernatural is in the realm of
natural science? Hello. Are you hearing yourself?

I already gave you examples. Why are you ignoring them?

I was watching a BBC documentary the other night on the early days of electrical science. When it was shown that electricity could make dead muscles twitch it was thought by many that electricity was supernatural. Some church officials even thought it heresy to study electricity because it was part of the supernatural. Ben Franklin was also accused of incorrectly messing with the supernatural when he did his experiments with the kite and lightning.

The idea that the supernatural is somehow separate from the natural and completely undetectable is a very, very recent occurrence. For millennia, man thought he saw the actions of the supernatural all around him. It was only when we started finding non-deistic and natural explanations for these phenomenon that the undetectable supernatural was invented as a place where beliefs could be protected from scrutiny.

2. Science is free to study anything it wants. What's the problem? ...I'll answer that: The problem is that even though science can study the natural effects of supernatural activity in the universe, it ONLY considers the natural components, and therefore cannot prove what it has not studied.

If you are studying the supernatural in action, you are studying the supernatural.

3. If you were there (in the supernatural realm) no one would have to explain, you would have access to infinite knowledge, yourself.

Just like if Leprechauns were standing in front of me, I wouldn't have to explain why they exist. You can invent stories all you want, it doesn't make up for a very real absence of evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you only got part of what I said. "The universe is God-Centered, with a human benefit, a gift really." ...God-Centered, human gift.

So when God created the universe he never intended it to house humans?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm saying that science doesn't believe spirit exists. I believe in spirits.

Then why can't science study them if they exist?

Or better yet, tell us how to distinguish between the spirits you believe in and spirits that do not exist?

 

[Davian]

One must make adjustments for class ability level, even start over for those who missed the elementary principles.

Let us know when you are up to speed.

 

[Davian]

1. Supernatural is in the realm of natural science? Hello. Are you hearing yourself?
2. Science is free to study anything it wants. What's the problem? ...I'll answer that: The problem is that even though science can study the natural effects of supernatural activity in the universe, it ONLY considers the natural components, and therefore cannot prove what it has not studied. If you want to win, you gotta play. If you wanta know, you gotta go. And yet they stop short EVERY time.
3. If you were there (in the supernatural realm) no one would have to explain, you would have access to infinite knowledge, yourself.

The claims of the "supernatural" are always within the realm of science.

Ghost orbs that turn out to be specks of dust, weeping statue hoaxes, "worldwide' floods that left entire civilizations untouched, water diviners that can't, and so-called faith healers using radio communication.

 

[Michael]

That has never been my intent.

If you say so.

 

[Michael]

Why would you need a "cause" for a conscious choice?

I need a reason to choose to "believe", or lack belief. I don't just choose arbitrarily, or change my opinions on a whim.

Do you need a "cause" to decide what to have for breakfast? Do you need to do research, and interpret the evidence? construct a testable hypothesis?

Actually, yes, there is a "reason" why I select the breakfast that I select. I'm currently dieting for instance, so my choices are different today than say 6 months ago.