SHEEPEOPLE

[Michael]

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.

Hence the creation of "dark" matter and 'dark' energy.

 

[Michael]

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.

Actually, scientists have claimed to find 'proof' (not even evidence mind you) of "dark" matter simply by virtue of it's claimed 'effect' on light.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

Note that no form of exotic matter has ever been found, let alone shown to bend light in controlled experimentation. Even that effect is 'assumed' rather than demonstrated. They also simply "assume" that such exotic forms of matter not only exist, but also that exotic types of matter are a "natural" form of matter. Every quality/attribute of the supernatural/theoretical construct is simply "assumed", even whether or not it is considered to be 'natural'.

 

[Michael]

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.

Did you miss that DeCam (dark energy camera) link? They not only build monuments to their supernatural constructs, they introduce their supernatural creation mythology to the classroom as a form of "science"!

That is a good as an admission.

No, it's just another assumption that you make that is ultimately irrelevant. Science doesn't require falsification to begin with.

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

It's not my fault that Einstein never developed a 'personal' relationship with the thing that he called "God", nor am I limited by his personal lack of such a relationship.

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

I really don't think you grasp the whole panentheism concept based on the questions that you ask.

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

I think you need to distinguish between 'choice' and random thoughts. A 'choice' of belief is subject to decisions that I made based on a subjective weighing of the evidence. "Choice" doesn't necessarily involve randomness.

 

[Davian]

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

So much for 'free will'.

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.

Do I get held to a different standard? In post #531, were you implying that I had a reason to "choose", or that I did not?

 

[Davian]

Hence the creation of "dark" matter and 'dark' energy.

Burn the Strawmen

• Davian
• Apr 9, 2014

 

[Michael]

So much for 'free will'.

Free will? When did that term get slipped into the conversation? It's amusing that you whine about strawmen and then pull such a stunt.

Do I get held to a different standard? In post #531, were you implying that I had a reason to "choose", or that I did not?

When did I say anything about 'free will'?

 

[Davian]

Actually, scientists have claimed to find 'proof' (not even evidence mind you)

[pedant]
proof; noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof?s=t
[/pedant]

of "dark" matter simply by virtue of it's claimed 'effect'

...observed effect...

on light.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

Note that no form of exotic matter has ever been found, let alone shown to bend light in controlled experimentation.

Enough with the inadequacies of your... lab.

Even that effect is 'assumed'

...observed...

rather than demonstrated. They also simply "assume"

...hypothesize...

that such exotic forms of matter not only exist, but also that exotic types of matter are a "natural" form of matter.

What other types are there?

Every quality/attribute of the supernatural/theoretical construct is simply "assumed", even whether or not it is considered to be 'natural'.

 

[Davian]

Did you miss that DeCam (dark energy camera) link? They not only build monuments to their supernatural constructs, they introduce their supernatural creation mythology to the classroom as a form of "science"!

But not in the ethics class.

No, it's just another assumption that you make that is ultimately irrelevant.

No assumption, you just said "I just don't personally know how to falsify the idea yet"

Science doesn't require falsification to begin with.

I never said it did. It just makes for much better science. Feel free to counter that with a false dichotomy.

It's not my fault that Einstein never developed a 'personal' relationship with the thing that he called "God", nor am I limited by his personal lack of such a relationship.

If I develop personal relationship with my space heater, does that make it a 'god'?

I really don't think you grasp the whole panentheism concept based on the questions that you ask.

It really does not make sense to me.

I think you need to distinguish between 'choice' and random thoughts. A 'choice' of belief is subject to decisions that I made based on a subjective weighing of the evidence. "Choice" doesn't necessarily involve randomness.

And my "rejection" of that god-concept - do you claim that I "weighed the evidence", even if I was not consciously aware of it?

 

[Davian]

Free will? When did that term get slipped into the conversation? It's amusing that you whine about strawmen and then pull such a stunt.



When did I say anything about 'free will'?

Still driving that Dodge, I see.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It never ceases to amaze me to see a religionist use their own terms in the pejorative.

You sure aint presented a single fact in any of your posts, so I can only assume its religious belief.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I did not. Have you mistaken me for someone else?

I'm glad to hear you don't accept modern cosmology then. So what are you advocating we believe in? Anything but belief in God?

 

[Davian]

You sure aint presented a single fact in any of your posts,

I sure ain't made any claims.

so I can only assume its religious belief.

What are you referring to?

I'm glad to hear you don't accept modern cosmology then.

"And methodically knocking people's hats off – then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can.” - Herman Melville's Moby-Dick

So what are you advocating we believe in? Anything but belief in God?

Post #495: I am not here to promote my beliefs, or champion science... the floor is yours to make your case, or fail to do so.

 

[ScottA]

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.

It has not been for millennia, in fact the supernatural realm of which I speak, has been considered separated by a "gulf" since the beginning...where it explains just how the natural world was "created" and was cast out of the supernatural realm.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And why not? No doubt in King James days rhinos were called unicorns. Unicorns are one horned animal.

No, unicorns are the extinct Aurochs because it would not submit to the plow.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+39:9-12&version=KJV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs

Just some olden day translators translated it as unicorn. They had horns - plural.

http://biblehub.com/psalms/22-21.htm

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/33-17.htm

It can't have "horns" if it had only a "horn".

Oh, and we wouldn't use the plural here as well if it meant a horn: "With them he will gore the nations"

They were strong, but would not be tamed or put to the plow. So like all the different breeds of species that comes into conflict with man, they serve or go extinct.

http://biblehub.com/numbers/23-22.htm

The most logical answer is that those myths that arose after Aurochs went extinct, turned the unicorn into a horse (made a better story), and then translators today want to turn it into a rhinoceros, because they still let mythology of one horned creatures drive their thought processes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I sure ain't made any claims.

We agree - you have said nothing, so no need to continue.

I am not here to promote my beliefs, or champion science... the floor is yours to make your case, or fail to do so.

You are here exactly to promote your beliefs. For what else but your beliefs are you going to judge anything I present as to it's correctness or not? You also have to defend your beliefs that you choose to judge mine with. So I know we can throw out all of modern cosmology, apparently evolution too, since you chose not to defend it. Which leaves Philosophy and Religion.

Philosophy isn't considered a science - so that can't judge anything except other philosophy - which leaves you with my religion to judge my beliefs with. I can accept that.

EDIT: Or we can use your religious beliefs, I can accept that too.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

We agree - that's probably why you reject electricity everywhere you observe it in space - you still hold to those flawed beliefs when it was thought to be supernatural - because you don't understand it.

You are one to really not be talking to anyone about electricity at all, considering you still hold to supernatural beliefs about it, believing any occurrence of it in space is supernatural.

 

[Davian]

We agree - you have said nothing, so no need to continue.

I say lots of things. Do you have me confused with someone else?

You are here exactly to promote your beliefs.

Or, I am not.

For what else but your beliefs are you going to judge anything I present as to it's correctness or not?

We could see if you could present your claims in an evidenced, testable, falsifiable manner. But you can't do that, can you?

You also have to defend your beliefs that you choose to judge mine with.

My beliefs are irrelevant. What you are proposing is a false dichotomy. We could both be wrong.

So I know we can throw out all of modern cosmology, apparently evolution too, since you chose not to defend it.

Mainstream science and cosmolgy needs no defence from me.

Which leaves Philosophy and Religion. Philosophy isn't considered a science - so that can't judge anything except other philosophy

From our own philosophy forum here:

Philosophy Forum Statement of Purpose

The Philosophy forum is for the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Epistemology is concerned with the origin and nature of knowledge, and is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

Philosophy: Critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs and logical analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs. Philosophy may also be defined as reflection on the varieties of human experience, or as the rational, methodical, and systematic consideration of the topics that are of greatest concern to humanity. -- Concise Encyclopedia

- which leaves you with my religion

to judge my beliefs with. I can accept that.

EDIT: Or we can use your religious beliefs, I can accept that too.

"I'm more scared of parking by a parking meter than vampires because one of them is real and adversely affects my life and results in a $35 fine, and one is nonsense." - Ike Barinholtz

 

[Michael]

[pedant]
proof; noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof?s=t
[/pedant]

And yet their claims about exotic forms of matter have been shredded by LHC, LUX, PandaX, the electron roundness tests, along with the revelation of the fact that they *botched* the stellar count estimates by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20090819.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/01/scientists-sextillion-stars/

The only thing they actually "proved" was the fact that their galaxy mass estimates were worthless in 2006

...observed effect...

Bzzt. The only "effect" they observed was lensing, and normal matter does that just fine.

Enough with the inadequacies of your... lab.

I love the double standard of empiricism when it suits you, and pure "faith" when it suits you too.

...observed...

False again. No exotic forms of matter have ever been shown to exist, let alone cause any effect on a photon.

...hypothesize...

Same difference.

What other types are there?

Made up types apparently.

 

[Michael]

But not in the ethics class.

Who cares? In most ethics classes in college one gets exposed to *multiple* ideas related to ethics, not just herded into a *single* belief system.

No assumption, you just said "I just don't personally know how to falsify the idea yet"

Since when did I become the only person in the world, and since when was falsification a requirement in science?

I never said it did. It just makes for much better science. Feel free to counter that with a false dichotomy.

You handwaved away an entire empirical theory of God based on that objection.

If I develop personal relationship with my space heater, does that make it a 'god'?

You really don't grasp the whole concept of panentheism apparently.

It really does not make sense to me.

Your questions reflect that fact.

And my "rejection" of that god-concept - do you claim that I "weighed the evidence", even if I was not consciously aware of it?

Why exactly did you reject the empirical theory of God that I put forth?

 

[Michael]

Still driving that Dodge, I see.

No, I'm just not letting you move the goal posts again.