Mind

[Strathos]

Where did I say that?

When you asked me why I was continuing this if it was getting nowhere.

They are not scientific.

And? I'm not trying to publish something in a scientific journal here.

Or, I do. Unless, by "personal" you mean "that which should be disregarded".

You can choose to disregard it if you wish.

You would if you wanted to make your "falsification" criteria scientific.

When did I claim I wanted to do so?

Therefore, God? Afterlife? Souls? The argument from ignorance is a fallacy, not evidence for the unknown.

I didn't claim that. I'm merely saying that introspection is subjective.

What do you not know? This is an exercise in exploring personal experience. You said it was easy to imagine walking down the street. The point is to contrast your personal experience with what is actually required by your brain/body to walk down the street. Try it.

Again, what is the point? I don't know what you are getting at here.

Where have you reached any particular goalpost?

When I gave definitions of soul and supernatural.

You did not answer the question.

Yes I did.

You did not answer the question.

Yes I did.

I didn't say that. Again, tell me why you don't chase after Leprechauns, and I may then be able to tell you why I don't chase after deities.

Are we having this discussion on a leprechaun-believers' forum?

I see words coming together to form sentences in a book. What you seem to call "complexity" could also be applied to the Star Wars movies. Do you think the Star Wars movies are "complex"?

Well, that depends if you want to include the mess that is the EU, or get into the debate about the relative quality of the prequels...

 

[Michael]

Therefore, God? Afterlife? Souls? The argument from ignorance is a fallacy, not evidence for the unknown.

Oh the irony of that particular comment. Therefore inflation? Exotic forms of energy? Exotic forms of matter? Gravitons? String theory? Susy theory?

 

[Davian]

When you asked me why I was continuing this if it was getting nowhere.

You must be projecting. This is going pretty much where I expected it to go. Where did I say this was going nowhere?

And? I'm not trying to publish something in a scientific journal here.

Your application of scientific terms such as "falsifiable" to your criteria implies the use of scientific methodology. And, we are in a physical sciences discussion forum. There are other forums on this site for topics that are not scientific.

You can choose to disregard it if you wish.

Amirite? By "personal" you mean "that which should be disregarded"?

When did I claim I wanted to do so?

Again, your application of scientific terms such as "falsifiable" to your criteria implies the use of scientific methodology. And, we are in a physical sciences discussion forum. There are other forums on this site for topics that are not scientific.

I didn't claim that. I'm merely saying that introspection is subjective.

There is a subjective component to science, hence the development of scientific methodology. 21st century neuroscience does not rule out "souls" or "spirits" (depending on what you mean by those terms), but they do offer insights into how the brain works.

Again, what is the point? I don't know what you are getting at here.

Again, this is an exercise in exploring personal experience. You said it was easy to imagine walking down the street. The point is to contrast your personal experience with what is actually required by your brain/body to walk down the street. Try it.

When I gave definitions of soul and supernatural.

No, you provided assumptions.

Yes I did.

Stonehenge.

Yes I did.

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

Are we having this discussion on a leprechaun-believers' forum?

No, we are in a physical sciences discussion forum, and I was attempting to provide you the opportunity, in a non-leading fashion, to delineate your belief in a deity from that of leprechauns. I don't expect that you can, and your responses are evidence of that.

Well, that depends if you want to include the mess that is the EU, or get into the debate about the relative quality of the prequels...

I'd rather not think about the prequels.

 

[Davian]

You seem to have your hands full at the moment with other posters,

Not at all. I think Strathos and I are pretty much done, and I have sent Justa off on another snipe hunt.

so I'll try to make this short and sweet.

No, you will cut large chunks out of my post out so you don't have to respond to where you made your goofs. But, you make them here again:

Any claim that inflation occurred in the past is based upon an affirming the consequent fallacy whereby you *imagine* (have no evidence) that inflation has some effect on a photon, and you *imagine* that something called 'space' does magical expansion tricks, another claim you're making which never occurs in the lab.

Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth.

You are confusing inflation and expansion, and once again burning the wrong straw-man. You know, it might help if you kept them more carefully labeled.

In short, you *imagine* a connection between photon redshift and inflation.

You mean expansion. Be sure to check those labels.

You *imagine* that inflation creates matter/energy as we know it.

I don't imagine it, it is how I understand it, in laymen's terms, as described by the standard model of cosmology.

You cannot demonstrate such claims in controlled experimentation anymore than Strathos can replicate his experiences for you in some tangible way.

Straw-man again and again. Do you use these to heat your home or what? Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth.

What has that to do with Strathos' experiences?

Whatever 'complains' you have about human imagination being unreliable also apply to virtually *every* branch of theoretical physics!

Only as you understand them.

Ditto. You cannot show a controlled empirical cause/effect connection between inflation and photon redshift. Likewise you cannot show any empirical justification for string theory, or graviton theory, etc. They are all 'acts of faith' in things that are "unseen" in any lab on Earth.

Do you think inflation and expansion are interchangeable terms in cosmology? Should things that are not posited to be demonstrable in a lab be criticized for not being demonstrable in a lab? No? Why do you do it then?

Hmmm. Not really. Experiences of God on Earth have been 'replicated' by other humans for thousands of years.

And I ask, name one that can demonstrate that this experience is anything other than an internal experience, that of the imagination.

All claims about inflation having some effect on a photon however have failed to be demonstrated in controlled experimentation. Agreed?

(my bold) Agreed.

And claims about Santa Claus having some effect on the number of presents under my Christmas tree have failed to be demonstrated in controlled experimentation. Agreed?

And don't forget about the bicycle challenge: when you turn to the left while riding, which way do you turn the handlebars? Ask yourself, and the next few people you meet, and post your and their initial responses here. No cheating by looking it up.

 

[Davian]

Where did I say that?


They are not scientific.


Or, I do. Unless, by "personal" you mean "that which should be disregarded".


You would if you wanted to make your "falsification" criteria scientific.


Therefore, God? Afterlife? Souls? The argument from ignorance is a fallacy, not evidence for the unknown.


What do you not know? This is an exercise in exploring personal experience. You said it was easy to imagine walking down the street. The point is to contrast your personal experience with what is actually required by your brain/body to walk down the street. Try it.


Where have you reached any particular goalpost?


You did not answer the question.

You did not answer the question.

I didn't say that. Again, tell me why you don't chase after Leprechauns, and I may then be able to tell you why I don't chase after deities.

I see words coming together to form sentences in a book. What you seem to call "complexity" could also be applied to the Star Wars movies. Do you think the Star Wars movies are "complex"?

Oh the irony of that particular comment. Therefore inflation? Exotic forms of energy? Exotic forms of matter? Gravitons? String theory? Susy theory?

Care to answer that again in the context of the post you excerpted this from?

 

[Michael]

Care to answer that again in the context of the post you excerpted this from?

Why? Hypothetical branches of physics do not show up in the lab anymore than God is likely to show up in the lab on command. You're imposing *more* requirements on God, the Holy Spirit and soul than science imposes on hypothetical areas of science. Your claim about inflation creating matter is an *imagined* event. It never occurs in the lab in controlled experimentation. All you have is some affirming the consequent fallacy and some math, and not a shred of tangible lab support for any of it.

 

[Michael]

Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth.

So what? It still more impotent on Earth than an average concept of God. It's not something you can demonstrate in any physical way. Even the claim that inflation has some effect on 'space' or a 'photon' is a pure affirming the consequent fallacy!

You are confusing inflation and expansion, and once again burning the wrong straw-man. You know, it might help if you kept them more carefully labeled.

You can't demonstrate that A) space does magical expansion tricks, B) inflation is the cause of that magic, or C) dark energy causes space to accelerate. Every one of those claims is an affirming the consequent fallacy. Its a "three in one" fallacy too.

You mean expansion. Be sure to check those labels.

Why? You can't demonstrate any of your claims physically. You may in your *mind* think that these things happen, or have some effect on a photon, but you certainly can't demonstrate it.

I don't imagine it, it is how I understand it, in laymen's terms, as described by the standard model of cosmology.

'Described by'? God is 'described by' the Bible too. So what? You still only *imagine* that these things exist(ed), and have (had) some effect on a photon. It's still not something you can demonstrate and that model is based on an affirming the consequent fallacy to start with!

Straw-man again and again. Do you use these to heat your home or what? Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth.

You supernatural sky deities don't get a free pass on empirical testing only because they are *expected to be* impotent on Earth. You certainly can't *physically* show any connection in a lab between photons and inflation.

What has that to do with Strathos' experiences?

Strathos' experiences can be replicated by others, and his supernatural construct at least has a tangible effect on humans on Earth. Your supernatural construct however is a complete no show on Earth. It's a pure act of faith in something that cannot and does not have any tangible effect on anything on Earth.

Do you think inflation and expansion are interchangeable terms in cosmology?

In terms of both claims *not* showing up in the lab, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. You cant' get space to expand in the first place in a lab, and you can't demonstrate inflation is the *cause of* space expansion either.

Should things that are not posited to be demonstrable in a lab be criticized for not being demonstrable in a lab? No? Why do you do it then?

I'm actually criticizing your personal need for lab verified replication of Stratos' experiences. Science doesn't actually *require* that. More importantly however God *isn't* impotent on Earth, unlike your supernatural imaginary sky entities.

And I ask, name one that can demonstrate that this experience is anything other than an internal experience, that of the imagination.

You can't demonstrate that inflation is anything other than an imagined entity that only works in your head.

The remaining points were a complete dodge, so I'll ignore them.

 

[Davian]

Care to answer that again in the context of the post you excerpted this from?

Why? <snip ranting>

I will take that as a no.

 

[Davian]

So what? It still more impotent on Earth than an average concept of God. It's not something you can demonstrate in any physical way.

Straw-man again and again and again. Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth.

Even the claim that inflation has some effect on 'space' or a 'photon' is a pure affirming the consequent fallacy!

Are you not familiar with inflation theory? Your confusion between expansion and inflation is a red flag for me.

You can't demonstrate that A) space does magical expansion tricks, B) inflation is the cause of that magic, or C) dark energy causes space to accelerate. Every one of those claims is an affirming the consequent fallacy. Its a "three in one" fallacy too.

Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth, does it?

Why? You can't demonstrate any of your claims physically. You may in your *mind* think that these things happen, or have some effect on a photon, but you certainly can't demonstrate it.

Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth, does it?

'Described by'? God is 'described by' the Bible too. So what?

As described, this "God", in every objective aspect, appears to be nothing more than a character in a book.

You still only *imagine* that these things exist(ed), and have (had) some effect on a photon. It's still not something you can demonstrate and that model is based on an affirming the consequent fallacy to start with!

Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth, does it?

You supernatural sky deities don't get a free pass on empirical testing only because they are *expected to be* impotent on Earth. You certainly can't *physically* show any connection in a lab between photons and inflation.

Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth, does it?

Strathos' experiences can be replicated by others, and his supernatural construct at least has a tangible effect on humans on Earth.

And again I ask, name one that can demonstrate that this experience is anything other than an internal experience, that of the imagination. How do you know he is not lying about his experiences?

Your supernatural construct however is a complete no show on Earth. It's a pure act of faith in something that cannot and does not have any tangible effect on anything on Earth.

Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth, does it?

In terms of both claims *not* showing up in the lab, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. You cant' get space to expand in the first place in a lab, and you can't demonstrate inflation is the *cause of* space expansion either.

Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth, does it?

I'm actually criticizing your personal need for lab verified replication of Stratos' experiences.

Tell me, how many times have you demanded of others that their claims be replicable in the lab?

Science doesn't actually *require* that.

True.

More importantly however God *isn't* impotent on Earth, unlike your supernatural imaginary sky entities.

No, "God" appears to be nothing more than a character in a book.

You can't demonstrate that inflation is anything other than an imagined entity that only works in your head.

Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth, does it?

The remaining points were a complete dodge, so I'll ignore them.

You mean, you will evade them.

The bicycle challenge still stands: when you turn to the left while riding, which way do you turn the handlebars? Ask yourself, and the next few people you meet, and post your and their initial responses here. No cheating by looking it up.

 

[Michael]

Straw-man again and again and again. Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth.

That is utterly irrelevant since it's still more impotent on Earth than an average concept of God. It still fails to show up in empirical experiments. It's still lacking support just like Deism. Deism doesn't get a free pass on providing 'evidence' to support the idea only because it expects to find none!

Are you not familiar with inflation theory? Your confusion between expansion and inflation is a red flag for me.

I'm more than a little familiar with the concepts, trust me. "Space' doesn't do any magical expansion tricks in the lab, and inflation doesn't *cause* space to do magical expansion tricks in the lab.

Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth, does it?

Does Deism? The fact deism doesn't posit a possibility of supporting evidence give it credibility in your mind somehow?

As described, this "God", in every objective aspect, appears to be nothing more than a character in a book.

Likewise inflation theory appears to be nothing more than made up (imaginary) supernatural gap filler to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from falsification.

And again I ask, name one that can demonstrate that this experience is anything other than an internal experience, that of the imagination. How do you know he is not lying about his experiences?

How do I know Guth wasn't lying about inflation having anything to do with space? He personally *invented* the whole concept in his *overactive imagination* to begin with.

Tell me, how many times have you demanded of others that their claims be replicable in the lab?

Pretty consistently I'd guess. I'm simply noting the *inconsistency* of your argument.

No, "God" appears to be nothing more than a character in a book.

And inflation appears to be nothing but supernatural gap filler to save on otherwise falsified theory from instant destruction.

Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth, does it?

You mean, you will evade them.

No, I already told you a few days ago that I would personally not start my turn by turning the handle bars at all. I'd simply lean in the direction that I wanted to go, and I would then steer the bike accordingly. I'm not even interested in how anyone else answers that particular question, so I see no reason to 'take a poll for you'.

 

[Davian]

That is utterly irrelevant since it's still more impotent on Earth than an average concept of God.

I still do not know what you mean by " an average concept of God".

It still fails to show up in empirical experiments.

And airplanes fail to show up at my local bus stop. I have to go to the airport. Crazy.

It's still lacking support just like Deism. Deism doesn't get a free pass on providing 'evidence' to support the idea only because it expects to find none!

Wiki: "Inflation is a mechanism for realizing the cosmological principle which is the basis of the standard model of physical cosmology: it accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe. In addition, it accounts for the observed flatness and absence of magnetic monopoles. Since Guth's early work, each of these observations has received further confirmation, most impressively by the detailed observations of the cosmic microwave background made by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft.[54] This analysis shows that the universe is flat to an accuracy of at least a few percent, and that it is homogeneous and isotropic to a part in 10,000."

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show me how that compares to deism.

I'm more than a little familiar with the concepts, trust me.

I do not trust you, having seen how you confused inflation with expansion.

"Space' doesn't do any magical expansion tricks in the lab, and inflation doesn't *cause* space to do magical expansion tricks in the lab.

It's a strawman bonfire!

Does Deism? The fact deism doesn't posit a possibility of supporting evidence give it credibility in your mind somehow?

No, but I will accept that your concept of deism doesn't posit a possibility of supporting evidence.

Likewise inflation theory appears to be nothing more than made up (imaginary) supernatural gap filler to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from falsification.

Perhaps if you were more familiar with it your opinion would change.

How do I know Guth wasn't lying about inflation having anything to do with space? He personally *invented* the whole concept in his *overactive imagination* to begin with.

Wiki: "Inflation is a mechanism for realizing the cosmological principle which is the basis of the standard model of physical cosmology: it accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe. In addition, it accounts for the observed flatness and absence of magnetic monopoles. Since Guth's early work, each of these observations has received further confirmation, most impressively by the detailed observations of the cosmic microwave background made by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft.[54] This analysis shows that the universe is flat to an accuracy of at least a few percent, and that it is homogeneous and isotropic to a part in 10,000."

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If he were lying, I would expect that his theory would not be backed up with observational evidence.

Now, how can I tell if a theist is lying about their personal experiences?

Pretty consistently I'd guess. I'm simply noting the *inconsistency* of your argument.

lol. I am "inconsistent" as in I only ask for it where it applies.

And inflation appears to be nothing but supernatural gap filler to save on otherwise falsified theory from instant destruction.

Do you not disagree that this "God" of yours, in every objective aspect, appears to be nothing more than a character in a book?

No, I already told you a few days ago that I would personally not start my turn by turning the handle bars at all. I'd simply lean in the direction that I wanted to go, and I would then steer the bike accordingly. I'm not even interested in how anyone else answers that particular question, so I see no reason to 'take a poll for you'.

That response is hypocritical in light of the importance you appear to place on personal experience. You failed to answer the question as asked. However, your abdication is accepted.

 

[Michael]

I still do not know what you mean by " an average concept of God".

I mean that with the exception of Deism, most concepts of God presume that God has the ability to interact with humans while they are alive and on Earth. God has a tangible effect on people's lives according to many individuals.

Compare and contrast that with something that has no effect on anything on Earth at the present moment.

And airplanes fail to show up at my local bus stop. I have to go to the airport. Crazy.

You're still dancing around the point IMO. You have exactly *zero* physical evidence that A) inflation exists at all outside of the imagination of Lambda-CMD proponents, B) has some effect on "space", or C) has some effect on a photon. It *doesn't show up* in experiments on Earth, but you expect God do so? When did that ever become a *requirement*?

Wiki: "Inflation is a mechanism for realizing the cosmological principle which is the basis of the standard model of physical cosmology: it accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe. In addition, it accounts for the observed flatness and absence of magnetic monopoles. Since Guth's early work, each of these observations has received further confirmation, most impressively by the detailed observations of the cosmic microwave background made by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft.[54] This analysis shows that the universe is flat to an accuracy of at least a few percent, and that it is homogeneous and isotropic to a part in 10,000."

Ya, but Planck blew all that WMAP nonsense out of the water. Guth claiming to have solve a 'monopole problem' with inflation theory is like me trying to claim I solved the missing unicorn problem with God theory. Monopoles do not exist in nature, and their lack of existence requires no "explanation". Planck shows that the universe has hemispheric variations that should not exist according to Guth. Most damning of all however is that Guth quite literally "made up" the whole concept in his head without any scientific precedent whatsoever. It's his imaginary friend, and it simply became a 'meme' over time.

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show me how that compares to deism.

Well, for starters, your impotent on Earth inflation deity is about as useful on Earth as a deistic concept of God. Secondly, you (actually Guth) "made up' various attributes about the inflation deity and you/he can't demonstrate any of them in a lab.

I do not trust you, having seen how you confused inflation with expansion.

Whatever floats you boat I suppose. Suffice to say your inflation deity is a bigger wuss on Earth than most concepts of God. It's about as useful to scientific experimentation as Deism. Inflation is like a dead god.

It's a strawman bonfire!

It's also a fact.

No, but I will accept that your concept of deism doesn't posit a possibility of supporting evidence.

Neither does your inflation deity. Guth *invented* the properties of his deity in his head, and his whole handwave at the sky amounts to a "my personal god did it" of an actual "explanation". Worst of all, it literally defies the laws of physics as we know them, since there is no "free lunch" in physics.

Perhaps if you were more familiar with it your opinion would change.

Actually, the more I learned, the less credible it became.

If he were lying, I would expect that his theory would not be backed up with observational evidence.

It's not. Planck pretty much wipe it out in fact. All that nonsense was related to WMAP, and it's *old* news these days.

Now, how can I tell if a theist is lying about their personal experiences?

How can I tell Guth didn't make up his inflation deity in his head? He personally assigned his sky god with all sorts of supernatural powers afterall. No other force of nature does anything remotely like it!

lol. I am "inconsistent" as in I only ask for it where it applies.

You're still missing the point. Your inflation deity only applies to one otherwise falsified cosmology theory. It's useless on Earth. Nothing runs on inflation. Nothing is changed by inflation. Nothing can be expected on Earth as a result of inflation. All the so called "evidence" amounts to a pure affirming the consequent fallacy: "Look at the sky! My dead inflation deity did it!"

Do you not disagree that this "God" of yours, in every objective aspect, appears to be nothing more than a character in a book?

No. As a matter of fact he seems to influence the lives of many people according to the accounts of *many* different books. Unlike your dead inflation deity, he reportedly has a real effect on peoples lives while here on Earth.

That response is hypocritical in light of the importance you appear to place on personal experience. You failed to answer the question as asked. However, your abdication is accepted.

Huh? I gave you my answer (twice) and I could care less if other people get it right or wrong. It's not even a relevant point IMO.

 

[Strathos]

You must be projecting. This is going pretty much where I expected it to go. Where did I say this was going nowhere?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7789651-20/#post64769149

You seemed to be implying it here.

Your application of scientific terms such as "falsifiable" to your criteria implies the use of scientific methodology. And, we are in a physical sciences discussion forum. There are other forums on this site for topics that are not scientific.

Falsifiable: There is/are criteria for which an idea could be falsified. I have provided them. It's not my fault you keep saying they don't count.

Amirite? By "personal" you mean "that which should be disregarded"?

It's your choice.

Again, your application of scientific terms such as "falsifiable" to your criteria implies the use of scientific methodology. And, we are in a physical sciences discussion forum. There are other forums on this site for topics that are not scientific.

See above.

There is a subjective component to science, hence the development of scientific methodology. 21st century neuroscience does not rule out "souls" or "spirits" (depending on what you mean by those terms), but they do offer insights into how the brain works.

And how does that contradict what I said?

Again, this is an exercise in exploring personal experience. You said it was easy to imagine walking down the street. The point is to contrast your personal experience with what is actually required by your brain/body to walk down the street. Try it.

Well a lot of that is instinctual/muscle memory. Not something that requires conscious thought.

No, you provided assumptions.

I never claimed I could give you scientific proof my definitions were accurate.

Stonehenge.

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

If you say I didn't without any elaboration, I can respond accordingly.

No, we are in a physical sciences discussion forum, and I was attempting to provide you the opportunity, in a non-leading fashion, to delineate your belief in a deity from that of leprechauns. I don't expect that you can, and your responses are evidence of that.

You might want to check the header in your address bar, and see what it says.

 

[Davian]

I mean that with the exception of Deism, most concepts of God presume that God has the ability to interact with humans while they are alive and on Earth. God has a tangible effect on people's lives according to many individuals.

Name one person that can demonstrate that this experience is anything other than an internal experience, that of the imagination.

Compare and contrast that with something that has no effect on anything on Earth at the present moment.

Like other gods? Leprechauns? Fairies?

You're still dancing around the point IMO. You have exactly *zero* physical evidence that A) inflation exists at all outside of the imagination of Lambda-CMD proponents, B) has some effect on "space", or C) has some effect on a photon. It *doesn't show up* in experiments on Earth, but you expect God do so? When did that ever become a *requirement*?

I don't expect "God" to show up in an experiment. Until provided with evidence to the contrary, I will have to conclude that it is only a character in a book.

Ya, but Planck blew all that WMAP nonsense out of the water. Guth claiming to have solve a 'monopole problem' with inflation theory is like me trying to claim I solved the missing unicorn problem with God theory. Monopoles do not exist in nature, and their lack of existence requires no "explanation". Planck shows that the universe has hemispheric variations that should not exist according to Guth. Most damning of all however is that Guth quite literally "made up" the whole concept in his head without any scientific precedent whatsoever. It's his imaginary friend, and it simply became a 'meme' over time.

Well, you better get on to Wiki and make those changes. Let me know where you are done.

Also, have NASA update this page:

WMAP Inflation Theory

Well, for starters, your impotent on Earth inflation deity is about as useful on Earth as a deistic concept of God. Secondly, you (actually Guth) "made up' various attributes about the inflation deity and you/he can't demonstrate any of them in a lab.

Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth. Are you not familiar with inflation theory? Why do you keep on with these straw-man arguments?

Whatever floats you boat I suppose. Suffice to say your inflation deity is a bigger wuss on Earth than most concepts of God. It's about as useful to scientific experimentation as Deism. Inflation is like a dead god.

Show me a concept of God that isn't a dud.

It's also a fact.

Off to Wiki you go with your "facts".

Neither does your inflation deity. Guth *invented* the properties of his deity in his head, and his whole handwave at the sky amounts to a "my personal god did it" of an actual "explanation". Worst of all, it literally defies the laws of physics as we know them, since there is no "free lunch" in physics.

Correction, as you know them.

Actually, the more I learned, the less credible it became.

Yet you still confuse inflation with expansion. Why is that? Have you forgotten what you learned? Do we need to revisit your misunderstanding of entropy?

It's not. Planck pretty much wipe it out in fact. All that nonsense was related to WMAP, and it's *old* news these days.

Wiki awaits your edits.

How can I tell Guth didn't make up his inflation deity in his head? He personally assigned his sky god with all sorts of supernatural powers afterall. No other force of nature does anything remotely like it!

If you were familiar with inflation theory, and Guth's papers, you would have that information, and how he was building on the work of others. I do recall providing a link to that specific page in the past. Do you not recall that?

You're still missing the point. Your inflation deity only applies to one otherwise falsified cosmology theory. It's useless on Earth. Nothing runs on inflation. Nothing is changed by inflation. Nothing can be expected on Earth as a result of inflation. All the so called "evidence" amounts to a pure affirming the consequent fallacy: "Look at the sky! My dead inflation deity did it!"

Every time you talk like that, you give the Cosmoquest people a little more credence for banning you from their board. How old are you?

No. As a matter of fact he seems to influence the lives of many people according to the accounts of *many* different books. Unlike your dead inflation deity, he reportedly has a real effect on peoples lives while here on Earth.

Name one person that can demonstrate that this experience is anything other than an internal experience, that of the imagination. Just one.

Huh? I gave you my answer (twice)

And twice you failed to answer the question as asked. i did not ask about weight transfer.

and I could care less if other people get it right or wrong.

That response is very hypocritical in light of the importance you appear to place on personal experience. Why the double standard?

It's not even a relevant point IMO.

The thread is about mind, and we were discussing personal experience. Not everything discussed on this board must be relevant to your astrophysical straw-men.

 

[Davian]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7789651-20/#post64769149

You seemed to be implying it here.

I do not see where.

Falsifiable: There is/are criteria for which an idea could be falsified. I have provided them. It's not my fault you keep saying they don't count.

It is not my fault that they do not count.

It's your choice.

See above.

Again, I asked, by "personal" you mean "that which should be disregarded"? Yes or no?

And how does that contradict what I said?

I did not say that it did.

Well a lot of that is instinctual/muscle memory. Not something that requires conscious thought.

So personal experience does not accurately reflect the process of walking down the street?

I never claimed I could give you scientific proof my definitions were accurate.

When you were asked for definitions, you failed to say that all you were providing were assumptions.

If you say I didn't without any elaboration, I can respond accordingly.

lol. I think I've had enough of you "responding accordingly"

You might want to check the header in your address bar, and see what it says.

It says you have home field advantage. What of it? Are we done here?

Maybe Justa will come back from his snipe hunt with something interesting.

 

[Michael]

Name one person that can demonstrate that this experience is anything other than an internal experience, that of the imagination.

Ditto for your impotent on Earth inflation deity.

In terms of demonstrating it's not a figment of *one* human imagination, that's rather easy to do. Jesus said 2000 years ago that the Holy Spirit would testify for his words and teachings on the topic of God, and spirituality in general. Both Strathos and myself have experienced such internal events in our lives, and we both therefore accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

Furthermore, Muslims as well as Christians revere Jesus as a great teacher on the topic of God, and together they represent more than 1/2 the planet today.

It's quite easy to show a connection between human experiences the world over, over a period of thousands of years.

On the other hand, your inflation deity, along with "Guthanity" is a relatively *young* religion. Almost *nobody on Earth* actually understands it, with the exception of a few "high priests" who ascribe their deity with mathematical properties galore, not a single one of which shows up in the lab.

I'll save us time and skip the redundant nonsense.

I don't expect "God" to show up in an experiment. Until provided with evidence to the contrary, I will have to conclude that it is only a character in a book.

Well, you'd have to conclude then that he's a character in *thousands* of books, if not hundreds of thousands of books written by human beings on the topic of God since the dawn of recorded human civilization.

On the other hand, if you impotent sky deity can't do any magic tricks on Earth, I have no reason to believe he does magic tricks somewhere in space. I'd have to conclude your invisible dead sky deity is a fictional force related to one and only one otherwise falsified cosmology theory.

Well, you better get on to Wiki and make those changes. Let me know where you are done.

Me? Nah. The mainstream is scrambling now since Planck to "explain" that blatant failure to "predict" a *non homogenous* layout of matter that produced variations from one hemisphere to the other. Guth didn't personally ever predict any such thing! In fact, that finding directly refutes his *original* claims. They'll come to some "consensus" on how to fix it sooner or later, but so far I've heard a ton of various "excuses", and some that include even *more* fictional forms of energy, including "curvatons". How do I know how they will ultimately fix their mess?

Also, have NASA update this page:

WMAP Inflation Theory

WMAP is *old* news. Planck showed that there are hemispheric variations in the data that simply should not be there according to Guth, the *inventor* of the fictional sky deity.

Inflation theory does not posit that it can be demonstrated using experiments on Earth.

Yep. It's like a dead deistic religion in terms of it's practical use on Earth. It's therefore useless to me.

Are you not familiar with inflation theory? Why do you keep on with these straw-man arguments?

I don't think *you* understand the theory well enough to know what actually is a strawman argument about Guth's fictional impotent friend, and what's not.

Show me a concept of God that isn't a dud.

I started a whole thread on the topic:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

If you were familiar with inflation theory, and Guth's papers, you would have that information, and how he was building on the work of others.

I ripped apart Guth's personal website around here somewhere for you, including all his ridiculous nonsense about a "free lunch". If I get bored between football games this weekend, I'll see if I can round up a link for you.

Every time you talk like that, you give the Cosmoquest people a little more credence for banning you from their board. How old are you?

Oh give me a break. You've compared God to leprechauns how many times already?

Name one person that can demonstrate that this experience is anything other than an internal experience, that of the imagination. Just one.

Jesus. Strathos and I can both vouch for him.

And twice you failed to answer the question as asked. i did not ask about weight transfer.

You did ask me about my *experiences* riding a bike. In my *experience* your question doesn't jive with my *experience*. During those *experience* I learned that *leaning* was the best way to turn the bike. Your question implies *ignorance* of the *experience* from my perspective.

That response is very hypocritical in light of the importance you appear to place on personal experience. Why the double standard?

I just don't *care*, anymore than I care about other peoples religious experiences. There's no double standard, it's just not worth my time asking random people about their various experiences.

The thread is about mind, and we were discussing personal experience. Not everything discussed on this board must be relevant to your astrophysical straw-men.

I just pointed out to you that your "invisible free lunch sky deity" is more impotent on Earth than the average concept of God. At least I *can* think of some experiments that might pan out, but like almost all such experiments it requires the *participation* of a conscious entity which I have no personal control over.

 

[Davian]

Ditto for your impotent on Earth inflation deity.

Please provide a reference to the appropriate scientific paper that shows that inflation can be demonstrated on Earth. Failure to provide the paper will be accepted as abdication.

In terms of demonstrating it's not a figment of *one* human imagination, that's rather easy to do. Jesus said 2000 years ago that the Holy Spirit would testify for his words and teachings on the topic of God, and spirituality in general. Both Strathos and myself have experienced such internal events in our lives, and we both therefore accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

Did you not just say "I just don't *care*, anymore than I care about other peoples religious experiences."? and, how do you know what Strathos has experienced? You don't do you? Therefore, your example fails. That you base your beliefs on your own experience and others, in the absence of corroborating, testable, falsifiable evidence only reflects your level of credulity.

And don't make it worse by telling me I "believe" or "have faith" in some astrophysics concept.

The question still stands: Name one person that can demonstrate that this experience is anything other than an internal experience, that of the imagination.

Furthermore, Muslims as well as Christians revere Jesus as a great teacher on the topic of God, and together they represent more than 1/2 the planet today.

Argument from popularity fallacy.

t's quite easy to show a connection between human experiences the world over, over a period of thousands of years.

Tell me, when you hit your thumb with a hammer, does it hurt? Me too!

On the other hand, your inflation deity, along with "Guthanity" is a relatively *young* religion. Almost *nobody on Earth* actually understands it,

Speak for yourself.

with the exception of a few "high priests" who ascribe their deity with mathematical properties galore, not a single one of which shows up in the lab.

Please provide a reference to the appropriate scientific paper that shows that inflation can be demonstrated on Earth. Failure to provide the paper will be accepted as abdication.

I'll save us time and skip the redundant nonsense.

You mean, evade. ...you cut out so many parts of my post I barely recognize it.

Well, you'd have to conclude then that he's a character in *thousands* of books, if not hundreds of thousands of books written by human beings on the topic of God since the dawn of recorded human civilization.

You mean "gods".

Godchecker mythology encyclopedia - Your Guide To The Gods

"We have more Gods and Goddesses than you can shake a stick at.

Our Mythology Encyclopedia features over 3,700 weird and wonderful Supreme Beings, Demons, Spirits and Fabulous Beasts from all over the world. Explore ancient legends and folklore, and discover Gods of everything from Fertility to Fluff with Godchecker..."

On the other hand, if you impotent sky deity can't do any magic tricks on Earth, I have no reason to believe he does magic tricks somewhere in space. I'd have to conclude your invisible dead sky deity in a fictional force related to one and only one otherwise falsified cosmology theory.

Please provide a reference to the appropriate scientific paper that shows that inflation can be demonstrated on Earth. Failure to provide the paper will be accepted as abdication.

Me? Nah. The mainstream is scrambling now since Planck to "explain" that blatant failure to "predict" a *non homogenous* layout of matter that produced variations from one hemisphere to the other. Guth didn't personally ever predict any such thing! In fact, that finding directly refutes his *original* claims. They'll come to some "consensus" on how to fix it sooner or later, but so far I've head a ton of various "excuses", and some that include even *more* fictional forms of energy, including "curvatons". How do I know how they will ultimately fix their mess?

I know that I am not setting the bar high here, but if your "facts" are not good enough for wiki, there are not good enough for me.

WMAP is *old* news. Planck showed that there are hemispheric variations in the data that simply should not be there according to Guth, the *inventor* of the fictional sky deity.

Are you lying? Did you not just delete this from my post in your reply?

If you were familiar with inflation theory, and Guth's papers, you would have that information, and how he was building on the work of others. I do recall providing a link to that specific page in the past. Do you not recall that?

If you need to lie, we can call this quits. If you can't remember what is being discussed from one post to the next, we are done.

Yep. It's like a dead deistic religion in terms of it's practical use on Earth. It's therefore useless to me.

Please provide a reference to the appropriate scientific paper that shows that inflation can be demonstrated on Earth. Failure to provide the paper will be accepted as abdication.

I don't think *you* understand the theory well enough to know that is a strawman argument about Guth's fictional impotent friend, and what's not.

Please provide a reference to the appropriate scientific paper that shows that inflation can be demonstrated on Earth. Failure to provide the paper will be accepted as abdication.

I started a whole thread on the topic:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

Been there. It's a dud.

I ripped apart Guth's personal website around here somewhere for you, including all his ridiculous nonsense about a "free lunch". If I get bored between football games this weekend, I'll see if I can round up a link for you.

No, it was you just ranting. Don't bother.

Oh give me a break. You've compared God to leprechauns how many times already?

It what way is the comparison inappropriate?

Jesus. Strathos and I can both vouch for him.

You both were there? How did you verify this? If you cannot do it for yourself right now, how did you do it for someone 2000 years ago?

You did ask me about my *experiences* riding a bike. In my *experience* your question doesn't jive with my *experience*. During those *experience* I learned that *leaning* was the best way to turn the bike. Your question implies *ignorance* of the *experience* from my perspective.

I asked you a specific question, and twice you failed to answer the question as asked.

I just don't *care*, anymore than I care about other peoples religious experiences. There's no double standard, it's just not worth my time asking random people about their various experiences.

It is a double standard. At the beginning of your post you were all over other people's experiences, counting half the planet's population, including Muslims. You contradict yourself within the same post.

I just pointed out to you that your "invisible free lunch sky deity" is more impotent on Earth than the average concept of God.

I still do not know what you mean by "average concept of God". Is there one that is not a dud? No?

At least I *can* think of some experiments that might pan out, but like almost all such experiments it requires the *participation* of a conscious entity which I have no personal control over.

Might pan out? But they haven't have they?

 

[Michael]

Please provide a reference to the appropriate scientific paper that shows that inflation can be demonstrated on Earth. Failure to provide the paper will be accepted as abdication.

The impotency of your sky deity on Earth makes it *utterly useless* IMO. It's more impotent in terms of the physics than *any* physical definition of God, including panentheism and pantheism. It's akin to a *dead deistic* religion.

Did you not just say "I just don't *care*, anymore than I care about other peoples religious experiences."? and, how do you know what Strathos has experienced? You don't do you? Therefore, your example fails. That you base your beliefs on your own experience and others, in the absence of corroborating, testable, falsifiable evidence only reflects your level of credulity.

Well, in the sense you can twist my words, sure. I've satisfied my curiosity over the years in terms of asking them why they chose Christianity, about their *experiences* and such many years ago. I no longer have to run around *interrogating* them before I believe them.

I've ridden a bike (and motorcycle) myself, and I've given you my personal answer. I have no idea why you think your question isn't a "trick question' since that sure is what it seems like based on *my experiences*.

And don't make it worse by telling me I "believe" or "have faith" in some astrophysics concept.

You've been promoting the single most "supernatural' concept of astrophysics that I can personally think of other than string theory.

The question still stands: Name one person that can demonstrate that this experience is anything other than an internal experience, that of the imagination.

Ditto for guthianity. Inflation has no tangible effect on anything on Earth. It's an invention of the human mind, specifically the mind of Guth. It's been an 'evolving meme" ever since. It has no use or purpose outside of one otherwise falsified cosmology theory that is nothing but a two bit creation mythos that defies the laws of physics! There is no "free lunch' in physics.

Argument from popularity fallacy.

Like you're not a pulling an appeal to authority fallacy with your impotent (dead) inflation deity?

You mean, evade. ...you cut out so many parts of my post I barely recognize it.

I'm simply trying to cut out the repetition.

You mean "gods".

No, I mean *religions*. Atheists can't seem to grasp the term 'monotheism' apparently.

Are you lying?

No, are you?

Did you not just delete this from my post in your reply?

If you were familiar with inflation theory, and Guth's papers, you would have that information, and how he was building on the work of others.

Who in the past described 'inflation' or anything *remotely* like it? Guth just "made up" the concept about "negative pressure vacuums" and whole host of his own personal "free lunch' nonsense. He claimed to solve the "missing monopole problem', apparently building on a completely *bogus* premise. He didn't solve a missing monopole problem anymore than solved the missing unicorn problem with inflation theory. The whole premise was based on a flawed concept from day one. If you want to claim he built his supernatural house of cards on previous house of cards, I suppose you *could* make a case, but it's going to be a very thinly veiled case at best!

Drop the liar liar pants on fire routine and we'll both enjoy the conversation a while lot more.

I'll stop here since I'm headed out to watch football. I'll see if I missed anything important when I get back.

 

[Strathos]

I do not see where.

Your first line in that post.

It is not my fault that they do not count.

Only not to you, because you are being contentious.

Again, I asked, by "personal" you mean "that which should be disregarded"? Yes or no?

Mu.

I did not say that it did.

Then what was the point of bringing it up?

So personal experience does not accurately reflect the process of walking down the street?

Depends what you mean by "process".

When you were asked for definitions, you failed to say that all you were providing were assumptions

.

They are definitions as I understand them. If you reject the very concept that is being defined, then from your perspective such definitions are irrelevant anyway.

lol. I think I've had enough of you "responding accordingly"

In other words, you're thinking this is futile.

It says you have home field advantage. What of it? Are we done here?

Maybe Justa will come back from his snipe hunt with something interesting.

My point is that if I was denigrating and rejecting the concept of leprechauns on a leprechaun-believer's forum, then one of those leprechaun-believers could point out that I was not exactly being honest in my rejection, because after all I must have had some interest in leprechauns to be posting on the forum in the first place.

 

[Davian]

<snip>
Drop the liar liar pants on fire routine and we'll both enjoy the conversation a while lot more.

Drop the practice of deleting sections of my posts in a fashion which, in effect, make it appear that you have addressed my points. This is intellectually dishonest. You can go back and respond to the entire post.

I'll stop here since I'm headed out to watch football. I'll see if I missed anything important when I get back.

Please provide a reference to the appropriate scientific paper that shows that inflation can be demonstrated on Earth. Failure to provide the paper will be accepted as abdication.