My Irreducible Complexity Challenge

[Loudmouth]

Evidence can not only be misinterpreted, but denied as well.

What evidence am I denying?

 

[AV1611VET]

What evidence am I denying?

Seeing as you're an agnostic, I could answer with a whole paragraph and a half of evidence: from your local New Testament church down on the corner, to Before Christ / Anno Domini.

 

[Loudmouth]

Seeing as you're an agnostic, I could answer with a whole paragraph and a half of evidence: from your local New Testament church down on the corner, to Before Christ / Anno Domini.

And yet you can't name one piece of evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet you can't name one piece of evidence.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks for the QED.

The only QED is the one you just supplied when you couldn't cite a single piece of evidence that I am ignoring.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only QED is the one you just supplied when you couldn't cite a single piece of evidence that I am ignoring.

Imagine that!

I'm sure it's in there somewhere.

 

[Loudmouth]

Imagine that!

I'm sure it's in there somewhere.

And yet it isn't. QED.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet it isn't. QED.

Raising QED +1 to RFE, are you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Raising QED +1 to RFE, are you?

Yet another post without any evidence that I am supposedly ignoring. QED.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet another post without any evidence that I am supposedly ignoring.

I'd say about a whole paragraph and a half of evidence I could type.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'd say about a whole paragraph and a half of evidence I could type.

Yet another post without a single example of evidence that I am ignoring. QED.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Being conditioned to not believe in irrational and illogical claims backed by zero evidence is a bad thing?

No, it's the best thing. But maybe conditioned too much, as a knee-jerk reaction to wide-spread errors.

Complete objectivity is so hard to achieve to anyone - would you agree?

Since when? If there was really an elephant in a room with me I guarantee I would have no problem accepting its existence.

You, and many other people don't. Even many so-called believers don't accept it, I see it all the time. It's hard. Our senses teach us from birth. Only what you detect, yourself or with tools, there is. The rest not. Then, let's imagine I have a half-brother, a son of my father, that I have never seen or known about in any way. Does he exist? Yes. For me? No.

The problem is that you expect people to believe in things that can't be seen and can't be evidenced in any manner.

Yes and no. Yes - that's what it seems. No - I call everything as evidence. This whole world, and our consciousness as evidence and witness.

And the changes in the density of water will be the same for all people no matter how they were raised, where they were from, or what they believe in.

Not exactly, if to be picky, but, in essence, yes. Our predictions will be correct for all people within a certain accuracy.

Doesn't it point to the intelligence of a greater magnitude? A source intelligence? Based on these very facts.

Or it is because it is? It is just because it happened? By itself, from itself, on itself? Could very well be so!!!

What if density would jump randomly. 1000g/L one day, 2000g/L next day without any cause that we could see... Then, could we say, that there is intelligence, sense, purpose in the world we know? Or just a series of random unrelated events?

We easily, easily accept the fact that our own consciousness, our intelligence is the result of what we chose to call chemical reactions and exchange of electrical charges within our nervous system. OK. A product of a closed system. Then, why is it such a crazy idea, why is it hard to accept, that there could be a greater intelligence as the "result" of this immense Universe, a small corner of which we are so lucky to observe for a short time?

What is more crazy? Intelligence from 1300 grams of grey matter, or intelligence from myriads of tons of all kinds of matter?

Just food for thought.

All of your arguments come down to believing something without any evidence to back it. Not the same thing.

Yes and no, again.

Yes - not the kind of evidence you're looking for. This evidence that we seek, is beyond the resolution of our world-knowing apparatus, which is itself part of the reality I'm talking about. The world-knowing apparatus we have, is a tool for survival of our organism, it's great for that purpose. With an optical microscope, we cannot see electrons, no matter how hard we try!

No - Not that we aren't equipped with a means of knowing the objective reality as it is.

I know, you say, I seem to you as a guy desperately trying to make you believe smth that there isn't, just because he wants everybody around to believe, or to reinforce his own ungrounded faith in those phantoms. The popular delusion, like Dawkins calls it.

Problem is, this reality is within my experience. I know that much. Not a valid argument to you. I can eat mushrooms and experience all kinds of things. I know.

Never going to convince you! But it's OK - sharing ideas. If people don't see things as I see them, it's OK. Most people I know, don't share my understanding. Not that they don't experience same reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, it's the best thing. But maybe conditioned too much, as a knee-jerk reaction to wide-spread errors.

So far, it appears to be a measured reaction to well known errors.

Complete objectivity is so hard to achieve to anyone - would you agree?

Just a little bit of objectivity would demonstrate why your analogy doesn't work. You are asking for acceptance of the unseen by using analogy of the easily seen. You keep asking us to look for things that even you admit are invisible. Do you see the problem?

Yes and no. Yes - that's what it seems. No - I call everything as evidence. This whole world, and our consciousness as evidence and witness.

You can call a giraffe a pig. That doesn't make the giraffe into a pig. You do realize that calling something evidence does not make it evidence, right?

How does our world or consciousness evidence what you claim?

Not exactly, if to be picky, but, in essence, yes. Our predictions will be correct for all people within a certain accuracy.

Doesn't it point to the intelligence of a greater magnitude? A source intelligence? Or it is because it is? It is just because it happened? Beyond facts.

I am waiting for you to make a rational, logical, and evidenced based argument for such an intelligence.

Yes - not the kind of evidence you're looking for. This evidence that we seek, is beyond the accuracy of our world-knowing apparatus, which is itself part of the reality I'm talking about. The world-knowing apparatus we have, is a tool for survival of our organism, it's great for that purpose.

Then how can it be evidence if you can't even see it? You seem to be confusing evidence with faith based beliefs.

Never going to convince you! But it's OK - sharing ideas. If people don't see things as I see them, it's OK. Most people I know, don't share my understanding. Not that they don't experience same reality.

You could convince me with evidence and a rational argument. That's the whole point.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

So far, it appears to be a measured reaction to well known errors.



Just a little bit of objectivity would demonstrate why your analogy doesn't work. You are asking for acceptance of the unseen by using analogy of the easily seen. You keep asking us to look for things that even you admit are invisible. Do you see the problem?



You can call a giraffe a pig. That doesn't make the giraffe into a pig. You do realize that calling something evidence does not make it evidence, right?

How does our world or consciousness evidence what you claim?

Not exactly, if to be picky, but, in essence, yes. Our predictions will be correct for all people within a certain accuracy.



I am waiting for you to make a rational, logical, and evidenced based argument for such an intelligence.




Then how can it be evidence if you can't even see it? You seem to be confusing evidence with faith based beliefs.



You could convince me with evidence and a rational argument. That's the whole point.

Could you please re-read my previous post to you. I've added a few things after posting - sorry!!! Not really changing the main ideas.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can call a giraffe a pig. That doesn't make the giraffe into a pig.

Does calling miracles "magic" make miracles into magic?

 

[Loudmouth]

Does calling miracles "magic" make miracles into magic?

Have any evidence to present?

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

So far, it appears to be a measured reaction to well known errors.



Just a little bit of objectivity would demonstrate why your analogy doesn't work. You are asking for acceptance of the unseen by using analogy of the easily seen. You keep asking us to look for things that even you admit are invisible. Do you see the problem?



You can call a giraffe a pig. That doesn't make the giraffe into a pig. You do realize that calling something evidence does not make it evidence, right?

How does our world or consciousness evidence what you claim?

Not exactly, if to be picky, but, in essence, yes. Our predictions will be correct for all people within a certain accuracy.



I am waiting for you to make a rational, logical, and evidenced based argument for such an intelligence.




Then how can it be evidence if you can't even see it? You seem to be confusing evidence with faith based beliefs.



You could convince me with evidence and a rational argument. That's the whole point.

I understand your point.

I could go on and on and on, and give many large or small arguments. You wouldn't accept any of them, I see already. Why? Because you reject my argument as a whole. You exclude certain possibility, as possibility. Would you agree, or no?

You expect a certain type of evidence. I'm not going to give it to you. I can't, no matter how hard I try. It's beyond your and my instruments' resolution.

I know, I look stupid that way.

How do I know it exists, then, something that we have NO physical tools to clearly see as a stand-alone identifiable object?

Here it goes. I do have a tool, and you do have a tool to see, to know this reality, as direct experience. Not just have some second-hand faith-based knowledge, e.g. that there are penguins living in Antarctica. No, this tool is within you, and it's turned full blast on, and it's working. I can't show it on a CT scanner's screen or demonstrate it based on a biochem lab's test report.

I do use it, I do know it, it does really work. There is effect. Like wind and leaves flying around - or radio waves and my FM player. Very detectable, very true. This world, and you and I - are also effects from the same source.

Fantasy!!! Pure faith!!! A monster under the bed. I know. Yes - it all can be explained away by psychology and faulty logic. "Metaphysics" - leprechauns, Zeus, tooth fairys and all...

So, we reached this very important line, probably, from which I should have started. And it's an uncrossable line for you now, is it? As long as you chose to only base your knowledge of the world on intellect alone, and to silence the most powerful instrument that you and I have inborn for knowing reality.

"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:20-21 KJV

 

[Loudmouth]

I could go on and on and on, and give many large or small arguments. You wouldn't accept any of them, I see already. Why? Because you reject my argument as a whole. You exclude certain possibility, as possibility. Would you agree, or no?

I don't exclude possibilities. What I don't see is evidence that any of these possibilities are true.

This conflation of "true" and "possibility" is one of the most insidious problems in these conversations. True and possible ARE NOT THE SAME THING. You are trying to claim that a certain thing is true, not merely possible. That is what I am disagreeing with.

You expect a certain type of evidence.

I expect evidence. Period. There aren't types of evidence. There is just evidence. Period.

The problem is that you seemed to have convinced yourself that if you believe in something hard enough that it becomes evidence. Well, it doesn't. What I am asking for are facts. Things which can be demonstrated to be true, not merely believed to be true.

It's beyond your and my instruments' resolution.

In order for that to be true it would first have to exist, which you haven't shown to be true.

Using your argument, we could claim that anything is true. Invisible pink unicorns? Those are absolutely real, but they lay beyond our ability to measure or detect. I could make up any entity I want and use your argument to make them real. Do you see the problem?

How do I know it exists, then, something that we have NO physical tools to clearly see as a stand-alone identifiable object?

You don't know. You only believe it exists. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.

Here it goes. I do have a tool, and you do have a tool to see, to know this reality, as direct experience. Not just have some second-hand faith-based knowledge, e.g. that there are penguins living in Antarctica. No, this tool is within you, and it's turned full blast on, and it's working. I can't show it on a CT scanner's screen or demonstrate it based on a biochem lab's test report.

So what is this tool? Is it my spleen? Colon? Adrenal gland? WHAT IS IT!!!?????

I do use it, I do know it, it does really work. There is effect. Like wind and leaves flying around - or radio waves and my FM player. Very detectable, very true. This world, and you and I - are also effects from the same source.

BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE?????

Fantasy!!! Pure faith!!! A monster under the bed. I know. Yes - it all can be explained away by psychology and faulty logic. "Metaphysics" - leprechauns, Zeus, tooth fairys and all...

As long as you chose to only base your knowledge of the world on intellect alone, and to silence the most powerful instrument that you and I have inborn for knowing reality.

For crying out loud, I have been arguing just the opposite the entire time. I am arguing that I need evidence that exists completely independent of my intellect in order to accept something as true.

In fact, you are describing your own position. Your argument is based entirely on what goes on in your own head, and has no ties to anything outside of it.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

I don't exclude possibilities. What I don't see is evidence that any of these possibilities are true.

This conflation of "true" and "possibility" is one of the most insidious problems in these conversations. True and possible ARE NOT THE SAME THING. You are trying to claim that a certain thing is true, not merely possible. That is what I am disagreeing with.



I expect evidence. Period. There aren't types of evidence. There is just evidence. Period.

The problem is that you seemed to have convinced yourself that if you believe in something hard enough that it becomes evidence. Well, it doesn't. What I am asking for are facts. Things which can be demonstrated to be true, not merely believed to be true.


In order for that to be true it would first have to exist, which you haven't shown to be true.

Using your argument, we could claim that anything is true. Invisible pink unicorns? Those are absolutely real, but they lay beyond our ability to measure or detect. I could make up any entity I want and use your argument to make them real. Do you see the problem?



You don't know. You only believe it exists. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.



So what is this tool? Is it my spleen? Colon? Adrenal gland? WHAT IS IT!!!?????



BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE?????

Fantasy!!! Pure faith!!! A monster under the bed. I know. Yes - it all can be explained away by psychology and faulty logic. "Metaphysics" - leprechauns, Zeus, tooth fairys and all...



For crying out loud, I have been arguing just the opposite the entire time. I am arguing that I need evidence that exists completely independent of my intellect in order to accept something as true.

In fact, you are describing your own position. Your argument is based entirely on what goes on in your own head, and has no ties to anything outside of it.

When I say, rejecting possibility - even as possibility. Or not?

I do know that there is God - an intelligence bigger than us, and there is purpose to this life. I know that Jesus Christ was saying the truth, as recorded in the Bible.

The last thing I want is for you to take my word for it. You are wise. Don't trust myself or anyone.

I could tell you many stories from my life, how I experience God. Would they be valid to you? Or will you think, it's all auto-suggestion, coincidence or wishful thinking?

 

[ewq1938]