SHEEPEOPLE

[OliviaMay]

And yet the "weight" that someone attributes to the effect is really a subjective judgement call.



No of course not, but such reports and beliefs are also *uncommon*, unlike human belief in/experience of God.



I'm sure that's the way most atheists perceive experiences of God too. The difference is that one is very *common* whereas the other is not.

I don't see that common has any bearing. There are many thousands of people who claim to have been abducted. Truth isn't based on popularity or the number of people. As it stands the comparison holds. Now if you want to add other evidence that separates belief that God interacted with people vs Aliens I will listen. However, I reject that it is more true because of popularity.

 

[OliviaMay]

Yet pattern recognition is an important part of science. Not only do they "look' the same, they have functional similarities too, starting with the fact that they are both excellent *conductors* of current. If current carrying structures in our physical forms can give rise to awareness, then why wouldn't such a process be possible at virtually *any* scale?

I don't know why not so I can't say it is impossible. However, my inability to prove something isn't so doesn't make it so.

 

[Davian]

...
The handwriting is on the wall, and unless you learn to read between the lines...your intellect won't save you from what is coming.

What is coming?

 

[Davian]

Well, for starters humans have been reporting an effect called "God" on their lives since the dawn of recorded human civilization. The existence of God would go a long way toward explaining that phenomenon.

Having active imaginations goes even further.

"Souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspirators, and all manner of invisible agents with power and intention are believed to haunt our world and control our lives. Why?"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/skeptic-agenticity/

 

[Michael]

I don't know why not so I can't say it is impossible. However, my inability to prove something isn't so doesn't make it so.

Sure, but we're right back now to 'interpreting' the evidence in a purely subjective manner.

Note that mainstream "science" ascribes at least four supernatural constructs to the physical universe which fail to show up in the lab, whereas panentheism only ascribes awareness to the universe itself, and awareness exists on Earth in a wide variety of shapes, sizes and forms.

 

[Armoured]

What is coming?

Well, Obama only has a few months left to come out as the anti-Christ, so...

 

[Davian]

http://convozine.com/12287-dharmachakra/15330

Even the large scale structures of our universe mirror 'intelligent' structures that are found on Earth.

Look, it's a mermaid on Mars! Or is that Bigfoot?

 

[OliviaMay]

Sure, but we're right back now to 'interpreting' the evidence in a purely subjective manner.

Note that mainstream "science" ascribes at least four supernatural constructs to the physical universe which fail to show up in the lab, whereas panentheism only ascribes awareness to the universe itself, and awareness exists on Earth in a wide variety of shapes, sizes and forms.

"Science" does not ascribe anything to the supernatural. Science only deals with the natural.

 

[Michael]

Having active imaginations goes even further.

"Souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspirators, and all manner of invisible agents with power and intention are believed to haunt our world and control our lives. Why?"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/skeptic-agenticity/

The irony of course is that mainstream "science" has now invented a total of four unique and separate "invisible agents" to explain our universe, whereas even the 'God' that I believe to exist is very visible and entirely empirical in every conceivable way. There's nothing "invisible' about the agent I believe in, whereas there are *four* such leaps of faith required in Lambda-CDM. Irony overload.

 

[Michael]

"Science" does not ascribe anything to the supernatural. Science only deals with the natural.

That's only half true. Scientists like Guth simply 'make up' a supernatural agent like inflation or dark energy and then they claim their supernatural agent to be "natural". There is no "natural" process to replace their supernatural constructs however, hence their creation of the supernatural agents to do their bidding. Inflation doesn't show up in the lab 'naturally". Ditto for dark energy. Dark matter 'predictions' have been falsified by the dozens.

 

[Michael]

Look, it's a mermaid on Mars! Or is that Bigfoot?

We already gone through that conversation. You simply ignore the common use of pattern recognition in science. Yawn.

 

[OliviaMay]

That's only half true. Scientists like Guth simply 'make up' a supernatural agent like inflation or dark energy and then they claim their supernatural agent to be "natural". There is no "natural" process to replace their supernatural constructs however, hence their creation of the supernatural agents to do their bidding. Inflation doesn't show up in the lab 'naturally". Ditto for dark energy. Dark matter 'predictions' have been falsified by the dozens.

You misrepresent those theories. I assume by not actually knowing much about the subject.

Inflation and energy are simply mathematical models that try to bridge the gaps of what science observes. The science is the observation. It isn't supernatural at all. Whether inflation or dark energy are true is debated in academia regularly and there are multiple alternatives. You don't mention those at all.

 

[Michael]

You misrepresent those theories.

How so?

I assume by not actually knowing much about the subject.

That's actually a bad assumption since I have been studying various cosmology theories for more than 30 years of my adult life. Besides, how much does the mainstream even 'know' about their own dark claims when they can't even name a single source of 'dark energy', and every prediction they have made about 'dark matter' has been falsified in the lab?

Clearly it's not just me that doesn't know much about the these subjects. Knowledge of "dark" stuff is tough to come by apparently.

Inflation and energy are simply mathematical models that try to bridge the gaps of what science observes.

It's a supernatural construct that can be traced to the overactive imagination of a single specific individual and it was created without any scientific precedent whatsoever. Ditto for dark energy.

The science is the observation. It isn't supernatural at all.

Photon redshift is the only 'scientific observation". The supernatural agent called 'space expansion did it' is simply a non demonstrated claim. There are several known and empirically demonstrated causes of photon redshift, but space expansion isn't one of them. Space expansion is a supernatural invisible agent that has no effect on any photon in any lab.

Whether inflation or dark energy are true is debated in academia regularly and there are multiple alternatives. You don't mention those at all.

What alternatives do they even discuss in class to unsuspecting and gullible students of astronomy?

 

[OliviaMay]

How so?



That's actually a bad assumption since I have been studying various cosmology theories for more than 30 years of my adult life. Besides, how much does the mainstream even 'know' about their own dark claims when they can't even name a single source of 'dark energy', and every prediction they have made about 'dark matter' has been falsified in the lab?

Clearly it's not just me that doesn't know much about the these subjects. Knowledge of "dark" stuff is tough to come by apparently.



It's a supernatural construct that can be traced to the overactive imagination of a single specific individual and it was created without any scientific precedent whatsoever. Ditto for dark energy.



Photon redshift is the only 'scientific observation". The supernatural agent called 'space expansion did it' is simply a non demonstrated claim. There are several known and empirically demonstrated causes of photon redshift, but space expansion isn't one of them. Space expansion is a supernatural invisible agent that has no effect on any photon in any lab.



What alternatives do they even discuss in class to unsuspecting and gullible students of astronomy?

If you have been studying cosmology for years you would know that inflation isn't scientific gospel and is a model not a theory like thermodynamics. That you continue to suggest it is to defame academics demonstrates lack of knowlege or intellectual dishonesty in discussion. I also note your interaction is rather antagonistic and petulant.

Whether inflation is or is not accurate must still be demonstrated by observation. That is where science comes in. Inflation or dark energy or matter are not supernatural. They might not be real, but if they are they are natural.

 

[DaisyDay]

Why does that matter?

Because that article despaired of its existence, that's why.

The Higgs was in fact "found" via normal experimentation,...

Sure, if you consider the Large Hadron Collider to be "normal".

...whereas no SUSY sparticle, nor any stable non-baryonic form of "dark" matter was found.

Yet.

 

[Michael]

If you have been studying cosmology for years you would know that inflation isn't scientific gospel

It's pretty much the standard "gospel" being taught to new students. They don't teach them any alternatives.

and is a model not a theory like thermodynamics.

Well, ok. The terms 'model', 'theory' and 'hypothesis' are often abused by the mainstream itself, so you really can't blame just me for that confusion. The Lambda-CDM "model' requires four hypothetical constructs. Why do they even call it "M-theory" when the whole concept is based upon hypothetical spacetime dimensions? You can't blame me for that problem.

That you continue to suggest it is to defame academics demonstrates lack of knowlege or intellectual dishonesty in discussion.

IMO you're blaming me personally for the sins of 'scientists', starting with the 'scientists' that created 'M-theory'. There is no rhyme or reason to how they label things, and there's nothing intellectually dishonest about noting the fact that even your experts are baffled about any of the details of their own claims. How many metaphysical brands of inflation are their to choose from anyway today?

I also note your interaction is rather antagonistic and petulant.

True but they started it.

Whether inflation is or is not accurate must still be demonstrated by observation.

It's properties were "made up' in the imagination of one person, and then it's properties were *modified* by other folks too in an effort to create *multiple* supernatural constructs to choose from. How does one falsify or verify a series of supernatural constructs based strictly upon "observation", when no empirical cause/effect link has ever been established? The whole thing is nothing more than an affirming the consequent fallacy run amok. Even the hemispheric variations in the CMB defy Guth's original inflation theory. Furthermore, every "property" that Guth ascribed to inflation was *made up* in the first place!

That is where science comes in. Inflation or dark energy or matter are not supernatural. They might not be real, but if they are they are natural.

No they aren't "natural". They are only *alleged* to be natural. You can't demonstrate them 'naturally' in any lab however.

 

[Michael]

I don't see that common has any bearing. There are many thousands of people who claim to have been abducted. Truth isn't based on popularity or the number of people. As it stands the comparison holds. Now if you want to add other evidence that separates belief that God interacted with people vs Aliens I will listen. However, I reject that it is more true because of popularity.

What exactly would you listen to? You're comparing a common human experience (light/sight) to a highly uncommon human experience.

 

[OliviaMay]

It's pretty much the standard "gospel" being taught to new students. They don't teach them any alternatives.



Well, ok. The terms 'model', 'theory' and 'hypothesis' are often abused by the mainstream itself, so you really can't blame just me for that confusion. The Lambda-CDM "model' requires four hypothetical constructs. Why do they even call it "M-theory" when the whole concept is based upon hypothetical spacetime dimensions? You can't blame me for that problem.



IMO you're blaming me personally for the sins of 'scientists', starting with the 'scientists' that created 'M-theory'. There is no rhyme or reason to how they label things, and there's nothing intellectually dishonest about noting the fact that even your experts are baffled about any of the details of their own claims. How many metaphysical brands of inflation are their to choose from anyway today?



True but they started it.



It's properties were "made up' in the imagination of one person, and then it's properties were *modified* by other folks too in an effort to create *multiple* supernatural constructs to choose from. How does one falsify or verify a series of supernatural constructs based strictly upon "observation", when no empirical cause/effect link has ever been established? The whole thing is nothing more than an affirming the consequent fallacy run amok. Even the hemispheric variations in the CMB defy Guth's original inflation theory. Furthermore, every "property" that Guth ascribed to inflation was *made up* in the first place!



No they aren't "natural". They are only *alleged* to be natural. You can't demonstrate them 'naturally' in any lab however.

Intellectually honest discussion is good. If you want to have it great. However that does not seem to be your goal.

Alternatives to inflation are absolutely taught in physics. They are actively looking for alternatives.

Relativity itself started out as nothing but a mathematical model. It has since held up quite well to observation.

To get angry about what academics name things hardly makes for a good case.

So stop with the childishness, you might convince people rather than make them think you are only out to flame.

 

[OliviaMay]

What exactly would you listen to? You're comparing a common human experience (light/sight) to a highly uncommon human experience.

That more people choose the word God rather than alien doesn't make the experience more common it makes the description of the experience more common. Muslims say it was Allah, Hindus say Shiva. So on the God side there is no one God people point to so it isn't even common.

 

[Michael]

Because that article despaired of its existence, that's why.

And there's a good reason too, particularly since all the popular mathematical models of SUSY theory were *falsified* at LHC, unlike the mathematical models for the Higgs.

Sure, if you consider the Large Hadron Collider to be "normal".
Yet.

Well, it's a normal empirical experiment in every way, but it's been a real pain in the neck for astronomers.