True atheists?

[Lord Emsworth]

"Radio waves" encode information.

Hopefully it does.

"Baflesticks" encode information.

In and of itself, no. Once you give it a meaning - I think it was the name you call your computer, no? - then it does.

It will be encoded with information with the mechanism for encoding information, by using the mechanism for encoding information, however that mechanism is used.

Yeah, maybe. Maybe not. I have no idea what you are trying to tell me.

The idea that one knows nothing is not universal. Its your belief.

That is not my belief.

Telling me to call it that-what-you-have-no-idea-about will be accommodated by adding the information of what we know about to it.

Don't let me keep you.

Renaming it that-what-you-have-no-idea-about does not mean that the information is carried over and thus refuted. Lol. What is this? You can't be serious.

I'm sure that feels alright and all, but you exist. Your position is based on the belief that what is given is to be rejected in favor of materialism, hence a materialist.

I am not a materialist.

You have not given anything.

I have nothing to reject.

By not sharing it.

*sigh* How would you know that you are not sharing something? How would you tell whether you are not sharing something.


OTOH, whatever.

Stripping that from the previous posts presented here does not change anything.

Start with the designer of man and chance cannot build a man. This is sufficient. Man was created. Start there.

Waiting for you all the time. "Man was created" means:

--------------------












--------------------

^^^
This is the space that I have reserved for you. There is nothing inside as of now.

I'm guessing this is a request to make radio waves perceptible.

No. Read again. I said "that-for-which-the-man-is-evidence". The man. The man! The man! The man is sufficient. Blah. Blah. You surely remember your own mantra. You tried to pass it off as evidence for, uhmmm, yeah, ... There is the rub. Go on.


If you wish, it is a request to make your stuff intelligible.

Once you have taken this first, teensy-weensy, itsy-bitsy baby step, it could be assessed, judged, and deemed as likely or unlikely, possible or impossible. We could furthermore look if that what you have offered fits at least one of the commonly accepted definitions of what a God actually is. Then I could go see if what you have offered fits the word "God" in the phrase "There is no God" as uttered by me. Heck, we could even just agree to disagree over when something is a God, and when not. And so on, and so forth.

We could actually communitcate, instead of doing this drivel.

You thought you could empty a word by replacing it with "that-which you-have-no-idea about". It doesnt work. The original information is merely transferred. Even if you called radio waves "hioloplet", the same would be done.

I am not emptying a word. You see? You refuse to fill it with meaning. And it was not about "radio waves" btw. It was about "God." Which apparantly is something that is the explanation for "the man."

*Shrug*

I guess now that you have found a name for the explanation, you only need to actually give the explanation. If you can't explain stuff, fine, your inability to explain stuff would go by the name "God."


Not an actual God as I would understand it, not anything I would feel contradicted by in the slightest (as an atheist), but there you go.

 

[Jig]

Perhaps, but the problem is that there's no reason to "inject" God into consideration. If science can't support the existence of God, then there's no clear reason why God's existence should even be considered.


eudaimonia,

Mark

This is when philosophy comes in.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is when philosophy comes in.

Philosophy certainly has its uses, but I'm not certain that its back is strong enough to bear God. Philosophy usually seems to advance only very abstract and impersonal Gods, such as a "ground of all being" God. They are so abstract and contentless one wonders why they should have any relation to the Judeo-Christian God at all. That job seems to beg science's help, and science doesn't seem willing to help.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

This is why you can't use it as a viable reason to reject God.

We don't. We use it to reject specific religious claims. Such as the Flood.

 

[Greg1234]

Hopefully it does.

It does

In and of itself, no. Once you give it a meaning - I think it was the name you call your computer, no? - then it does.

Thats what I said.

Yeah, maybe. Maybe not. I have no idea what you are trying to tell me.

Well...

That is not my belief.

Then bad choice of words.

I am not a materialist.

You have not given anything.

I have nothing to reject.

I don't have to give you yourself. Nor outline your beliefs regarding same.

*sigh* How would you know that you are not sharing something? How would you tell whether you are not sharing something.

By not holding your beliefs warranting your position.

Waiting for you all the time. "Man was created" means:

The man is intelligently designed. Stochastic processes cannot assemble life. Start there. Further is not required.

No. Read again. I said "that-for-which-the-man-is-evidence". The man. The man! The man! The man is sufficient. Blah. Blah. You surely remember your own mantra. You tried to pass it off as evidence for, uhmmm, yeah, ... There is the rub. Go on.

"That for which the man is evidence" for is not presented as "The Man!" "The man!" but mapped with radio waves.

I am not emptying a word. You see? You refuse to fill it with meaning.

I'll pretend that God as the creator was never presented, take 50 steps back, pretend that Romans 1:20 was never given, and we'll repeat the whole process. This seems to be the general fetish.

 

[Jig]

We don't. We use it to reject specific religious claims. Such as the Flood.

Historical science is heavy in philosophical assumptions. It interprets evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical points of view.

Operational science is what uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation, it cannot disprove a distant past Flood.

In operational science, we have no reason to suspect that God is miraculously changing the results of everyday experiments. But even if there were occasional miracles, the scientific practice of demanding reproducible results (and being able to test the reproducibility by repeating the same experiment) would negate the effects of occasional miracles, so the ultimate conclusions of operation science would not be affected by such miracles. Operational science is how we have medicines, computers, and airplanes.

In historical science, an occasional miracle could have significant consequences in history. These consequences could be important when we're trying to develop an accurate historical science that finds the truth of what actually happened in history. For example, IF life would not emerge from nonlife by natural chemical evolution but God wanted life so He miraculously created it, a science that ignores this possibility (because it is restricted by methodological naturalism) would not be able to find the truth.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Historical science is heavy in philosophical assumptions. It interprets evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical points of view.

Operational science is what uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation, it cannot disprove a distant past Flood.

There is no such distinction, except in the minds of those who reject science. ALL science works with the past - whether that past is microseconds ago or billions of years ago. And science makes exactly the same "philosophical" assumptions that theism does: that our senses are reasonably reliable and the universe is capable of being examined.

In operational science, we have no reason to suspect that God is miraculously changing the results of everyday experiments. But even if there were occasional miracles, the scientific practice of demanding reproducible results (and being able to test the reproducibility by repeating the same experiment) would negate the effects of occasional miracles, so the ultimate conclusions of operation science would not be affected by such miracles. Operational science is how we have medicines, computers, and airplanes.

And we have no evidence of miracles. We have anecdotal data, but no evidence.

In historical science, an occasional miracle could have significant consequences in history. These consequences could be important when we're trying to develop an accurate historical science that finds the truth of what actually happened in history. For example, IF life would not emerge from nonlife by natural chemical evolution but God wanted life so He miraculously created it, a science that ignores this possibility (because it is restricted by methodological naturalism) would not be able to find the truth.

There is no difference: forensics is science as much as biology is science. They both deal with evidence, hypothesis, testing, and theory. And science doesn't ignore miracles - this is a false claim. A miracle would produce evidence that can be examined.

If your claim is that miracles leave no traces; that God can and does manipulate the world in a way that cannot be tested - then there is no reason to believe in God. God becomes a unnecessary hypothesis. And Ockham - who fought on YOUR side - taught us what to do with such an unnecessary hypothesis....

 

[Greg1234]

Admirable. Now, Greg, you're just about on the cusp of saying something that makes sense.

So you finally see it. Only had to be posted as a response to every quote.

Let's attach your analogy (the radio thingie) to the real world. Help me out here: in the real world, the radio waves correspond to God; the radio corresponds to Man; what do the other things correspond to? Just fill in the blanks:

It this case no.

The study of the various components of the radio, conditions determined to be met, along with references to the manual on the nature of that frequency, enabling tests to be done and the diagnosis of various phenomena, are mapped with "leprachology". The intelligent design of the man is only one point.

​

This is where we are. Hence voice on the radio is man.

the various components of the radio correspond to ________________________

In this case, the physical universe and its frequency, vibration and attributes.

conditions determined to be met correspond to _________________________

In this case, the conditions to be met given that man is created. Chance cannot build a man.

to the manual on the nature of that frequency corresponds to ________________

The analysis of text as the "manual".

enabling tests to be done correspond to _______________________________

In this case, tests done determining the intelligent design of man.

the diagnosis of various phenomena correspond to _______________________

Though various, the intelligent design of the man as a phenomenon is singled out.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

It does


Thats what I said.


Well...


Then bad choice of words.


I don't have to give you yourself. Nor outline your beliefs regarding same.


By not holding your beliefs warranting your position.



The man is intelligently designed. Stochastic processes cannot assemble life. Start there. Further is not required.



"That for which the man is evidence" for is not presented as "The Man!" "The man!" but mapped with radio waves.

I'll pretend that God as the creator was never presented, take 50 steps back, pretend that Romans 1:20 was never given, and we'll repeat the whole process. This seems to be the general fetish.

I see you have given nothing. There is nothing to be assessed. I am done with you and your "God. "

 

[Jig]

There is no such distinction, except in the minds of those who reject science. ALL science works with the past - whether that past is microseconds ago or billions of years ago. And science makes exactly the same "philosophical" assumptions that theism does: that our senses are reasonably reliable and the universe is capable of being examined.

There is such a distinction. I never said historical science can't be accurate. However, the conclusions can't be repeated in controlled experiments. This is the difference.

If your claim is that miracles leave no traces;

I'm sure the Flood left traces. However, since supernatural activity is not considered as a plausible explanation, it is possible that these traces have been misinterpreted.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

So you finally see it. Only had to be posted as a response to every quote.

Your inability to make your analogy clear is not our problem.

It this case no.

Then why bother to post if you refuse to say anything?

This is where we are. Hence voice on the radio is man.

OK. That's clear.

In this case, the physical universe and its frequency, vibration and attributes.

OK. That's clear.

In this case, the conditions to be met given that man is created. Chance cannot build a man.

OK. That's clear. Provide proof that this is the case. Please note: science also says that Chance cannot build a man. No one is making this claim.

The analysis of text as the "manual".

This doesn't seem to mean anything. Please try again. What text? What analysis? What "manual"?

In this case, tests done determining the intelligent design of man.

What tests? Be specific. What specifically are the hallmarks of "intelligent design"? How do we know it's intelligent design?

Though various, the intelligent design of the man as a phenomenon is singled out.

This doesn't appear to mean anything. Please try again.

 

[Greg1234]

Then why bother to post if you refuse to say anything?

It's too bad I followed up on it. isn't it.

This doesn't seem to mean anything. Please try again.

The analysis of text as the "manual".

What tests? Be specific.

Don't have to. The "enabling of tests" was mapped with intelligent design. Tests which determine that stochastic processes cannot build the man is extra, and not required in this exchange.

This doesn't appear to mean anything. Please try again.

Though various, the intelligent design of the man as a phenomenon is singled out.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

It's too bad I followed up on it. isn't it.

Why? If you don't want to explain your analogy, don't.

The analysis of text as the "manual".

Repeating your own phrase when I've asked for clarification is NOT clarification. Please explain what you mean: what is the text; what is the analysis; what is the "manual"? Be specific. Be clear.

Don't have to.

Yes, you do if you wish to claim that either the tests or the results of the tests have any bearing on this problem. When you offer "the tests" as part of your analogy, and then say "I don't have to tell you what tests", then you're refusing to explain yourself.

If you simply refuse to explain yourself, then we can't have a discussion.

The "enabling of tests" was mapped with intelligent design.

This doesn't appear to mean anything. Please try again. What tests? What was "enabled"? What was mapped? How can you "map" something with intelligent design? Be clear. Be specific.

If you simply refuse to explain yourself, then we can't have a discussion.

Tests which determine that stochastic processes cannot build the man is extra, and not required in this exchange.

You claim those tests are relevant and part of your analogy. What tests? What were the results? What did they show? Who conducted them? Where? When? Please provide references.

If you simply refuse to explain yourself, then we can't have a discussion.

Though various, the intelligent design of the man as a phenomenon is singled out.

Simply repeating a meaningless or confusing statement does not explain it.

If you simply refuse to explain yourself, then we can't have a discussion.

You're making so much progress. Just keep pushing.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

There is such a distinction. I never said historical science can't be accurate. However, the conclusions can't be repeated in controlled experiments. This is the difference.

No, this is false. There is no such distinction. Do you consider astronomy to be a historical science? Do you consider field biology to be a historical science?

There is no such distinction. Science is based on repeatable and controlled experiments which provide us models with what happens in the real world. Is solar physics a "historical" science? According to you, it must be, even thought it's taking place right now.

I'm sure the Flood left traces. However, since supernatural activity is not considered as a plausible explanation, it is possible that these traces have been misinterpreted.

No. There are very clear traces that the flood would have left. They do not exist. Just like there are very clear traces that the Exodus would have left that do not exist.

No data supports the Flood. No data supports the Exodus. Etc. All data supports an old age for the earth. No data supports human descent from a single breeding pair approximately six thousand years ago.

 

[Greg1234]

Why? If you don't want to explain your analogy, don't.

What does that have to do with the quote?

Repeating your own phrase when I've asked for clarification is NOT clarification.

Then you should have asked for it.

Please explain what you mean: what is the text; what is the analysis; what is the "manual"? Be specific. Be clear.

There you go. The meaning of analysis, text means text on the matter of God, the manual is the manual to be mapped (on the radio waves, radio etc). Put it together.

Yes, you do if you wish to claim that either the tests or the results of the tests have any bearing on this problem. When you offer "the tests" as part of your analogy, and then say "I don't have to tell you what tests", then you're refusing to explain yourself.

No actually. This is me not getting into a Creationism/Darwinism debate. Most that will be said regardless of response is this: Though the tests which indicate that adaptation is encoded as an intelligent process has already been presented. The impracticability of random mutations (random changes as a cause) through testing indicated. The limits of adaptation has already been outlined. And with stochastic processes not assembling a man, mysterious blue moon beliefs regarding the un presented, which do not warrant a rebut, is not a factor.

This doesn't appear to mean anything. Please try again. What tests? What was "enabled"? What was mapped? How can you "map" something with intelligent design? Be clear. Be specific.

Good. What was mapped was the "enabling of tests" in regards to intelligent design. Intelligent design being what"the diagnosis of various phenomena correspond to". What the various phenomena correspond to regarding the man.

You claim those tests are relevant and part of your analogy. What tests? What were the results? What did they show? Who conducted them? Where? When? Please provide references.

Again, don't need to. Not going to.

If you simply refuse to explain yourself, then we can't have a discussion.

Terms of the subject which are explained will remain. You are seeking an extraction route.

Simply repeating a meaningless or confusing statement does not explain it.

If you simply refuse to explain yourself, then we can't have a discussion.

You're learning. Though various[phenomena come in a wide spectrum], the intelligent design of the man as a phenomenon is singled out.[the intelligent design of man is targeted for presentation and is sufficient. Not all is presented]

 

[BrianOnEarth]

@Rilke's Granddaughter

So the problem is that Greg is unable to process your arguments or accept common knowledge about biology and physics. I say unable rather than unwilling because I don't think a person would go to so much trouble over such a long period of time and so many posts unless they actually believed what they were posting.

I wager you will not be able to persuade him to change his view no matter what logical arguments you make or evidence you cite. No matter what. Because this is not a cognitive ability issue. It is more like a suppression of cognition. The emotional illusion is so vital that the cognition is not allowed to challenge it and, instead, the cognition is deployed to reinforce it, even if reasoning has to be twisted and bent out of shape. This is a sub-conscious process.

I don't think this is an education issue. Every adult in the western world must have been exposed to science and evolution in enough detail to accept it were they open-minded. Evolution is a massively evidenced fact as is the age of the Earth. It is old news and everyone can access the details and go outside and observe it. To deny it requires more than mere ignorance, it requires a deliberate denial or suppression of cognition. It is not like evolution is a really complex thing to grasp...so I reckon anyone who can do even basic cognitive tasks, like learning a language and using a PC, can easily grasp it. But only if they want to! And wanting to is the crux.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

What does that have to do with the quote?

You seemed to imply that following up on your analogy was the wrong thing to do. It's your choice.

Then you should have asked for it.

I assumed your were going to explain something when asked. I won't make that mistake again.

There you go. The meaning of analysis, text means text on the matter of God, the manual is the manual to be mapped (on the radio waves, radio etc). Put it together.

This is confusing. So by "text" you are referring to the Bible; analysis on the Bible... So by "manual" in the real world, you mean "Bible"? So - Biblical analysis/exegesis?

No actually. This is me not getting into a Creationism/Darwinism debate. Most that will be said regardless of response is this: Though the tests which indicate that adaptation is encoded as an intelligent process has already been presented. The impracticability of random mutations (random changes as a cause) through testing indicated. The limits of adaptation has already been outlined. And with stochastic processes not assembling a man, mysterious blue moon beliefs regarding the un presented, which do not warrant a rebut, is not a factor.

So you refuse to present any evidence that evolution cannot construct a person? I just wish to be clear, here.

Good. What was mapped was the "enabling of tests" in regards to intelligent design. Intelligent design being what"the diagnosis of various phenomena correspond to". What the various phenomena correspond to regarding the man.

This is meaningless. Try again.

Again, don't need to. Not going to.

Ah, I begin to understand.

Terms of the subject which are explained will remain. You are seeking an extraction route.

You're learning. Though various[phenomena come in a wide spectrum], the intelligent design of the man as a phenomenon is singled out.[the intelligent design of man is targeted for presentation and is sufficient. Not all is presented]

So, to go back to you syllogism.


P1: if man exists, then God exists.
P2: Man exists.
C1: therefore God exists.

P1: is a compound proposition:

P1a: either God or evolution created Man.
P1b: Evolution cannot create Man.
P1c: therefore, God created Man.


P2: is supported by direct observation

You refuse categorically to offer any support for P1b, because you claim you have already done so. Is this correct?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

@Rilke's Granddaughter

So the problem is that Greg is unable to process your arguments or accept common knowledge about biology and physics. I say unable rather than unwilling because I don't think a person would go to so much trouble over such a long period of time and so many posts unless they actually believed what they were posting.

Oh, I agree. He believes what he's saying.

I wager you will not be able to persuade him to change his view no matter what logical arguments you make or evidence you cite. No matter what. Because this is not a cognitive ability issue. It is more like a suppression of cognition. The emotional illusion is so vital that the cognition is not allowed to challenge it and, instead, the cognition is deployed to reinforce it, even if reasoning has to be twisted and bent out of shape. This is a sub-conscious process.

I'm not actually interested in getting him to understand the problem. I'm trying to figure out what the problem looks like to him.

I don't think this is an education issue. Every adult in the western world must have been exposed to science and evolution in enough detail to accept it were they open-minded. Evolution is a massively evidenced fact as is the age of the Earth. It is old news and everyone can access the details and go outside and observe it. To deny it requires more than mere ignorance, it requires a deliberate denial or suppression of cognition. It is not like evolution is a really complex thing to grasp...so I reckon anyone who can do even basic cognitive tasks, like learning a language and using a PC, can easily grasp it. But only if they want to! And wanting to is the crux.

Not quite. Somewhere along the line he latched onto something which proves to him that evolution cannot create a man. I'm trying to figure out what that is. Because everything else is really quite simple:

1. The Bible is a reliable text; this is supported by exegesis.

2. The Bible gives an explanation for how man came to be.

3. Evolutionary theory offers an explanation for how man came to be.

4. These are the only two possible explanations: the Bible story or evolutionary theory.

5. Evolutionary theory is completely wrong; evolution of a man is impossible.

6. Therefore the Biblical account is correct.

It's number 5 I'm trying to pin down - the rest is commonplace.

5.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

It's number 5 I'm trying to pin down - the rest is commonplace.

You may be right and good luck. I doubt that Greg is not perfectly aware of the proof of evolution embodied in DNA and many other things. I just cannot imagine anyone doubting the science on objective grounds in the year 2010. So I think he rejects it because it threatens his God hypothesis, which is an emotional immovable object, and he will simply invent endless excuses to deny it.

But I shall watch with bated breath.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

You may be right and good luck. I doubt that Greg is not perfectly aware of the proof of evolution embodied in DNA and many other things. I just cannot imagine anyone doubting the science on objective grounds in the year 2010. So I think he rejects it because it threatens his God hypothesis, which is an emotional immovable object, and he will simply invent endless excuses to deny it.

But I shall watch with bated breath.

There is also the challenge of trying to pin down such gobbledegook and figure out what he means. It's reasonably clear now. I just want confirmation.