Why ... (2)

[Oncedeceived]

You never explained why it was "interesting", post #856.

If you wish to discuss back posts in this thread please go to the extra effort to copy and paste. I am not going to flip about trying to find the posts you are talking about.

No, it is fairly easily to view your definition as a strawman when you are using words such as "immaterial" for which you cannot provide a positive ontology. See post #2.

Same here, although I know what you are talking about here. Immaterial is something that has no material body or form.

My worldview is irrelevant at this time, as I am not here to compare it to anything.

So who is being evasive?

Yes, these claims are most certainly unfalsifiable, and in this context, without significance, they do not contribute to this discussion, and they do not support your world view.

You may claim they are unfalsifiable, however, you can not claim that they are insignificant or that they do not contribute to the discussion. Denial of evidence, denial of whether or not they support my worldview is your opinion. You are denying that universe had a beginning, yet the current scientific consensus says it did. You say that the appearance of design is anthropomorphic projection and deny what the top physicists claim. What do you base this opinion on? It is common to project appearance in such simple matters as whether or not there is a cow in the sky but when the complexity level is as high as that of the universe, I think that is stretching the imagination to new heights.

The appearance of design may only be our anthropomorphic projection onto what we see around us, an illusion. That would be a far more parsimonious explanation.

Actually the far more parsimonious explanation is that if it appears to be designed, it is designed.

Design is not proven. That you believe it to be designed is not proof of design.

Equally, your opinion that it is not, does not prove it isn't.

I am still waiting for this testable criteria by which you might determine design.

The criteria that physicists have used to determine the universe appears to be designed are the unnatural prominence of precise and mathematical equations that should they be any different the universe would not allow life to form. In fact, that the universe itself might not exist. Coincidence is too much of a stretch to allow for a natural cause. The testable criteria for this statement is the mathematical precision of all constants of physics in the universe.

No, I am open to other means of exploring reality. However, I do not think your unfalsifiable claims are making any progress.

Oh, well lets hear them.

Above, where you said: "I have given claims that are most certainly unfalsifiable."

Those claims were unfalsifiable. Are you confusing "unfalsifiable" with "irrefutable"?

No.

You "answers" were that God designed and created the universe and God is the unseen force that keeps things from flying apart. Amirite?

And?

Goddidit. No explanatory value at all.

I provided claims and evidence for them. No God did it there.

You said, "Gaps are inconsistencies." post #872. I do not accept your assertion that they are the same thing.

Suit yourself.

Gaps. So you bring in your god-of-the-gaps.

Redundant.

And in those instances, has he claimed otherwise?

Yes.

In post #872 where you admit that your worldview is based on what is unseen, undetected, unfalsifiable, and lacks proof.

copy and paste.

I was speaking specifically to your efforts to validate your Christian worldview. You may have more success in that forum.

Are you uncomfortable with me in this one?

You cite the scientific consensus for the appearance of design for the universe, the appearance of fine tuning, and the apparent beginning of the universe (often conflated with beginning, or instantiation of our cosmos), then you reject evolutionary theory, which may have an even stronger scientific consensus for being accurate (as being the explanation for the diversity of life from a common ancestor). You only cite the science that supports your claim of the moment. Do you think evolutionary biologists use a different "science" than other scientists?

Where have I rejected evolution?

Facts should be demonstrable. All you have is the appearance of design, not proof. You don't even have testable criteria, do you? That is what I base my opinion on.

I just see denial in abundance.

What logic and reason? (got you there! )

funny

I am saying that if you cannot provide testable criteria for all these claims of yours, they are unfalsifiable.

So you do believe that knowledge can only be accepted if it is testable and falsifiable?

If you have an alternate means of exploring reality, please present it.

We all rest in the metaphysical when determining reality. One denies it and the other embraces it.

It is your math if you are citing it as supporting evidence. Where has it been presented scientifically? Show your math.

Fine. I will try to get in touch with Dr. Smolin and see if he has it online somewhere.

 

[EternalDragon]

My argument earlier in this thread--imprecisely stated--was actually that as far as science is concerned, "supernatural" is a meaningless term. At least, I still haven't seen a real definition for what "supernatural" is, and everything that science is involved with minimally has a definition. If the "supernatural" had an effect on things that could be measured, quantified, and detected in a lab, we wouldn't call it supernatural, would we?

Wouldn't supernatural just be Intelligent design? Which we see all around us and measure and test all the time.

I would guess it would be like a world of robots arguing that they couldn't have possibly been created and there is no creator as none of their scientists could possibly detect anything supernatural. (I read a lot of Isaac Asimov novels).

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Wouldn't supernatural just be Intelligent design? Which we see all around us and measure and test all the time.

Only if you think shoes are made by elves. Humans design things but that's not supernatural.

I would guess it would be like a world of robots arguing that they couldn't have possibly been created and there is no creator as none of their scientists could possibly detect anything supernatural. (I read a lot of Isaac Asimov novels).

Robots are made by humans, that's not supernatural.

 

[Davian]

If you wish to discuss back posts in this thread please go to the extra effort to copy and paste. I am not going to flip about trying to find the posts you are talking about.

It was your point. I will leave it with you.

Same here, although I know what you are talking about here. Immaterial is something that has no material body or form.

From post #2, Can you define what you mean by "immaterial", other than by telling me what it isn't?

So who is being evasive?

My worldview is not relevant to the validity of your claims.

You may claim they are unfalsifiable, however, you can not claim that they are insignificant or that they do not contribute to the discussion. Denial of evidence, denial of whether or not they support my worldview is your opinion. You are denying that universe had a beginning, yet the current scientific consensus says it did.

I do not deny that the universe had a beginning. I do not deny the point of instantiation for our current cosmos. That is not in conflict with it being unfalsifiable.

Do you deny the explanatory power of Fred?

You say that the appearance of design is anthropomorphic projection and deny what the top physicists claim. What do you base this opinion on? It is common to project appearance in such simple matters as whether or not there is a cow in the sky but when the complexity level is as high as that of the universe, I think that is stretching the imagination to new heights.

"Top physicists" claim appearance of design. I concur. Do not put words in my mouth.

Actually the far more parsimonious explanation is that if it appears to be designed, it is designed.

No, that is not parsimony, lol.

Freedictionary.com: Parsimony - Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data, especially in accordance with the rule of Ockham's razor.

Equally, your opinion that it is not, does not prove it isn't.

The burden of evidence is not equal. It is on you, as you are making the claims.

The criteria that physicists have used to determine the universe appears to be designed are the unnatural prominence of precise and mathematical equations that should they be any different the universe would not allow life to form. In fact, that the universe itself might not exist. Coincidence is too much of a stretch to allow for a natural cause. The testable criteria for this statement is the mathematical precision of all constants of physics in the universe.

That is not testable criteria, as it lacks a means of testing.

Still waiting.

Oh, well lets hear them.

The floor is yours.

No.

And?

I provided claims and evidence for them. No God did it there.

You provided claims that were unfalsifiable. Where you did provide evidence, there was no "God" there. Therein lies your problem.

Suit yourself.

Redundant.

Yes.

Here I was thinking you might provide an example of those gaps.

copy and paste.

You said: "The universe would be held together by an unseen and undetected force. These are the claims, these are what we see in the universe. Are those elements unfalsifiable, I believe that they are. Do we have proof that those elements are the way they are because of God, no."

You are citing what is unseen, undetected, unfalsifiable, and has no proof, but you are asking that I accept that your worldview is consistent, reasonable, logical?

Are you uncomfortable with me in this one?

Not at all. Just trying to help.

Where have I rejected evolution?

I said, you reject evolutionary theory, as being the explanation for the diversity of life from a common ancestor.

You said, Post #636 "The unity of life could be from something other than a universal common ancestor. The three domains are not ancestral to each other. So we have no other reason for a UCA other than to explain the way these complex domains came about. Common decent can work without a UCA just on the three domains of life. So once again, there is no evidence for a UCA."

You are welcome to clarify.

I just see denial in abundance.

You are projecting.

Facts should be demonstrable. Do you concur?

funny

Grumpy?

So you do believe that knowledge can only be accepted if it is testable and falsifiable?

I am saying that if you cannot provide testable criteria for all these claims of yours, they are unfalsifiable.

We all rest in the metaphysical when determining reality. One denies it and the other embraces it.

False dichotomy, as it applies to me.

Are you here to explore reality, or validate your worldview?

Fine. I will try to get in touch with Dr. Smolin and see if he has it online somewhere.

I'll wait.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

How do you determine that the supernatural doesn't have any measurable effect on anything?

By measuring. Name a measurable supernatural effect

 

[Smidlee]

By measuring. Name a measurable supernatural effect

A human brain that wires itself? A pile of brains thinking hard trying to figure out how the brain works?

 

[Davian]

A human brain that wires itself? A pile of brains thinking hard trying to figure out how the brain works?

Did you not say you have "strong scientific evidence" for information (a product of a mind) being required for the first life?

Are you going to post this "strong scientific evidence" or will you keep it to yourself?

 

[Smidlee]

Did you not say you have "strong scientific evidence" for information (a product of a mind) being required for the first life?

Are you going to post this "strong scientific evidence" or will you keep it to yourself?

I don't believe in Frankencell as all known living cells require information (DNA) , matter (machines) and energy.

To all who believes in Frankencell may find this interesting:
http://science.discovery.com/tv-sho...e-unexplained-files-videos/blood-red-rain.htm

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

A human brain that wires itself? A pile of brains thinking hard trying to figure out how the brain works?

How is that supernatural?

 

[Smidlee]

How is that supernatural?

How it is not ?

 

[Oncedeceived]

By measuring. Name a measurable supernatural effect

Measuring what?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

How it is not ?

Because brain wiring is a natural process of development. There are no observed instances of elves or telepathy or nyads knitting neurons together.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Measuring what?

Measuring anything. I know of no supernatural measurements. No units of spiritual "energy". There is no process that can be said to be understood for which our understanding includes supernatural effects.

 

[Smidlee]

Because brain wiring is a natural process of development. There are no observed instances of elves or telepathy or nyads knitting neurons together.

So if the something supernatural happen all the time then you just consider that natural. From what I've read so far scientist has no idea how the brain wires itself.
This is why the pile of brains is still studying trying to figure out how the brain works.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

So if the something supernatural happen all the time then you just consider that natural. From what I've read so far scientist has no idea how the brain wires itself.

So when we didn't understand how lightning worked did Thor make it?

This is why the pile of brains is still studying trying to figure out how the brain works.

You are equating the supernatural with ignorance. I think that's a fair enough assessment.

 

[Smidlee]

So when we didn't understand how lightning worked did Thor make it?

I never met Thor.

You are equating the supernatural with ignorance. I think that's a fair enough assessment.

The difference between supernatural and natural would be ignorance. For example the ability to walk on water could be as simple as having access to the universe code. ( anti-gravity knowledge)

 

[Oncedeceived]

It was your point. I will leave it with you.

If you don't care enough to bring it forward, I don't care enough to go and get it.

From post #2, Can you define what you mean by "immaterial", other than by telling me what it isn't?

So go tell it to the people who write the definitions for the online dictionary.

im·ma·te·ri·al (

m

-tîr

-

l)adj.1. Of no importance or relevance; inconsequential or irrelevant.
2. Having no material body or form.

im

ma·te

ri·al·ly adv.
im

ma·te

ri·al·ness n.
Synonyms: immaterial, incorporeal, insubstantial, metaphysical, spiritual
These adjectives mean lacking material body, form, or substance: immaterial apparitions; an incorporeal spirit; insubstantial victories; metaphysical forces; spiritual beings. See Also Synonyms at irrelevant.

My worldview is not relevant to the validity of your claims.

Comfy in there?

I do not deny that the universe had a beginning. I do not deny the point of instantiation for our current cosmos. That is not in conflict with it being unfalsifiable.

How is it unfalsifiable?

Do you deny the explanatory power of Fred?

Just not interested.

"Top physicists" claim appearance of design. I concur. Do not put words in my mouth.

Considering you don't add anything to the conversation in your own words it is hard not to. If you don't want me speaking for you or making unfounded assumptions you have to supply content.

No, that is not parsimony, lol.

Oh but it is. You are always claiming the God did it argument as being simple and far reaching. I think that the simplest answer is usually true. It is pointless to do more what is done with less.

Freedictionary.com: Parsimony - Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data, especially in accordance with the rule of Ockham's razor.

Exactly. If something looks designed it is the simplest assumption that it is indeed designed.

The burden of evidence is not equal. It is on you, as you are making the claims.

If actual design is the simplest assumption and I imagine all agree, then the burden of proof switches to you. However, we were talking about opinion and that is equal.

That is not testable criteria, as it lacks a means of testing.

How so? We use mathematical equations to test with computers to calculate the result. Sounds like testing to me.

The floor is yours.

You said you had other means of knowledge other than empirical so it is your claim. Lets hear it.

You provided claims that were unfalsifiable. Where you did provide evidence, there was no "God" there. Therein lies your problem.

I told you I am not out to prove God. I am supporting my worldview with evidence. You continue to lack comprehension of the concept.

Here I was thinking you might provide an example of those gaps.

I was providing an example of the inconsistency.

You said: "The universe would be held together by an unseen and undetected force. These are the claims, these are what we see in the universe. Are those elements unfalsifiable, I believe that they are. Do we have proof that those elements are the way they are because of God, no."

You are citing what is unseen, undetected, unfalsifiable, and has no proof, but you are asking that I accept that your worldview is consistent, reasonable, logical?

I have repeatedly given you my claims. If you misunderstand I have no way of enlightening you it seems.

It is consistent, logical, and reasonable within the worldview. You have a problem with it in yours.

Not at all. Just trying to help.

Well if that is the case we can move on.

I said, you reject evolutionary theory, as being the explanation for the diversity of life from a common ancestor.

I never said that. I said we have no evidence for a UCA.

You said, Post #636 "The unity of life could be from something other than a universal common ancestor. The three domains are not ancestral to each other. So we have no other reason for a UCA other than to explain the way these complex domains came about. Common decent can work without a UCA just on the three domains of life. So once again, there is no evidence for a UCA."

You are welcome to clarify.

That is not rejection of anything. It is simply the truth. There very well might be a UCA but there is not one that can be empirically tested or experienced. The fact that all three domains are the culmination of genetic material found in all life forms provides only evidence for the three domains.

You are projecting.

No, I am quite sure I am not.

Facts should be demonstrable. Do you concur?

Are all facts demonstrable?

Grumpy?

No, projecting?

I am saying that if you cannot provide testable criteria for all these claims of yours, they are unfalsifiable.

Well you need to show me where they are unfalsifiable.

F

False dichotomy, as it applies to me.

That is no fault of mine. If you don't want your position to be falsely assumed then you might want to present your own views.

Are you here to explore reality, or validate your worldview?

I told you what I was doing.

I'll wait.

You are not the real patient sort.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I never met Thor.

And you're unlikely to either. Now we understand lightning there's no need to posit supernatural causes.

The difference between supernatural and natural would be ignorance. For example the ability to walk on water could be as simple as having access to the universe code. ( anti-gravity knowledge)

So once something is understood it's not supernatural anymore.

 

[EternalDragon]

Only if you think shoes are made by elves. Humans design things but that's not supernatural.


Robots are made by humans, that's not supernatural.

Humans are made by an intelligence, so that is not supernatural.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Measuring anything. I know of no supernatural measurements. No units of spiritual "energy". There is no process that can be said to be understood for which our understanding includes supernatural effects.

How do you know that you know of no supernatural measurements? Do you know anything about gravity? Gravity is not a material entity. We measure gravity but there is no evidence of gravity except for the measurements of the result of it. Do we measure Strong force? Where is strong force? What is strong force? What is weak force? Until you understand what all things are, you can not claim to know that we don't measure the supernatural. To conclude that the supernatural can't be measured is not based on any evidence to the contrary and only based on your opinion. Correct?