Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Okay, have it your way buddy. You should write a paper on your knowledge concerning the existing life forms in far away galaxies.
    Hey, you're the one who holds that Buddhas possibly exist on other planets, not me. I'm sure your paper would be far more interesting.
    Last edited by Adrift; 08-01-2017, 07:10 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Okay, have it your way buddy. You should write a paper on your knowledge concerning the existing life forms in far away galaxies.
      Translation: "Dang, I have no comeback for that which won't make me look even more goofy. I'll try shifting to burden of proof to the other guy, since I have no idea how to tackle that."
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        It’s not denying the existence of supernatural explanations as a matter of faith; it’s the rejection of the supernatural due to the lack of substantive evidence. Supernaturalism assumes the existence of something outside the natural world, but there’s simply no good reason to make this assumption. It can only be an act of faith.



        This is just the rehashed ‘watchmaker’ teleological argument from design. There is no compelling evidence to believe that any theistic claim is true.
        Wrong! Since I, and others, have pointed out that objective evidence of a creator who is not part of the creation is not possible. I have used no Natural Theology in that statement. If there is a creator outside of the creation that creator is not subject to science - a methodology to examine the creation only. Thus the fact that you can not test for that concept is meaningless in determining the truth of the concept. You are arguing in a strictly circular manner as usual.
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          Translation: "Dang, I have no comeback for that which won't make me look even more goofy. I'll try shifting to burden of proof to the other guy, since I have no idea how to tackle that."
          Ah the pea brain, I mean peanut gallery chimes in again. Try speaking to the issue once in a while rather than just critiquing those speaking. Stop being a boar!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            Ah the pea brain, I mean peanut gallery chimes in again. Try speaking to the issue once in a while rather than just critiquing those speaking. Stop being a boar!
            Not sure if that was just your typical bad spelling, or a very clever pun.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Ah the pea brain, I mean peanut gallery chimes in again. Try speaking to the issue once in a while rather than just critiquing those speaking. Stop being a boar!
              Adrift is handling the issue just fine; he doesn't need my help here.

              Pro tip: If someone's calling you out for not having the smarts to answer something, belittling the person in return for being small-brained without actually attempting an answer is not one of your better options. Try again, kemosabe.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                Adrift is handling the issue just fine; he doesn't need my help here.

                Pro tip: If someone's calling you out for not having the smarts to answer something, belittling the person in return for being small-brained without actually attempting an answer is not one of your better options. Try again, kemosabe.
                Boaring.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Not sure if that was just your typical bad spelling, or a very clever pun.
                  Well, he did make a peanut gallery/peanut brain joke in the same post which more than likely already taxed his brain to the max for at least an hour

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Well, he did make a peanut gallery/peanut brain joke in the same post which more than likely already taxed his brain to the max for at least an hour
                    The fact that he used it again (Boaring) tells me he did it by accident the first time and did it the second time on purpose to try to play it off as on purpose. Regardless, it was a good pun on OBP. I give him props and a golf clap

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      Blindness is a physical condition. So if a “miraculous” cure occurred science would be able to investigate its cause without coming to a “therefore god” conclusion.



                      You haven’t established that God heals any.
                      And in your frame of mind, no-one ever could. You would ALWAYS assume it was something - anything - else. That is your bias. It is an irrational, but unmovable position. You are a good illustration of why rational thought can't be counted on to change a person's position if that position is based on emotion or deep-seated bias. It is ALWAYS possible to explain any circumstance as being something other than the thing you do not want it to be.



                      It’s reasonable to assume that natural laws and constants exist in other universes of the multiverse even if they are different to those with which we’re familiar in this universe.’
                      No it's not. It is SIMPLER to assume that. Be we have no reason to assume that. Consider if some other universe instead of curling up the majority of dimensions unfurls a few more - say four or five. Or perhaps another universe - instead of having just one time-like dimension has two or three. Reality in those universes would be very, very different from our own. Likewise, there is no known (material) reason that the universal constants themselves should take on the specific values they have in our universe. That they did is fortunate for us, but it is actually a rather simplifying, arbitrary assumption that helps you retain a means of denying the possibility of something like the supernatural somewhere. Inventing 'reasonable' assumptions to avoid having to admit there is some remote possibility of something like what we call the supernatural is in fact just another example of my first point. A person can ALWAYS explain away what that person doesn't want to be true or possible - similar to how one can choose to believe in what what wants to be true. Happens all the time Tassman. When it is negative, we call it bigotry, bias, prejudice, intellectual dishonesty, and cognitive dissonance. When it is positive we tend to call it faith, or hope, or an asperation or personal goal. So you can keep pretending you have some sort of intellectual high ground by choosing not to believe in God, but the reality is it is just another chosen belief.

                      Jim
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        And in your frame of mind, no-one ever could. You would ALWAYS assume it was something - anything - else. That is your bias. It is an irrational, but unmovable position.
                        My “frame of mind” would assume a natural explanation on the basis that there’s no substantive evidence of a supernatural one. This is the “rational” position, not positing god-did-it.

                        You are a good illustration of why rational thought can't be counted on to change a person's position if that position is based on emotion or deep-seated bias. It is ALWAYS possible to explain any circumstance as being something other than the thing you do not want it to be.
                        Surely this better applies to the theistic position.

                        No it's not. It is SIMPLER to assume that. Be we have no reason to assume that.
                        No, it’s more logical to assume that natural laws and constants exist in other the other universes of the multiverse even if they are different natural laws to our universe. The alternative would be a capricious universe with no fixed laws; such a universe couldn’t function as a coherent universe.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          No, it’s more logical to assume that natural laws and constants exist in other the other universes of the multiverse even if they are different natural laws to our universe. The alternative would be a capricious universe with no fixed laws; such a universe couldn’t function as a coherent universe.
                          And so you cut from your quote of my post the examples I gave of rational and logical reasons why we might expect the natural laws would or are even likely to be different across the multiverse.

                          So now when the argument doesn't go your way, you are willing to alter the words of the other fellow so you can respond to some strawman version of their words?

                          IOW, You just lost the the argunent.

                          Jim
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            And so you cut from your quote of my post the examples I gave of rational and logical reasons why we might expect the natural laws would or are even likely to be different across the multiverse.
                            Well, I might note that you didn’t deal with my responses either.

                            I snipped the bulk of the last paragraph of your previous post, because it was purely speculative. But, here we go:

                            No it's not. It is SIMPLER to assume that. Be we have no reason to assume that. Consider if some other universe instead of curling up the majority of dimensions unfurls a few more - say four or five. Or perhaps another universe - instead of having just one time-like dimension has two or three. Reality in those universes would be very, very different from our own.
                            Certainly! But they would have their own fixed laws and constants nevertheless. There’s no good reason to imagine that the laws governing other universes would be capricious or have a supernatural component.

                            Likewise, there is no known (material) reason that the universal constants themselves should take on the specific values they have in our universe.
                            Indeed! They could be very different from our own.

                            That they did is fortunate for us, but it is actually a rather simplifying, arbitrary assumption that helps you retain a means of denying the possibility of something like the supernatural somewhere.
                            Again, there’s no good reason to imagine they have a supernatural component.

                            Inventing 'reasonable' assumptions to avoid having to admit there is some remote possibility of something like what we call the supernatural is in fact just another example of my first point. A person can ALWAYS explain away what that person doesn't want to be true or possible - similar to how one can choose to believe in what what wants to be true.
                            Once again, I would always assume a natural explanation on the basis that there’s no substantive evidence for a supernatural one...merely speculation. This has nothing to do with avoiding the “remote possibility of something like what we call the supernatural”, there’s just no good reason to accept such a "possibility".

                            Happens all the time Tassman. When it is negative, we call it bigotry, bias, prejudice, intellectual dishonesty, and cognitive dissonance. When it is positive we tend to call it faith, or hope, or an asperation or personal goal. So you can keep pretending you have some sort of intellectual high ground by choosing not to believe in God, but the reality is it is just another chosen belief.
                            No, it’s not “just another chosen belief”, it’s a belief based upon the lack of substantive evidence for supernatural entities.
                            Last edited by Tassman; 08-02-2017, 02:17 AM.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Tassman, you are a close-minded fundy Atheist. Just own it already.



                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                Well, I might note that you didn’t deal with my responses either.
                                There are parts of your responses I did choose not to respond to - butI have never called you out because you happened not to choose to respond to some point made in one of my posts. This is quite different, and I'm curious how you think that is equivalent to responding to a point made while only including PART of the point made in the reply? That is altering the content of the debate and in this case in a way that directly supports your claim it is reasonabe to assume the natural laws would be the same across the multiverse. That is cheating and is at its core unethical.

                                I snipped the bulk of the last paragraph of your previous post, because it was purely speculative. But, here we go:
                                The entire multiverse concept is purely speculative Tassman! But the parameters of that speculation include multiple variations, only the most restrictive of which would presume natural law to be the same across it.


                                Certainly! But they would have their own fixed laws and constants nevertheless. There’s no good reason to imagine that the laws governing other universes would be capricious or have a supernatural component.
                                Tassman, this is ridiculous. First - supernatural simply means outside or over the natural as defined by this universe. It does not imply capricious, it does not imply there are no laws or rules governing it. The Christian religion in specific not only does not propose a capricious supernatural but rather stands in opposition to it. Second, my comments are oriented around proposing that we might find that the supernatural is in fact simply the intrusion of some other reality (some other universe in the multiverse) into our own. Or perhaps more in line theologically, an intrusion of that in which we find the multiverse into our universe - say an 'super-verse'.

                                And just to put a light on how limited your thinking is on these matters. Let is consider how a 'super-verse' might in fact contain our universe but be able to interact with it in a way that would be percieved by us as 'super-natural'. One very simple explainitory mechanism for that would be if our universe was in fact some sort of computational simulation contained within some 'hardware' in some other universe or 'super-verse'. Those maintaining the simulation could in fact stop it (save state), adjust its parameters and then restart it. The inhabitants of the simulation would be completely unaware of this activity. And in fact would be completely unaware of this super-verse. In fact, this effect is quite common these days in virtual machines where they run on simulated hardware but are (mostly) unaware of that fact due to hardware constructs that support such a simulation. I can stop the vm and when it wakes up, it has very few extant cues anything happened at all. And I could in fact if I chose to remove all visibility of the 'gap' by running simulated clock hardware.

                                A 'miracle' then in this analogous representation is just a programmer of the simulation deciding he wants things to proceed a bit differently and adjusting the parameters to support that change. The inhabitants have no way of interacting with these programmers unless the programmers choose to make it possible. They have no tools to detect, record, or otherwise ascribe 'cause' to (as defined by the rules governing the simulation) the actions of these programmers. Yet they are in fact quite real, perhaps from the standpoint of the 'super-verse' MORE real than the simulations inhabitants. Nevertheless, they are quite invisible to them, quite undetectable.

                                The point being that current scientific speculation based on what we KNOW today, now, leaves open the possibility of the reality of what you so arrogantly dismiss. And despite your claims to the contrary - there IS evidence such a supernatural does exist. In fact, exactly the kind of evidence that in the speculation I outline above could be the ONLY possible evidence of such a thing. Adjustments that are unpredictable. Observable but with no assignable cause. Such have been reported throughout history and by reputable, sane observers.


                                Indeed! They could be very different from our own.



                                Again, there’s no good reason to imagine they have a supernatural component.



                                Once again, I would always assume a natural explanation on the basis that there’s no substantive evidence for a supernatural one...merely speculation. This has nothing to do with avoiding the “remote possibility of something like what we call the supernatural”, there’s just no good reason to accept such a "possibility".
                                And here I need to make the point again that you are ascribing extra properties to the supernatural I have never proposed nor do I believe are necessary, reasonable, or part of what Christians propose or believe. The Christian theological representation of heaven and hell, of angels and demons, is very much analogous to that of another universe with its own set of laws parallel to our own and that also happens to be able to interact with our universe. God is a being over all that - outside all such universes or realms.

                                No, it’s not “just another chosen belief”, it’s a belief based upon the lack of substantive evidence for supernatural entities.
                                Again, since the supernatural is not a realm composed of 'substance' as defined in this universe, there can't be 'substantive' evidence for it. But I've given you a perfectly good example based on current scientific theories of how such a state could exist and have evidence and influence, but not 'substantive' evidence of a scientific nature.

                                Jim
                                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 08-02-2017, 08:18 AM.
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X