Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) Don't believe in God (which means you're an 'anti theist fundy-type)
2) Aren't conservative (which means you're a 'socialist')
For those grievous offenses, AA will rail against you with his special combination of vapidity and incoherence.
I take it you mean Arach Angle? I'm neither a theist nor a conservative (voted for Jill Stein twice, don't mind telling you), and I don't recall them ever doing that to me...
The reality is that we can not control how others interpret anything. Your interpretation makes too many assumptions about how I use the two aspects and they are wrong. In my Synthesis, I tried to establish a plausible explanation for the existence of what you might call the mystical or supernatural that is completely natural when the nature of our reality is truly understood. Of course, this requires going beyond the current bounds of scientific knowledge by making scientifically plausible hypotheses and extrapolations consistent with current knowledge. I overlay the science with my personal mystical beliefs based on my experiences that incorporate the use of speculations in what I refer to as the spiritual fossil record of speculations about God.
You begin by saying my interpretation makes too many assumptions, and then follow with a rousing confirmation of all of those assumptions. What you just wrote....that is exactly what I am criticizing and saying is bad methodology.
That's not how you usually give this premise. Up until now, you've been saying we've evidence that nothing is being done, which is quite a different statement. I can agree with this premise, properly understood.
Dickering. However you put it. The way it looks is the evidence. The absence of evidence for it being any other way is No Evidence for your claim.
Quote:
But enough to explain what's to be explained.
Yes - there has to be some kind of explanation.
Quote:
Or, that there is a god doing something is one.
And that there couldn't be such a reason is just an assumption.
No. This is where you are doing it wrong. You are shifting the burden of proof. The evidence is that 'nothing is being done' is the simpler (and thus preferable) explanation of the way it looks. We ( ) don't have to prove that there is no god, only that this is the logically preferable explanation.
Quote:
And I would like you to clarify what you mean by "doing something". Do you mean getting rid of the suffering/evil? Because even if the Christian grants that god isn't removing the suffering/evil, you have to support the premise that he should be doing that to make the problem of evil argument work. Or do you mean that we don't see any supernatural effects making changes to the evil in the world? Because that's a matter of opinion. Plenty of people who believe in karma see examples of "it" all over the place.
I'm afraid that is too much like the 'what evidence would convince you that God exists?' ploy. Something pretty undeniable. Something more than one person surviving a disaster, or a pilot getting a plane down in one piece or finding your car -keys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The reality is that we can not control how others interpret anything. Your interpretation makes too many assumptions about how I use the two aspects and they are wrong. In my Synthesis, I tried to establish a plausible explanation for the existence of what you might call the mystical or supernatural that is completely natural when the nature of our reality is truly understood. Of course, this requires going beyond the current bounds of scientific knowledge by making scientifically plausible hypotheses and extrapolations consistent with current knowledge. I overlay the science with my personal mystical beliefs based on my experiences that incorporate the use of speculations in what I refer to as the spiritual fossil record of speculations about God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
When are you planning to do those "scientifically plausible hypotheses?"
When is he going to support his claim that my arguments against Vic's points were wrong? Has he 'forgotten' that already?
You begin by saying my interpretation makes too many assumptions, and then follow with a rousing confirmation of all of those assumptions. What you just wrote....that is exactly what I am criticizing and saying is bad methodology.
Do you not realize that you have done this?
Do you know how science advances knowledge on the frontiers? They use existing knowledge and extrapolate from it to plausible (but not yet known) explanations. It is only when they have some measurable methodology to validate the hypotheses that they validate them. My hypotheses are at that stage just prior to validation but we do not yet have the measurement methodology to validate them. You seem unaware of this or you would not criticize the methodology at this stage as being bad. My Synthesis lays out the essential groundwork and theory from existing knowledge that produced my plausible hypotheses so criticizing their lack of validation is premature.
Do you know how science operates? I does indeed extrapolate from what is known. These extrapolations are called hypotheses and they are not considered proven until proven. The Higgs -Boson and Relativity required proof before they were accepted as scientific fact.
Thus, unverified hypotheses like pretty much all the claims you make are no more than that.Back to you. To back up your claim that I was reasoning wrongly in regard to Vic's arguments.
My Synthesis lays out the essential groundwork and theory from existing knowledge that produced my plausible hypotheses so criticizing their lack of validation is premature.
As would be claiming any validity. Plausible hypotheses are easy, establishment is difficult. Come back when you have found your proof. Do you recognize that with the above, you are telling us that you have nothing? If you don't, it isn't because you have not been told numerous times by board participants.
As would be claiming any validity. Plausible hypotheses are easy, establishment is difficult. Come back when you have found your proof. Do you recognize that with the above, you are telling us that you have nothing? If you don't, it isn't because you have not been told numerous times by board participants.
I think Mystic's has the concept of science right...for a ways. But I compare what he's doing with the search for new drugs for medical conditions. He has an idea. He has little or no support for that idea. But he thinks if he just keeps saying it that that will be the same phase in drug development where various compounds are actually put together in varying doses to make a drug that can then be tested. This is where it falls apart as nothing more than a guess. What's missing is supporting data.
I think Mystic's has the concept of science right...for a ways. But I compare what he's doing with the search for new drugs for medical conditions. He has an idea. He has little or no support for that idea. But he thinks if he just keeps saying it that that will be the same phase in drug development where various compounds are actually put together in varying doses to make a drug that can then be tested. This is where it falls apart as nothing more than a guess. What's missing is supporting data.
That sums it up pretty well. Mystic actually know the difference between unsupported claim and scientifically valid ones, but he smokescreens his theories with what he calls 'science'.
That sums it up pretty well. Mystic actually know the difference between unsupported claim and scientifically valid ones, but he smokescreens his theories with what he calls 'science'.
Seeing oneself as an intellectual is not necessarily a bad thing. But it can get down to a battle with other intellectuals who have totally different points of view.
That's very often when i have to say that I'm out of my depth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) don't have to prove that there is no god, only that this is the logically preferable explanation. 
I'm afraid that is too much like the 'what evidence would convince you that God exists?' ploy. Something pretty undeniable. Something more than one person surviving a disaster, or a pilot getting a plane down in one piece or finding your car -keys.
