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.
Neither do I, but I AM a smart and very educated guy with scientifically defensible positions AND plausible hypotheses that exceed any pseudo-science label. I do NOT believe in any such concept as the supernatural.
Actually, most people would think that you do. You believe in an invisible cosmic intelligence that is guiding humanity and is revealing stuff into our brains - if we have our brains tuned to the "God". channel.
You say (I know) that if there IS a god, then it is exists and is therefore natural and not imaginary. Thus it is not supernatural.
Actually, most people would think that you do. You believe in an invisible cosmic intelligence that is guiding humanity and is revealing stuff into our brains - if we have our brains tuned to the "God". channel.
You say (I know) that if there IS a god, then it is exists and is therefore natural and not imaginary. Thus it is not supernatural.
Actually, most people would think that you do. You believe in an invisible cosmic intelligence that is guiding humanity and is revealing stuff into our brains - if we have our brains tuned to the "God". channel.
You say (I know) that if there IS a god, then it exists and is therefore natural and not imaginary. Thus it is not supernatural.
This is cheating and is poor methodology.
You limit what exists to those things our limited sensory system (and its artificial extensions through science) can currently measure and detect. Then with no rational reason to do so, you reject as illusion or delusion those things detected by our brain without the use of our sensory system. Why do you think our brain must rely only on our sensory system and its augmentations when over 95% of our reality is NOT measurable in that way?
You limit what exists to those things our limited sensory system (and its artificial extensions through science) can currently measure and detect. Then with no rational reason to do so, you reject as illusion or delusion those things detected by our brain without the use of our sensory system. Why do you think our brain must rely only on our sensory system and its augmentations when over 95% of our reality is NOT measurable in that way?
You know the answer to this or ought to. Because appeals to unknowns is not a valid logical argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Absolutely ALL our experiences and information about reality are the product of our brain processes so it is bogus and illogical thinking to pretend that some of our experiences are somehow less reliable and inferior to others because we can identify the brain area that produces them. It is fallacious reasoning to pretend that the experience of a presence (God) or OBE is false just because we know what area of the brain produces it. It is equally plausible that our brain is designed to process aspects of our reality using those areas and not just our typical sensory system.
The problem is, isn't it, that the stuff the brain does is openb to question. Dreams are, we surely know, not real, despite some who attempt to convince us that they are.
Science and its' methodology, look at data that we can verify and try to detect how it works. It does, as you say, propose plausible hypotheses based on what can hardly be questioned, such as the origin of life in the sea as that (according to fossil evidence) is where it evolved, or the universe expanded from an event collated out of basic protomatter. This is different from rummaging about for bits of science that can be used to clue a god-hyposthesis onto, when there is no need for it. There are unknowns of course, but postulating a god in there can only be valid if the evidence for it is there, not because science can't explain every single thing.
What it comes down to is your conviction that you own feelings about experiences that you had are right. And you will not accept that any doubt and question about that is valid.
You limit what exists to those things our limited sensory system (and its artificial extensions through science) can currently measure and detect. Then with no rational reason to do so, you reject as illusion or delusion those things detected by our brain without the use of our sensory system. Why do you think our brain must rely only on our sensory system and its augmentations when over 95% of our reality is NOT measurable in that way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You know the answer to this or ought to. Because appeals to unknowns is not a valid logical argument.
The problem is, isn't it, that the stuff the brain does is open to question. Dreams are, we surely know, not real, despite some who attempt to convince us that they are.
Science and its' methodology, look at data that we can verify and try to detect how it works. It does, as you say, propose plausible hypotheses based on what can hardly be questioned, such as the origin of life in the sea as that (according to fossil evidence) is where it evolved, or the universe expanded from an event collated out of basic protomatter. This is different from rummaging about for bits of science that can be used to clue a god-hypothesis onto when there is no need for it. There are unknowns of course, but postulating a god in there can only be valid if the evidence for it is there, not because science can't explain every single thing.
What it comes down to is your conviction that you own feelings about experiences that you had are right. And you will not accept that any doubt and question about that is valid.
I accept the doubt of others, but I do not doubt my own experiences, Arq. I know enough about what is scientifically possible to know that it plausibly incorporates my interpretations of my experiences. You do not. Your doubt is logical to you, but mine would not be. You can continue to ignore the big fat elephant in the room of your understanding about reality - the 95% that exists outside of what our science can directly measure - but I cannot. I have experiences beyond my sensory system that convince me that we should NOT limit our understanding of reality to what our senses and their extensions can measure. You and others would pretend that those things we cannot currently measure should remain unknown and relegated to the "supernatural" - a largely derogatory term to diss God belief - but I do not. It is ALL natural, but all of it is NOT currently amenable to our scientific investigation.
I accept the doubt of others, but I do not doubt my own experiences, Arq. I know enough about what is scientifically possible to know that it plausibly incorporates my interpretations of my experiences. You do not. Your doubt is logical to you, but mine would not be. You can continue to ignore the big fat elephant in the room of your understanding about reality - the 95% that exists outside of what our science can directly measure - but I cannot. I have experiences beyond my sensory system that convince me that we should NOT limit our understanding of reality to what our senses and their extensions can measure. You and others would pretend that those things we cannot currently measure should remain unknown and relegated to the "supernatural" - a largely derogatory term to diss God belief - but I do not. It is ALL natural, but all of it is NOT currently amenable to our scientific investigation.
I know, and I've told you this plenty of times before - your experiences convince you, and you have worked out an ingenious theory based on some science and logic, the logic of which is reversed, I know, and science of which is fiddled, as others have said, and you always denied, plus the rest being squirrelled away into the Great Unknown.
You could even be right, but you could also be mistaken. That is the one thing that you don't seem to get.
I know, and I've told you this plenty of times before - your experiences convince you, and you have worked out an ingenious theory based on some science and logic, the logic of which is reversed, I know, and science of which is fiddled, as others have said, and you always denied, plus the rest being squirrelled away into the Great Unknown.
You could even be right, but you could also be mistaken. That is the one thing that you don't seem to get.
I reversed no logic in the science, I fiddled nothing in the science, and there is plenty of room in what you call the unknown to accommodate what you reject on such slim evidence (less than 5% of reality). Because some of what I hypothesize IS unknown, of course, I could be mistaken, but I would need to encounter some serious explanation of consciousness that undermines my current knowledge of it both physically and experientially. There is no dispute that the brain PRODUCES consciousness, but there is significant dispute over WHAT that PRODUCT IS and how it manifests within our reality. There is an even greater dispute over what the PRODUCT'S fate is within reality over time.
Your defensiveness is what causes you to attribute "sneering" and "deprecation" to me as well as other derogatory attitudes. None of them accurately portray my usual attitude. It is unavoidable that I have an intellect among the top 99.9% of humanity. It is unavoidable that I have accumulated significant knowledge in science, mathematics, physics, and philosophy. You pretend to be able to assess my scientific acumen which is laughable. You pretend to be able to "suss" when I have been debunked by those claiming to be experts in some field - equally laughable. Now THAT is being deprecatory of your capabilities! Why do you provoke me into such unloving responses, Arq? I know what I know, I know what are the limits of what I know. I know that you have no clue about any of it.
Maybe you're just brilliantly wrong.
And telling us -- repeatedly -- sort of reminds me of the phrase "the ultimate". I've learned many times over that anything labeled as "the ultimate" never is that.
No, but God will. The religious God (of whatever stripe) is born of ignorant primitive and barbaric beliefs which will evaporate under their own weight as science continues to progress. But the one and only True God will eventually have to be accepted as science fails to explain God away.
The, um, "one and only True God" was born of primitive beliefs, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell
Why would you stick science with explaining something that doesn't exist? Science ends where mystical mumbo jumbo starts. Science is not in the business of explanations. It's in the business of predictive models.
That's exactly right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
What methodology are you referring to? There is only one scientific method. I taught Quantitative Research Methods at the Graduate level for 30 years. So, what common sense misguided misunderstanding do you have of my methodology? I carefully parse my views into those that are science-based and those that are beliefs based on my knowledge and experience. My Doctorate fields are Social Psychology and Quantitative Research Methods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Science is a methodology that encompasses many fields, not just physics.
Social psychology is not science. The fact that you employ the Scientific Method does not make it science.
Since you like to use the word "true," True Science is both universal and predictable. If I mix an Acid with a Base, I will always get water and a salt, no matter where I am in this Universe, and I can predict to one-thousandth of a milliliter exactly how much water will be produce, and to one-thousandth of a gram exactly how much salt will be produced, and which salt will be produced. And if I want, I can be more precise and tell you how many atoms of each, using Avogadro's Number.
Social psychology could never be science, because it can never be universal, and it can never make predictions.
At most, the best you can do is make gross generalizations that border on stereotypes, and if your accuracy in predictions was better than 10% accuracy, you'd be having a banner day.
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.
