U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-24-2018, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
17,846 posts, read 8,378,014 times
Reputation: 17426

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
It sounds a familiar recent "let's try this one" argument from the 'This is statistically impossible naturally, so it must be Jesus" stable of apologetics. It goes something like "There is no mechanism for genes adapting because they have no reasoning and cannot decide, and there is no part of evolution -theory that explains it so - 'Don't Know' will not do, It has to be God making it work (1).
Is that more or less, Mr jones? If not please explain how Epigenics disproves evolution. You will know that debunking the Goddunnit claim and saying that Evolution is the evidence has never been good enough for the believers, so just a scientific name and claim that is evidence of guided evolution isn't good enough an argument here.

(1) This is actually an excellent example of what Irreducible Complexity Ought to have been used to validate - guided evolution. So Kudos for thet. But it was always misused to try to prove that evolution cannot work, so never happened, so Genesis must be the default theory. So far as I can tell this was how Behe misused it. He didn't even seem to understand how his own theory worked.
You're more sophisticated than me. I was just thinking that in this thread several of the Christian posters are just throwing crap up against the wall to see what sticks. Unfortunately for them, some of us are actually educated in science and evolution, and the rest of us can read just was well as they can. So the only place the crap is sticking is in their own brains.

I have said before, and I will say again to the Christians on the forum when it comes to posting things about religion and science:

I would respect them more if they simply admitted we can't produce any evidence for our twisting of science to prove creation and evolution. Our beliefs are based on our faith.

That at least would be an honest response.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2018, 11:17 AM
 
32,909 posts, read 8,204,151 times
Reputation: 4630
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
Let's just read what you SAID you were talking about: "I suspect that we are talking about different things. The Costants I refer to are those basics (numerical, usually) of the physical universe and physical laws that are supposed to show that som being had to have decided what they would be. "
Now are you talking about the constants themselves, or are you talking about the fact that SOME people claim they prove a conscious choice?
You'd better explain what constants you are talking about. The ones I was addressing are the physical laws of the universe which are claimed as evidence of a designer.

Now if you are talking about constants that are related to human consciousness, you'd better identify what those are, as it is (for me) a different discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2018, 11:18 AM
 
36,837 posts, read 24,723,863 times
Reputation: 5808
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Try this, Arq. The constants we measure are a function of the time and limiting functional processes that FORM the consciousness we use to measure them, NOT something inherent in what is being measured.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
You are referring to the scientific consensus as 'jumping to conclusions?" Pray tell, either of you, where you will go for a scientifically credited view of constants and whether they are evidence of a Designing God or not.
Please, either of you, explain what possible relevance Mystic's post has to that, other than perhaps to suggest that we may be misinterpreting constants of various kinds, in which case, they are useless as evidence of anything.
And is that the scientific consensus about the reliably recurring actualities that we use various conventional labels to measure, (and, insofar as we can cross-check and verify such, we seem to get them right) and which (using the argument that without them we would not be here) are used as evidence of God -design, or is that just a conclusion to which you have jumped?
They exist as constants because the measuring tool (our consciousness) is the constant BASE against which the measures are taken and it forms and exists at the speed of light as an EM-like phenomenon. Most of the speculations about what the constants mean from a scientific point of view as well as the religious Design point of view are misguided by the failure to even consider the status of the measuring device (our consciousness). It is taken for granted. You are correct that my Synthesis is involved because I spend a lot of time explaining the effects of the general failure to consider the formation and status of our consciousness on the measurements we make.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2018, 11:22 AM
 
32,909 posts, read 8,204,151 times
Reputation: 4630
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
You're more sophisticated than me. I was just thinking that in this thread several of the Christian posters are just throwing crap up against the wall to see what sticks. Unfortunately for them, some of us are actually educated in science and evolution, and the rest of us can read just was well as they can. So the only place the crap is sticking is in their own brains.

I have said before, and I will say again to the Christians on the forum when it comes to posting things about religion and science:

I would respect them more if they simply admitted we can't produce any evidence for our twisting of science to prove creation and evolution. Our beliefs are based on our faith.

That at least would be an honest response.
When you've been involved in the debate for a while, you'll become familiar with the apologetics lifted from the Creationist Evidence -machine and posted without much understanding of the science. It may be a fault of mine (but it's damn' handy ) to habitually identify which particular apologetic package it is and get a couple of moves ahead of the game.
That is of course related to the "Universal physical laws prove a Creator" package. The consciousness -constants argument is something else and so far, I'm not sure how it goes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2018, 11:31 AM
 
32,909 posts, read 8,204,151 times
Reputation: 4630
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
They exist as constants because the measuring tool (our consciousness) is the constant BASE against which the measures are taken and it forms and exists at the speed of light as an EM-like phenomenon. Most of the speculations about what the constants mean from a scientific point of view as well as the religious Design point of view are misguided by the failure to even consider the status of the measuring device (our consciousness). It is taken for granted. You are correct that my Synthesis is involved because I spend a lot of time explaining the effects of the general failure to consider the formation and status of our consciousness on the measurements we make.
Ok thanks. I thought it was the Synthesis. But the remark I made applies: if we can take the results that validate the other findings and results, can we in fact rely on the way we use the consciousness to determine facts?

In fact we have done this a couple of times before and you first sprang it on me in the Matrix/Plantinga debate (many years ago) where you argued that human perception was imperfect. If you don't recall, I argued that is true, but the scientific method is designed to weed out the errors and relying (as it happens) on mental inspiration exacerbates them.
Discussion of the nature of consciousness is not what I was discussing with mr. Jones as you ought to know (and our mate, Nate now knows it, and will realize that you have sold him a pup), we have done it many times before and what we know suggests natural origins and what we don't know We Don't Know. It is not evidence of a god. I don't want to have to do it all over again.

So:

(1) argument from human imperfections is invalid

(2) it has nothing to do with using physical constants as evidence of a designer

(3) I am not interested in helping you to peddle your synthesis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2018, 12:04 PM
 
10,372 posts, read 3,980,079 times
Reputation: 1185
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
They exist as constants because the measuring tool (our consciousness) is the constant BASE against which the measures are taken and it forms and exists at the speed of light as an EM-like phenomenon. Most of the speculations about what the constants mean from a scientific point of view as well as the religious Design point of view are misguided by the failure to even consider the status of the measuring device (our consciousness). It is taken for granted. You are correct that my Synthesis is involved because I spend a lot of time explaining the effects of the general failure to consider the formation and status of our consciousness on the measurements we make.
Not totally true mystic. Any scientist worth his weight knows that everything we describe is described in human terms. Everything.

and arg? he's just an anti-religious socialist. this argument is not based on "how the universe works" for him. His is about relieving responsibility for making some very though calls. Just like bible literalist relieve responsibility. basically, its his ideology against anything not anti-religious socialist. So your points are mute to him.

We can say, with assurance, that we are in a biosphere that is life. that's empirical. Anybody can see it for themselves. It offers and explanation, mechanism, and make predictions. Its kinda the best we got.

what does your awareness field give us?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2018, 01:12 PM
 
36,837 posts, read 24,723,863 times
Reputation: 5808
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
They exist as constants because the measuring tool (our consciousness) is the constant BASE against which the measures are taken and it forms and exists at the speed of light as an EM-like phenomenon. Most of the speculations about what the constants mean from a scientific point of view as well as the religious Design point of view are misguided by the failure to even consider the status of the measuring device (our consciousness). It is taken for granted. You are correct that my Synthesis is involved because I spend a lot of time explaining the effects of the general failure to consider the formation and status of our consciousness on the measurements we make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Ok thanks. I thought it was the Synthesis. But the remark I made applies: if we can take the results that validate the other findings and results, can we in fact rely on the way we use the consciousness to determine facts?
In fact, we have done this a couple of times before and you first sprang it on me in the Matrix/Plantinga debate (many years ago) where you argued that human perception was imperfect. If you don't recall, I argued that is true, but the scientific method is designed to weed out the errors and relying (as it happens) on mental inspiration exacerbates them.
Discussion of the nature of consciousness is not what I was discussing with mr. Jones as you ought to know (and our mate, Nate now knows it, and will realize that you have sold him a pup), we have done it many times before and what we know suggests natural origins and what we don't know We Don't Know. It is not evidence of a god. I don't want to have to do it all over again.
So:

(1) argument from human imperfections is invalid

(2) it has nothing to do with using physical constants as evidence of a designer

(3) I am not interested in helping you to peddle your synthesis.
You are NOT reading objectively, Arq. I am not peddling my Synthesis. I am alerting you to the mistake of drawing ANY conclusions about our reality from the existence of constants in our measurements. You are so obsessed with the God/Designer implications you miss the fundamental problem in drawing ANY conclusions about our reality from the fact that constants exist. Constants exist because the measuring tool (our consciousness) is CONSTANT and its formation and existence as an EM-like phenomenon automatically mandates that constants will underly our measures. We can draw no conclusions about reality from those constants. They are NOT a function of our reality. They are a function of the formation and existence of our consciousness on our measurements of that reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2018, 09:24 AM
 
32,909 posts, read 8,204,151 times
Reputation: 4630
Sorry if I misunderstood "You are correct that my Synthesis is involved because...."

I saw the connection and suspected that an attempt to peddle it would follow (since this had occurred before, you can hardly blame me. In fact I'd bet that you will try to do so, despite your protests.)

However, if you relate your comment "I am alerting you to the mistake of drawing ANY conclusions about our reality from the existence of constants in our measurements." to the point I was answering, "There is nothing in the laws of physics requiring the constants to be what they are, if there was no freedom there would be no implied design." you will see there is a mismatch of argument.

Our mate Jonesey addresses the universal physical constants as evidence for intelligent design. Now, if I were to take your argument (essentially, unreliable human perception -which I already disposed of) on board it would mean that our pal jones could not use the evidence of constants for his case for Intelligent design.

Since I already disposed of that (cross reference shows that our discoveries are true, so whatever consciousness is or how it works, on any evidence, the measurements we make are valid) you had better take your argument to Mr jones and see what he makes of it. I find it irrelevant, invalid, a derail and (as I said) probably you trying to make a bit of elbow room for crying your Synthetical wares.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-25-2018 at 09:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2018, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Germany
1,887 posts, read 303,789 times
Reputation: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahasn sawresho View Post
Modern science is the product of the superior human mind
Immediately refuting the rest of your post.

Yes, we invented science, along with language, maths, morality, farming, logic, etc. Because they are not god given.

Because the fast part of our brain is not good at reasoning*, it evolved to use rough and ready rules that are frequently wrong, but when they are right, they give us an advantage. For example, you respond to a snake by leaping in fear, even when the snake turns out to be nothing but a hose pipe in the undergrowth.

The fact that we need to learn these skills tells us they are not innate. We were not created with these skills, only with the ability to develop them.

Which is what we expect of evolution.

* The intellectual, rational part of the brain is slower than mid brain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:46 PM.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top