God Related Discussions - Page 9 - OzChess

**Iconoclast** · 11-16-2007, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Spiny Norman

Here's a better example of a peer-reviewed, published paper which points to the overwhelming problems with the "tree of life":

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perl...o.0040352&ct=1

Some quotes:

Translation of that last bit: "Don't worry about looking for a trunk to this tree. It might not even be there."

The article does not suggest the the TOL paradigm is in trouble. It is saying that the fine details may be never recoverable.
1. That does not matter. A jigsaw with with half its pieces missing and the remainder faded, dog chewed and mis-positioned, will still yield a indisputable picture of a tree/bush(es)

**Spiny Norman** · 11-16-2007, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Mate, this is smoke and mirrors logic - like the monkey typing Hamlet without correct letters retained - like chess game position being greater than electrons in the universe. It is a non-argument for/against anything practical.

It was in the peer-reviewed article, it wasn't my words, so obviously there are people that disagree with your assessment.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

The human mind is 100% a result of the physiology and anatomy of 100 trillion neurons. ie genetically produced. The fact that sub optimal genetics can result in a human having no mind shows that mind is dependent on atoms and molecules.

I wholly accept this as YOUR reality ... but since nobody has managed to show that this is true, I'm sure you'll pardon me for taking a different position.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

No, the starting assumption is actually more basic than that. It is "X and Y exist." God or no-god is not a part of starting assumptions.

I wholly accept this as YOUR reality ... but since God IS a part of my starting assumptions, I'm sure you'll pardon me for taking a different position.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

I wholly accept this as YOUR reality - your internal reality, the reality that is constructed in your brain.

End of discussion then. Thanks for participating. Can you see that taking this position makes it quite impossible for you to engage with anyone else's logical arguments? Perhaps you've been reading too much Dennett and Dawkins ... try some Plantinga for a bit of balance.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Once god is confirmed as a neurological phenomenon (NP) there will be no need whatsoever to argue epistemologically!! So, I will pursue the NP line.

Fair enough, your beliefs are your own business, as are mine. In the meantime, given that it has NOT been shown to be a neurological phenomenon, I'm sure you pardon me for taking a different position.

**Spiny Norman** · 11-16-2007, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

The article does not suggest the the TOL paradigm is in trouble. It is saying that the fine details may be never recoverable.
1. That does not matter. A jigsaw with with half its pieces missing and the remainder faded, dog chewed and mis-positioned, will still yield a indisputable picture of a tree/bush(es)

So show me a tree without a trunk ... but in the meantime, a tree without a trunk is not a tree, as its my view that a trunk is a necessary property of treeness.

**Iconoclast** · 11-16-2007, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Spiny Norman

So show me a tree without a trunk ... but in the meantime, a tree without a trunk is not a tree, as its my view that a trunk is a necessary property of treeness.

The word "tree" is being used metaphorically. Call the emergence of species the "Bush of Life," if you like. Whatever you call it, there has been an increasing number of species, each proceeded by some other, and nearly all of them now extinct and lost to science forever. The Theory of evolution is as solid as ever it was. And we are a chimpanzee called man.

**Spiny Norman** · 11-16-2007, 12:29 PM

Here's a really simple question about this orchard of life: how many of the ancestors in the orchard are ACTUAL (this is supported by unequivocal observational evidence) and how many of them are IMAGINED (they must exist, because the theory of evolution is correct).

You might conclude that you are a champanzee descendant ... but I haven't done so, and nobody has yet come close to showing a compelling argument why I should accept such a conclusion. I think the evidence leads in a completely different direction.

Anyway, we're now way off topic. Anyone want to talk some more about Dawkins and Dennett? Try looking up Michael Ruse's observations about the damage that those two are doing to the atheist position. Ruse is obviously correct when he points out that Dawkins and his followers utterly fail to engage with the Christian/theist position and are railing against a straw man. (just in case you didn't know, Ruse is one of the foremost atheistic philosophers of science in the USA, who gave evidence at the Dover trial ... and even he can see that Dawkins/Dennett are populists with little of offer in terms of any real, robust arguments).

**Iconoclast** · 11-16-2007, 12:32 PM

Try this artical. It is written for non-experts.

**Spiny Norman** · 11-16-2007, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Try this artical. It is written for non-experts.

Okay, I've read through it. Did you? Carefully? Its riddled with "could"s and "might"s, which are a far stretch from anything remotely like a conclusion (its basically a speculative piece). Then there's this:

... using such vague structural clues to explain human feelings and behaviors may be a fool’s errand. “You list a bunch of places in the brain as if naming something lets you understand it,” opines neuropsychologist Seth Horowitz of Brown University. Vincent Paquette, who collaborated with Beauregard on his experiments, goes further, likening neuroimaging to phrenology, the practice in which Victorian-era scientists tried—and ultimately failed—to intuit clues about brain function and character traits from irregularities in the shape of the skull

Did you read the concluding paragraph?

Moreover, no matter what neural correlates scientists may find, the results cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Although atheists might argue that finding spirituality in the brain implies that religion is nothing more than divine delusion [this is clearly what you think] , the nuns were thrilled by their brain scans for precisely the opposite reason: they seemed to provide confirmation of God’s interactions with them. After all, finding a cerebral source for spiritual experiences could serve equally well to identify the medium through which God reaches out to humanity. Thus, the nuns’ forays into the tubular brain scanner did not undermine their faith. On the contrary, the science gave them an even greater reason to believe.

Wishing something is so is a long way from demonstrating causality.

**Iconoclast** · 11-16-2007, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Spiny Norman

Okay, I've read through it. Did you? Carefully? Its riddled with "could"s and "might"s, which are a far stretch from anything remotely like a conclusion (its basically a speculative piece). Then there's this:

Did you read the concluding paragraph?

Wishing something is so is a long way from demonstrating causality.

Of course I read it. It presents you with an alternative to a "real" god. It does not "prove" my point about god being an NP. Proof takes time and the accumulation of evidence.

This recent artical has brought together in a readable form some of the evidence so far. How long until, just like the theory/law of evolutionary based upon hard evidence, NP-god is accepted as the truth. Not long, I say - one-two decades.

Then the god of the gaps will have collapsed to the realm of Spakfila for disintegrating minds.

... a cerebral source for spiritual experiences could serve equally well to identify the medium through which God reaches out to humanity...

I am surprised that you would bold this part. It is a rod for your own back. Why?

It tacitly states that god is interventionist - has a real physical effect on the atoms and molecules of real world brain tissue. IF this is true, then hey, we can scientifically prove the existence of god. If that cannot be done by any reasonable test, then the "Real god" hypothesis must be down graded severely, while the NP-god hypothesis must be looking good for a Nobel Prize.

**Spiny Norman** · 11-16-2007, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Of course I read it. It presents you with an alternative to a "real" god. It does not "prove" my point about god being an NP. Proof takes time and the accumulation of evidence.

I see where you're coming from. I concede that NP is "possible". I do not concede that NP is "proven" (as you admit), nor do I concede that NP is logically necessary. Shall we move on?

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

This recent artical has brought together in a readable form some of the evidence so far. How long until, just like the theory/law of evolutionary based upon hard evidence, NP-god is accepted as the truth. Not long, I say - one-two decades.

Hmmm, I suggest you don't hold your breath ...

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Then the god of the gaps will have collapsed to the realm of Spakfila for disintegrating minds.

Common straw man accusation. Tell me, where did you get THAT "god of the gaps" idea from? Oh, that's right, I forgot, you're a Dennett + Dawkins fan ...

... if you're going to put up straw man caricatures of theism, I won't stop you from knocking them over.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

I am surprised that you would bold this part. It is a rod for your own back. Why? It tacitly states that god is interventionist - has a real physical effect on the atoms and molecules of real world brain tissue. IF this is true, then hey, we can scientifically prove the existence of god. If that cannot be done by any reasonable test, then the "Real god" hypothesis must be down graded severely, while the NP-god hypothesis must be looking good for a Nobel Prize.

No ... you will NEVER scientifically prove the existence of God ... don't you remember, God is excluded a priori as a possible scientific explanation. So even if a theoretical God WAS tweaking people's brains, science would never have anything to say on the subject.

If you think deeply about this scenario, you will perhaps realise (as I do) that if truth/reality DOES perchance include the actions of a creator God, science will inevitably lead one to falsehood after falsehood and never arrive at an accurate representation of reality. That's because today's science is rooted in philosophical and methodological naturalism, and no matter how hard you try, you just can't come up with a God explanation when God is excluded from any explanation.

So science is not about determining truth. Science is about finding the best possible, most plausible, naturalistic explanation for any given phenomenon.

**Iconoclast** · 11-19-2007, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Spiny Norman

I
God is excluded a priori as a possible scientific explanation. So even if a theoretical God WAS tweaking people's brains, science would never have anything to say on the subject.

This I think, is the end of the road. Here I am, giving the god hypothesis every opportunity to be found true, and you are telling me that science will not PERMIT god to be true.

Science as a "way" is limited ONLY by the blindness of its practitioners. You don't even have to be smart to "do" science, you just have to be honest about what your observations.

If you think deeply about this scenario, you will perhaps realise (as I do) that if truth/reality DOES perchance include the actions of a creator God, science will inevitably lead one to falsehood after falsehood and never arrive at an accurate representation of reality. That's because today's science is rooted in philosophical and methodological naturalism, and no matter how hard you try, you just can't come up with a God explanation when God is excluded from any explanation. [bold by icono]

This is so unfair! Science DOES NOT have a ban on god. God need only show up and science would let him in. He just never shows up

So science is not about determining truth. Science is about finding the best possible, most plausible, naturalistic explanation for any given phenomenon.

The "best possible, most plausible" is by definition going to be the truth. So If god is the "best possible, most plausible" explanation, science will find him.

Lastly, I will bet my testicles that if science found evidence of god, godist world over would rush to embrace the evidence. No way would they be wagging thier finger and saying, "No no no. Science cannot prove god's existance, we will stick with faith, thank you."

**Spiny Norman** · 11-19-2007, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

This is so unfair! Science DOES NOT have a ban on god. God need only show up and science would let him in.

Then have fun explaining this:

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

I'm quoting Professor Richard Lewontin, geneticist, Marxist, world leader in evolutionary biology. Science will never acknowledge God, no matter what the actual evidence.

So unless you can show evidence to the contrary, evidence that shows that materialist scientists would accept "God" as an explanation, this does indeed seem to be the end of the conversation ... good luck with that (BTW, if you quote creationist scientists I'll black flag you!).

**Gendo Ikari** · 11-20-2007, 09:14 PM

I think I'll just jump in here.

What I think Matt's argument comes down to (correct me if I have erred), is that the 'effects' of such a being (or god) are not an observable phenomena, in which case how can we connect any kind of experiential feeling with a god that is outside our epistemological means?

Say we have 2 circles, one representing that which is all we can know and measure (presently) and another circle which represents all that is and ever will be. The critical point is, do these two circles ever overlap? Religion suggests that they must, or we could have no correct knowledge or concept of God. Given this claim, Matt is asking where is the observable evidence of this overlap? And Spiny is saying that although this overlap exists, science is an insufficient means of observation.

We've had 'neurological phenomena' as one explanation for feeling a presence of a god that cannot be measured. Feeling alone I would say is insufficient and psychology likely supports this, with many instances of intuitions merely being inexplicable without further knowledge - once one understands the mind sufficiently, a lot of these 'feelings and intuitions' can be explained.

However, some of these cannot; thus we get cases of the paranormal occurring. Many things cannot be explained by science and may never be. Arbitrarily choosing to label all such paranormal phenomena as acts of God have been popular throughout history and much attributed to God may still yet be debunked in the future.

Yet this should not give us license to doubt everything pertaining to a conceptual God. There are still many unexplained phenomena occurring today that science has no expanation for and some may attribute this to a god. Whether they do so with justification is the point of contention - a lot of moral arguments of organised religions can be thrown out the door fairly easily and a lot of so-called religious history. What we are left with is this - how was the universe created and why? Since this remains perhaps the biggest mystery of all, I'd say people can be justified in attempting to reconcile unexplained phenomena with a god but it can and never will be valid scientifically unless an observable pattern emerges. If someone prays for something at it happens, is it coincidence? Are amazing intuitive insights a product of the subconscious mind or something more mysterious?

So I'll ask Matt, who created the universe and why? (Or is this inexplicable?)

I'll ask Spiny, is there any observable evidence for spiritual connections with God(s) (Or is this inexplicable?)

And I'll now warp out of here!

**Spiny Norman** · 11-21-2007, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Gendo Ikari

I'll ask Spiny, is there any observable evidence for spiritual connections with God(s) (Or is this inexplicable?)

I find that there is such evidence, it is observed in human behaviour.

I concede that there are other possible explanations (e.g. Dawkin's "God Delusion" is another explanation for the phenomenon).

I find belief in God's existence formed in me and also find that this belief is wholly rational. Despite considerable effort to examine counter-arguments such as those from Dennett and Dawkins, that belief is quite firm. So I obviously haven't acquired enough defeaters to move me from faith to agnosticism or atheism.

**Spiny Norman** · 11-21-2007, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Gendo Ikari

Say we have 2 circles, one representing that which is all we can know and measure (presently) and another circle which represents all that is and ever will be. The critical point is, do these two circles ever overlap? Religion suggests that they must, or we could have no correct knowledge or concept of God. Given this claim, Matt is asking where is the observable evidence of this overlap? And Spiny is saying that although this overlap exists, science is an insufficient means of observation.

Science cannot observe God or God's actions because, by definition, modern science restricts itself to purely naturalistic explanations. So no matter what miracles (i.e. God's intervention in nature) might occur, no matter how carefully they test, their explanations MUST be naturalistic, otherwise they are deemed "unscientific". Therefore Science will never have anything to say about God, unless they agree to shift their philosophical base away from only accepting naturalism.

**Spiny Norman** · 11-21-2007, 03:43 PM

Evolutionary algorithm used to design children's slide blamed for playground injuries:

http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/Slide.html

(Its a joke Joyce!)

11-16-2007, 09:43 AM	#121 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Spiny Norman Here's a better example of a peer-reviewed, published paper which points to the overwhelming problems with the "tree of life": http://biology.plosjournals.org/perl...o.0040352&ct=1 Some quotes: Translation of that last bit: "Don't worry about looking for a trunk to this tree. It might not even be there." The article does not suggest the the TOL paradigm is in trouble. It is saying that the fine details may be never recoverable. 1. That does not matter. A jigsaw with with half its pieces missing and the remainder faded, dog chewed and mis-positioned, will still yield a indisputable picture of a tree/bush(es) __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

11-16-2007, 09:57 AM	#122 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Mate, this is smoke and mirrors logic - like the monkey typing Hamlet without correct letters retained - like chess game position being greater than electrons in the universe. It is a non-argument for/against anything practical. It was in the peer-reviewed article, it wasn't my words, so obviously there are people that disagree with your assessment. Originally Posted by Iconoclast The human mind is 100% a result of the physiology and anatomy of 100 trillion neurons. ie genetically produced. The fact that sub optimal genetics can result in a human having no mind shows that mind is dependent on atoms and molecules. I wholly accept this as YOUR reality ... but since nobody has managed to show that this is true, I'm sure you'll pardon me for taking a different position. Originally Posted by Iconoclast No, the starting assumption is actually more basic than that. It is "X and Y exist." God or no-god is not a part of starting assumptions. I wholly accept this as YOUR reality ... but since God IS a part of my starting assumptions, I'm sure you'll pardon me for taking a different position. Originally Posted by Iconoclast I wholly accept this as YOUR reality - your internal reality, the reality that is constructed in your brain. End of discussion then. Thanks for participating. Can you see that taking this position makes it quite impossible for you to engage with anyone else's logical arguments? Perhaps you've been reading too much Dennett and Dawkins ... try some Plantinga for a bit of balance. Originally Posted by Iconoclast Once god is confirmed as a neurological phenomenon (NP) there will be no need whatsoever to argue epistemologically!! So, I will pursue the NP line. Fair enough, your beliefs are your own business, as are mine. In the meantime, given that it has NOT been shown to be a neurological phenomenon, I'm sure you pardon me for taking a different position.

11-16-2007, 09:58 AM	#123 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Iconoclast The article does not suggest the the TOL paradigm is in trouble. It is saying that the fine details may be never recoverable. 1. That does not matter. A jigsaw with with half its pieces missing and the remainder faded, dog chewed and mis-positioned, will still yield a indisputable picture of a tree/bush(es) So show me a tree without a trunk ... but in the meantime, a tree without a trunk is not a tree, as its my view that a trunk is a necessary property of treeness.

11-16-2007, 12:14 PM	#124 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Spiny Norman So show me a tree without a trunk ... but in the meantime, a tree without a trunk is not a tree, as its my view that a trunk is a necessary property of treeness. The word "tree" is being used metaphorically. Call the emergence of species the "Bush of Life," if you like. Whatever you call it, there has been an increasing number of species, each proceeded by some other, and nearly all of them now extinct and lost to science forever. The Theory of evolution is as solid as ever it was. And we are a chimpanzee called man. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

11-16-2007, 12:29 PM	#125 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Here's a really simple question about this orchard of life: how many of the ancestors in the orchard are ACTUAL (this is supported by unequivocal observational evidence) and how many of them are IMAGINED (they must exist, because the theory of evolution is correct). You might conclude that you are a champanzee descendant ... but I haven't done so, and nobody has yet come close to showing a compelling argument why I should accept such a conclusion. I think the evidence leads in a completely different direction. Anyway, we're now way off topic. Anyone want to talk some more about Dawkins and Dennett? Try looking up Michael Ruse's observations about the damage that those two are doing to the atheist position. Ruse is obviously correct when he points out that Dawkins and his followers utterly fail to engage with the Christian/theist position and are railing against a straw man. (just in case you didn't know, Ruse is one of the foremost atheistic philosophers of science in the USA, who gave evidence at the Dover trial ... and even he can see that Dawkins/Dennett are populists with little of offer in terms of any real, robust arguments). __________________ WARNING: I have a simplistic, defunct, concept of objective morality!

11-16-2007, 12:32 PM	#126 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Try this artical. It is written for non-experts. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

11-16-2007, 02:02 PM	#127 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Try this artical. It is written for non-experts. Okay, I've read through it. Did you? Carefully? Its riddled with "could"s and "might"s, which are a far stretch from anything remotely like a conclusion (its basically a speculative piece). Then there's this: ... using such vague structural clues to explain human feelings and behaviors may be a fool’s errand. “You list a bunch of places in the brain as if naming something lets you understand it,” opines neuropsychologist Seth Horowitz of Brown University. Vincent Paquette, who collaborated with Beauregard on his experiments, goes further, likening neuroimaging to phrenology, the practice in which Victorian-era scientists tried—and ultimately failed—to intuit clues about brain function and character traits from irregularities in the shape of the skull Did you read the concluding paragraph? Moreover, no matter what neural correlates scientists may find, the results cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Although atheists might argue that finding spirituality in the brain implies that religion is nothing more than divine delusion [this is clearly what you think] , the nuns were thrilled by their brain scans for precisely the opposite reason: they seemed to provide confirmation of God’s interactions with them. After all, finding a cerebral source for spiritual experiences could serve equally well to identify the medium through which God reaches out to humanity. Thus, the nuns’ forays into the tubular brain scanner did not undermine their faith. On the contrary, the science gave them an even greater reason to believe. Wishing something is so is a long way from demonstrating causality. __________________ WARNING: I have a simplistic, defunct, concept of objective morality!

11-16-2007, 04:34 PM	#128 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Spiny Norman Okay, I've read through it. Did you? Carefully? Its riddled with "could"s and "might"s, which are a far stretch from anything remotely like a conclusion (its basically a speculative piece). Then there's this: Did you read the concluding paragraph? Wishing something is so is a long way from demonstrating causality. Of course I read it. It presents you with an alternative to a "real" god. It does not "prove" my point about god being an NP. Proof takes time and the accumulation of evidence. This recent artical has brought together in a readable form some of the evidence so far. How long until, just like the theory/law of evolutionary based upon hard evidence, NP-god is accepted as the truth. Not long, I say - one-two decades. Then the god of the gaps will have collapsed to the realm of Spakfila for disintegrating minds. ... a cerebral source for spiritual experiences could serve equally well to identify the medium through which God reaches out to humanity... I am surprised that you would bold this part. It is a rod for your own back. Why? It tacitly states that god is interventionist - has a real physical effect on the atoms and molecules of real world brain tissue. IF this is true, then hey, we can scientifically prove the existence of god. If that cannot be done by any reasonable test, then the "Real god" hypothesis must be down graded severely, while the NP-god hypothesis must be looking good for a Nobel Prize. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

11-16-2007, 06:27 PM	#129 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Of course I read it. It presents you with an alternative to a "real" god. It does not "prove" my point about god being an NP. Proof takes time and the accumulation of evidence. I see where you're coming from. I concede that NP is "possible". I do not concede that NP is "proven" (as you admit), nor do I concede that NP is logically necessary. Shall we move on? Originally Posted by Iconoclast This recent artical has brought together in a readable form some of the evidence so far. How long until, just like the theory/law of evolutionary based upon hard evidence, NP-god is accepted as the truth. Not long, I say - one-two decades. Hmmm, I suggest you don't hold your breath ... Originally Posted by Iconoclast Then the god of the gaps will have collapsed to the realm of Spakfila for disintegrating minds. Common straw man accusation. Tell me, where did you get THAT "god of the gaps" idea from? Oh, that's right, I forgot, you're a Dennett + Dawkins fan ... ... if you're going to put up straw man caricatures of theism, I won't stop you from knocking them over. Originally Posted by Iconoclast I am surprised that you would bold this part. It is a rod for your own back. Why? It tacitly states that god is interventionist - has a real physical effect on the atoms and molecules of real world brain tissue. IF this is true, then hey, we can scientifically prove the existence of god. If that cannot be done by any reasonable test, then the "Real god" hypothesis must be down graded severely, while the NP-god hypothesis must be looking good for a Nobel Prize. No ... you will NEVER scientifically prove the existence of God ... don't you remember, God is excluded a priori as a possible scientific explanation. So even if a theoretical God WAS tweaking people's brains, science would never have anything to say on the subject. If you think deeply about this scenario, you will perhaps realise (as I do) that if truth/reality DOES perchance include the actions of a creator God, science will inevitably lead one to falsehood after falsehood and never arrive at an accurate representation of reality. That's because today's science is rooted in philosophical and methodological naturalism, and no matter how hard you try, you just can't come up with a God explanation when God is excluded from any explanation. So science is not about determining truth. Science is about finding the best possible, most plausible, naturalistic explanation for any given phenomenon. __________________ WARNING: I have a simplistic, defunct, concept of objective morality!

11-19-2007, 05:08 PM	#130 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Spiny Norman I God is excluded a priori as a possible scientific explanation. So even if a theoretical God WAS tweaking people's brains, science would never have anything to say on the subject. This I think, is the end of the road. Here I am, giving the god hypothesis every opportunity to be found true, and you are telling me that science will not PERMIT god to be true. Science as a "way" is limited ONLY by the blindness of its practitioners. You don't even have to be smart to "do" science, you just have to be honest about what your observations. If you think deeply about this scenario, you will perhaps realise (as I do) that if truth/reality DOES perchance include the actions of a creator God, science will inevitably lead one to falsehood after falsehood and never arrive at an accurate representation of reality. That's because today's science is rooted in philosophical and methodological naturalism, and no matter how hard you try, you just can't come up with a God explanation when God is excluded from any explanation. [bold by icono] This is so unfair! Science DOES NOT have a ban on god. God need only show up and science would let him in. He just never shows up So science is not about determining truth. Science is about finding the best possible, most plausible, naturalistic explanation for any given phenomenon. The "best possible, most plausible" is by definition going to be the truth. So If god is the "best possible, most plausible" explanation, science will find him. Lastly, I will bet my testicles that if science found evidence of god, godist world over would rush to embrace the evidence. No way would they be wagging thier finger and saying, "No no no. Science cannot prove god's existance, we will stick with faith, thank you." __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

11-19-2007, 07:05 PM	#131 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Iconoclast This is so unfair! Science DOES NOT have a ban on god. God need only show up and science would let him in. Then have fun explaining this: ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. I'm quoting Professor Richard Lewontin, geneticist, Marxist, world leader in evolutionary biology. Science will never acknowledge God, no matter what the actual evidence. So unless you can show evidence to the contrary, evidence that shows that materialist scientists would accept "God" as an explanation, this does indeed seem to be the end of the conversation ... good luck with that (BTW, if you quote creationist scientists I'll black flag you!). __________________ WARNING: I have a simplistic, defunct, concept of objective morality!

11-20-2007, 09:14 PM	#132 (permalink)
Gendo Ikari Director Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 99	I think I'll just jump in here. What I think Matt's argument comes down to (correct me if I have erred), is that the 'effects' of such a being (or god) are not an observable phenomena, in which case how can we connect any kind of experiential feeling with a god that is outside our epistemological means? Say we have 2 circles, one representing that which is all we can know and measure (presently) and another circle which represents all that is and ever will be. The critical point is, do these two circles ever overlap? Religion suggests that they must, or we could have no correct knowledge or concept of God. Given this claim, Matt is asking where is the observable evidence of this overlap? And Spiny is saying that although this overlap exists, science is an insufficient means of observation. We've had 'neurological phenomena' as one explanation for feeling a presence of a god that cannot be measured. Feeling alone I would say is insufficient and psychology likely supports this, with many instances of intuitions merely being inexplicable without further knowledge - once one understands the mind sufficiently, a lot of these 'feelings and intuitions' can be explained. However, some of these cannot; thus we get cases of the paranormal occurring. Many things cannot be explained by science and may never be. Arbitrarily choosing to label all such paranormal phenomena as acts of God have been popular throughout history and much attributed to God may still yet be debunked in the future. Yet this should not give us license to doubt everything pertaining to a conceptual God. There are still many unexplained phenomena occurring today that science has no expanation for and some may attribute this to a god. Whether they do so with justification is the point of contention - a lot of moral arguments of organised religions can be thrown out the door fairly easily and a lot of so-called religious history. What we are left with is this - how was the universe created and why? Since this remains perhaps the biggest mystery of all, I'd say people can be justified in attempting to reconcile unexplained phenomena with a god but it can and never will be valid scientifically unless an observable pattern emerges. If someone prays for something at it happens, is it coincidence? Are amazing intuitive insights a product of the subconscious mind or something more mysterious? So I'll ask Matt, who created the universe and why? (Or is this inexplicable?) I'll ask Spiny, is there any observable evidence for spiritual connections with God(s) (Or is this inexplicable?) And I'll now warp out of here!

11-21-2007, 07:46 AM	#133 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Gendo Ikari I'll ask Spiny, is there any observable evidence for spiritual connections with God(s) (Or is this inexplicable?) I find that there is such evidence, it is observed in human behaviour. I concede that there are other possible explanations (e.g. Dawkin's "God Delusion" is another explanation for the phenomenon). I find belief in God's existence formed in me and also find that this belief is wholly rational. Despite considerable effort to examine counter-arguments such as those from Dennett and Dawkins, that belief is quite firm. So I obviously haven't acquired enough defeaters to move me from faith to agnosticism or atheism. __________________ WARNING: I have a simplistic, defunct, concept of objective morality!

11-21-2007, 07:51 AM	#134 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Gendo Ikari Say we have 2 circles, one representing that which is all we can know and measure (presently) and another circle which represents all that is and ever will be. The critical point is, do these two circles ever overlap? Religion suggests that they must, or we could have no correct knowledge or concept of God. Given this claim, Matt is asking where is the observable evidence of this overlap? And Spiny is saying that although this overlap exists, science is an insufficient means of observation. Science cannot observe God or God's actions because, by definition, modern science restricts itself to purely naturalistic explanations. So no matter what miracles (i.e. God's intervention in nature) might occur, no matter how carefully they test, their explanations MUST be naturalistic, otherwise they are deemed "unscientific". Therefore Science will never have anything to say about God, unless they agree to shift their philosophical base away from only accepting naturalism. __________________ WARNING: I have a simplistic, defunct, concept of objective morality!

11-21-2007, 03:43 PM	#135 (permalink)
Spiny Norman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 224	Evolutionary algorithm used to design children's slide blamed for playground injuries: http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/Slide.html (Its a joke Joyce!) __________________ WARNING: I have a simplistic, defunct, concept of objective morality!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: