Excess Superstition

[attrayant]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

becasue its germane to the issue at hand. Glad to see you view your fellows here of being incapable of a deep discussion....

 

Everyone interested in a discussion of the origin of the universe in a thread about superstition, raise your hand.

 

I thought so.

[attrayant]

50 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry, but that's a very poor analogy, it's like claiming that science is answering everything, apart from some useless details.

 

No, it's not like claiming that science is answering everything.  Nyezhov asked about the formation of the universe, and I am still not sure how the question is relevant to the matter at hand, but my presumption is that he is saying that until/unless everything is known, nothing can be known (which is false on its face).  If that was his meaning, then the Mona Lisa analogy is a perfect fit.

[attrayant]

8 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

But, if humans can produce those instruments, can you honestly expect me to believe that the human mind is the result of an accident ?

 

Are you asking rhetorically?  Because I didn't say that I expect you to believe that.  Let's try to stay focused on the subject of validating superstition and not get down into the weeds of specific theories like evolution or cosmology.

[Nyezhov]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Proving non-existence is the same as disproving existence.  To avoid all this semantic mucking about with the language, we simply state that we can't prove a negative.  The negative statement he made is "god does not exist".

Talk about semanitic muckety muck..

 

You prove that a gluon or lepton or antimatter or black hole does or does not exist. Do the same with "God".  Can you see "dark matter" or do you declare it exists because of certain hypotheses that lead to a conclusion? Is everything based on our senses, or are there things beyond our very concepts that can be established "scientifically".? if everything is so cut and dry, surely we can duplicate my unique electrical patters and reproduce me exactly?  

 

I may not dance before a statue of Baal when the lightening strikes, but there is shit in life that just defies explanation, even for the brilliant scientists that populate the Interwebz. Until you can show me that we have ALL of it figured out, a bottle of green fanta in front of a tree does no harm, and it it makes folks feel better, than Im all for it...like weed.

 

I try not to mess with anyones beliefs because I dont know it all. No one does.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

No, it's not like claiming that science is answering everything.  Nyezhov asked about the formation of the universe, and I am still not sure how the question is relevant to the matter at hand, but my presumption is that he is saying that until/unless everything is known, nothing can be known (which is false on its face).  If that was his meaning, then the Mona Lisa analogy is a perfect fit.

Ok, i'm not going back and try to understand what "Niezhov" said, but regarding knowledge in general, the Mona Lisa analogy is less than perfect.

Before going as far as the universe borders, i would like some scientist to tell me which was first, the egg or the chicken, but i am not holding my breath.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Are you asking rhetorically?  Because I didn't say that I expect you to believe that.  Let's try to stay focused on the subject of validating superstition and not get down into the weeds of specific theories like evolution or cosmology.

Of course it was rhetorically, and we are not discussing superstition since many posts.

 

I would say that most superstition is hogwash, however, some people think that putting the "superstition label" on something they can't understand, makes them appear like they are very intelligent.

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

 

 

I may not dance before a statue of Baal when the lightening strikes, but there is shit in life that just defies explanation, even for the brilliant scientists that populate the Interwebz.

Nothing wrong with that, when lighting strikes quite close to me, i do a lot of dancing

[Nyezhov]

21 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

No, it's not like claiming that science is answering everything.  Nyezhov asked about the formation of the universe, and I am still not sure how the question is relevant to the matter at hand, but my presumption is that he is saying that until/unless everything is known, nothing can be known (which is false on its face).  If that was his meaning, then the Mona Lisa analogy is a perfect fit.

Well your presumption is clearly misplaced, and the fact that you cant understand the relevance of my point makes it impossible for me to go further. My hand is raised, you just dont see it.

[attrayant]

20 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Before going as far as the universe borders, i would like some scientist to tell me which was first, the egg or the chicken, but i am not holding my breath.

 

It's the same thing: you are asking a question not out of genuine desire to learn, but on the presumption that it will stump science and therefore the lack of a satisfying answer means we can substitute our own fantasies about fairies or demons or intelligent design or whatever.

 

But since you asked, here you go:

 

 

Eggs existed long before chickens did.  The first animals to have eggs that could survive on land evolved from reptiles about 300 million years ago.  This allowed their descendants to evolve into larger life forms like... chickens.

 

Hopefully that is sufficient.  Going deeper into the details requires a long discussion of evolutionary biology, which is beyond the scope of this discussion.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

It's the same thing: you are asking a question not out of genuine desire to learn, but on the presumption that it will stump science

Wrong, lot of presumption here, i have nothing against science.

 

 

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

 

 The first animals to have eggs that could survive on land evolved from reptiles about 300 million years ago.  This allowed their descendants to evolve into larger life forms like... chickens.

 

Hopefully that is sufficient.

Not sufficient at all, who came first, the eggs or what you call "first animals "

[owl sees all]

3 hours ago, ravip said:

Just where is Scooby Doo and his crew when he is needed?

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

Some scientists most certainly DO declare that God does not exist.

 

I'd like to see their exact phrasing.  If some scientists are declaring this, then they are stating their opinion or estimating a likelihood (stating the odds).  They are doing what I sad in my earlier post about pending evidence - they are saying that claims about the existence of a deity are false, because the statistical likelihood of the claim being true is so infinitesimally small as to warrant no serious consideration. 

 

Similar to me saying Santa Claus does not exist.  I am not going to turn over every grain of sand on the planet trying to support my statement of non-existence.  Why? Because based on what we know about the physical world, the impossibility of the existence of Santa Claus is a metaphysical certainty.

 

If you are going to invoke an all-powerful being who is capable of anything, such as violating the laws of nature and logic, then all bets are off and no meaningful discussion can be had.  This is special pleading.

[Nyezhov]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

I'd like to see their exact phrasing.  If some scientists are declaring this, then they are stating their opinion or estimating a likelihood (stating the odds).  They are doing what I sad in my earlier post about pending evidence - they are saying that claims about the existence of a deity are false, because the statistical likelihood of the claim being true is so infinitesimally small as to warrant no serious consideration. 

 

Similar to me saying Santa Claus does not exist.  I am not going to turn over every grain of sand on the planet trying to support my statement of non-existence.  Why? Because based on what we know about the physical world, the impossibility of the existence of Santa Claus is a metaphysical certainty.

 

If you are going to invoke an all-powerful being who is capable of anything, such as violating the laws of nature and logic, then all bets are off and no meaningful discussion can be had.  This is special pleading.

The laws of nature don't apply at the singularity, do they?

 

now if an intelligent being created the entire universe, the question would be, who created that intelligent being ?

I guess I will burn some incense, and think about it for a while

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Actually, in a very scientific way, i can claim that, as there are "inferior beings" ( ants, microbes, bacteria) there must be "superior beings".

 

Did you know that an ant can carry twenty times its own body weight?  How about you?  Can you carry 1,500kgs?  An ant can fall from a great height and not be hurt, thanks to its low mass.  Can you fall from the top of a twenty story building and survive like that?

 

You can see the problem with using words like 'superior' and 'inferior' unattached to clear parameters.  We can interpret them as we like just by adding some context. 

 

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

In the same way, if there is life on 1 planet, there must be countless lives in countless planets.

 

I really don't know where you're going with this post.  Many scientists accept the possibility of life on other planets.  I'm not aware of any who say that there is definitely NO life anywhere else in the universe.

 

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

The fact that we cannot see something is NOT evidence that something doesn't exist.

 

On, no, you did it again.  Say it with me now: Science does not prove negatives.  If you think something exists, present your hypothesis and whatever evidence that lead you to that hypothesis.  If your evidence is sound, your hypothesis will gain acceptance.  

 

[Berkshire]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Talk about semanitic muckety muck..

 

You prove that a gluon or lepton or antimatter or black hole does or does not exist. Do the same with "God".  Can you see "dark matter" or do you declare it exists because of certain hypotheses that lead to a conclusion? Is everything based on our senses, or are there things beyond our very concepts that can be established "scientifically".? if everything is so cut and dry, surely we can duplicate my unique electrical patters and reproduce me exactly?  

 

I may not dance before a statue of Baal when the lightening strikes, but there is shit in life that just defies explanation, even for the brilliant scientists that populate the Interwebz. Until you can show me that we have ALL of it figured out, a bottle of green fanta in front of a tree does no harm, and it it makes folks feel better, than Im all for it...like weed.

 

I try not to mess with anyones beliefs because I dont know it all. No one does.

Why is it that when religious people defend their beliefs, they do it by attacking science?  Why not offer evidence or proof for your own beliefs? 

[owl sees all]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

We base our knowledge on the physical senses, would you agree that the physical senses are very limited, and , if you apply some logic to it, they give you an infinitesimally small understanding of what's going on around us ?

We base our understanding and knowledge - or should do - on evidence.

Edited November 1, 2018 by owl sees all

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Did you know that an ant can carry twenty times its own body weight?  How about you?  Can you carry 1,500kgs?  An ant can fall from a great height and not be hurt, thanks to its low mass.  Can you fall from the top of a twenty story building and survive like that?

 

You can see the problem with using words like 'superior' and 'inferior' unattached to clear parameters.  We can interpret them as we like just by adding some context.

 

 

I really don't know where you're going with this post.  Many scientists accept the possibility of life on other planets.  I'm not aware of any who say that there is definitely NO life anywhere else in the universe.

 

 

On, no, you did it again.  Say it with me now: Science does not prove negatives.  If you think something exists, present your hypothesis and whatever evidence that lead you to that hypothesis.  If your evidence is sound, your hypothesis will gain acceptance.  

 

Yes, and a rock is harder than you, thanks for the lesson, but you can't have a discussion with a rock, can you ?

Yes, recently some scientists admit the possibility of  countless inhabited planet, although it took quite some time.

Finally, trying to ignore your patronising tone, i just said that the fact that we cannot see something is NOT evidence that something doesn't exist. 

Not asking you to prove negatives, just stating the obvious.

[kekalot]

always liked this picture.

[Nyezhov]

23 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Why is it that when religious people defend their beliefs, they do it by attacking science?  Why not offer evidence or proof for your own beliefs? 

Im not religious and where do I attack science. All Im saying is we dont know all the answers. For all I know we live in a locker and some dude is about to open the door.

[Nyezhov]

23 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

We base our understanding and knowledge - or should do - on evidence.

Well we can and do base life and death decisions on lack of evidence too.

[The Deerhunter]

7 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

Some scientists most certainly DO declare that God does not exist.

 

Yes quite a few with complimentary doctorates from right wing Christian universities.   But vanishingly few with real qualifications from real educational institutes.  And some of those are vague theists like Albert Einstein who at some times made very crystal clear atheist statements like  A I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. and  at other times said vague confusing things like  "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." He told William Hermanns in an interview that "God is a mystery, but a comprehensive one."  Which probably says more about a hundred years + ago religious upbringing that he can't shake free from than anything else.  Who said "Give me the child 'til the age of seven and I will give you the man."

 

In fact it is frequently said that belief in god and religion diminishes in direct ratio to ones level of education and it seems very true in my personal experience , (which believers will hastily point out, amounts to nothing.)

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

In fact it is frequently said that belief in god and religion diminishes in direct ratio to ones level of education and it seems very true in my personal experience , (which believers will hastily point out, amounts to nothing.)

Except that some of the most brilliant minds in the history of mankind were religious dudes...

 

Except further that until about 250 years ago, education was religion based.

[AYJAYDEE]

10 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

He said "So if someone claims God does not exist, they should be able to prove it?"

 

Proving non-existence is the same as disproving existence.  To avoid all this semantic mucking about with the language, we simply state that we can't prove a negative.  The negative statement he made is "god does not exist".

well if you cant prove a statement is true, there really is no point in making the statement because there is no way of knowing if he is correct.

[AYJAYDEE]

9 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

I'd like to see their exact phrasing.  If some scientists are declaring this, then they are stating their opinion or estimating a likelihood (stating the odds).  They are doing what I sad in my earlier post about pending evidence - they are saying that claims about the existence of a deity are false, because the statistical likelihood of the claim being true is so infinitesimally small as to warrant no serious consideration. 

 

Similar to me saying Santa Claus does not exist.  I am not going to turn over every grain of sand on the planet trying to support my statement of non-existence.  Why? Because based on what we know about the physical world, the impossibility of the existence of Santa Claus is a metaphysical certainty.

 

If you are going to invoke an all-powerful being who is capable of anything, such as violating the laws of nature and logic, then all bets are off and no meaningful discussion can be had.  This is special pleading.

No they are NOT stating it as an opinion. They are declaring it as a fact. And plenty of scientific claims that were supposedly statistically insignificant AT THE TIME have later proved to have been true.

[AYJAYDEE]

4 hours ago, The Deerhunter said:

Yes quite a few with complimentary doctorates from right wing Christian universities.   But vanishingly few with real qualifications from real educational institutes.  And some of those are vague theists like Albert Einstein who at some times made very crystal clear atheist statements like  A I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. and  at other times said vague confusing things like  "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." He told William Hermanns in an interview that "God is a mystery, but a comprehensive one."  Which probably says more about a hundred years + ago religious upbringing that he can't shake free from than anything else.  Who said "Give me the child 'til the age of seven and I will give you the man."

 

In fact it is frequently said that belief in god and religion diminishes in direct ratio to ones level of education and it seems very true in my personal experience , (which believers will hastily point out, amounts to nothing.)

I said NOT EXIST

[AYJAYDEE]

8 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Did you know that an ant can carry twenty times its own body weight?  How about you?  Can you carry 1,500kgs?  An ant can fall from a great height and not be hurt, thanks to its low mass.  Can you fall from the top of a twenty story building and survive like that?

 

You can see the problem with using words like 'superior' and 'inferior' unattached to clear parameters.  We can interpret them as we like just by adding some context. 

 

 

I really don't know where you're going with this post.  Many scientists accept the possibility of life on other planets.  I'm not aware of any who say that there is definitely NO life anywhere else in the universe.

 

 

On, no, you did it again.  Say it with me now: Science does not prove negatives.  If you think something exists, present your hypothesis and whatever evidence that lead you to that hypothesis.  If your evidence is sound, your hypothesis will gain acceptance.  

 

If you declare something does not exist and you cannot prove it, then that is merely your opinion and we have no reason to accept it.

[poanoi]

16 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

 

If someone makes a claim that something does not exist, he should at least provide us with the basis of this claim.

logical fallacy, classic

[AYJAYDEE]

17 minutes ago, poanoi said:

logical fallacy, classic

nope. you cannot make a statement of fact if it cannot be proved. its only an opinion 

 

[poanoi]

24 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

nope. you cannot make a statement of fact if it cannot be proved. its only an opinion 

 

the burden of proof is on you to provide anything of substance

that your argument has any substance,

until then its just another delusional irrational gibberish,

which works well for religious arguments / superstition  but

does not fit in the modern world of critical thinking

Edited November 1, 2018 by poanoi

[AYJAYDEE]

53 minutes ago, poanoi said:

the burden of proof is on you to provide anything of substance

that your argument has any substance,

until then its just another delusional irrational gibberish,

which works well for religious arguments / superstition  but

does not fit in the modern world of critical thinking

proof of what??