Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, TropicalGuy said:

Evolution is Fact. Overwhelming Evidence. Gravity is Fact. Overwhelming Evidence. Also no credible alternatives. Both are also (proven) Theories. There are no “flaws” that matter a damn. 

Absolutists are pointless disrupters, never experts, finding “flaws” in everything & never satisfied. would argue black is white or night is day.

Usually also pseudo- scientists, Flat Earthers & Moon Landing Deniers or Creationists ????????????
 

Example: Earth is 4.7 billion years old but some say 4.6. Disrupter says “so we don’t know how old the earth is !”. Yeah,  we do it’s 4.6 to 4.7 billion years old. The difference is insignificant.????

Nice try, but you'd better check your "facts".

Now i know that you don't really care about science, you are just posing, and I'm not surprised in the slightest. 

[Sunmaster]

Wow, people proudly declaring of being ignorant, while at the same time talking down to those who actually studied the topics at hand. Priceless ????

[Fat is a type of crazy]

On 7/18/2022 at 5:53 PM, Sunmaster said:

A great documentary in 4 parts, talking about consciousness, psychedelic substances, medicine, psychology, spirituality and science.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt21062540/

 

 

https://www.netflix.com/watch/81164525?trackId=155573560

You might find the latest Four Corners interesting. Its an investigative piece called 'The hype and hope of psychedelic medicines exposed'. It's on youtube.  Four Corners is a fairly well respected current affairs program on Australia's ABC. Sometimes they get it wrong but they make an effort. Didn't watch it all but it shows the difficulties of making such treatments more mainstream. 

 

[Tippaporn]

On 7/24/2022 at 2:23 PM, TropicalGuy said:

Science has answered that question through study of evolution. Advanced mammals inc. Homo sapiens a complete fluke  initiated by a random asteroid strike eliminating the dinosaurs who otherwise would still be in charge here.????????

On 7/24/2022 at 5:12 PM, TropicalGuy said:

evidential science of animal evolution on planet earth is clear. Which has provided sufficient (99%+) answers any reasonable person could possibly want concerning the 15 million year primate origin & development leading to us modern humans????????

On 7/24/2022 at 5:45 PM, TropicalGuy said:

such view is typically for (1) professional scientists fully understanding the known 99% yet seeking to close the insignificant knowledge gaps for record purposes …..OR

(2) pseudosciencers rejecting the known 99% & claim to seek an (unnecessary unrealistic) 100% absolute truth before “believing” ( clue: they will never accept any 100% completion).

 

You are neither so no logical need to go there ……..without first becoming (1) above????
 

 

22 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

Evolution is Fact. Overwhelming Evidence. Gravity is Fact. Overwhelming Evidence. Also no credible alternatives. Both are also (proven) Theories. There are no “flaws” that matter a damn. 

Absolutists are pointless disrupters, never experts, finding “flaws” in everything & never satisfied. would argue black is white or night is day.

Usually also pseudo- scientists, Flat Earthers & Moon Landing Deniers or Creationists ????????????
 

Example: Earth is 4.7 billion years old but some say 4.6. Disrupter says “so we don’t know how old the earth is !”. Yeah,  we do it’s 4.6 to 4.7 billion years old. The difference is insignificant.????

Now I nominate the directly above post for the award of best display of hubris in a post for at least this year.  I love the creative use of caps.  By God, that makes your declarations of reality compelling to the point of leaving one who might boldly but foolishly be thinking of mounting a contrariwise viewpoint utterly speechless.

Then again the post where you 'prove' that 99%+ of the answers are definitively in, at least amongst 'reasonable' people, and the balance of answers would merely tidy up the books is a major contender.  It's a wonderful ploy to use a figure that suggests that a question is settled but the added + sign really gives it the umph needed to seal it as done and dusted for all time.

So let's break down all of the flawed logic in your above posts.

"Science has answered that question through study of evolution."

The statement implies that science as a whole has answered the question.  Which is patently false.  There is not a 100% consensus.  It would be accurate to say that a portion of the scientific community believes they have enough evidence to answer the question and another portion who believe not only that the evidence is not at all conclusive but lacking as well.  It would also be accurate to say that there are strong arguments that point to the impossibility of the theory based on the immense probabilities that randomness could never arrive at the practical functioning of an innumerable variety of life given the time span for which all of this has supposedly occurred.

Of course openly considering and mentioning these facts would not bode well for your argument so best leave all of that out.  Unless your intention isn't to debate on merits but rather to simply declare your "truth" and chide all those unaccepting of your "truth."

"Advanced mammals inc. Homo sapiens a complete fluke initiated by a random asteroid strike eliminating the dinosaurs who otherwise would still be in charge here."

Here you couch your wholly speculative "truth" as factual.  What you wrote above is, in my humble opinion, poor science fiction at best.  The idea that life is a fluke is based on nothing more than personal belief since you have no means of providing any evidence to your theory, let alone proof.  Given the many admonishments by the scientifically minded sect on the failure of some here to understand the scientific method it seems the height of hypocrisy that a scientifically minded person would then dispense altogether with the scientific method and proceed to promote personal beliefs as fact.

 

"evidential science of animal evolution on planet earth is clear."

Here again is a declarative statement meant to imply that the declaration is beyond debate though the truth is that it is in fact highly debatable.  What "evidential science" really means is only that evidence which agrees with the goal sought conclusion.  Any and all contrarian evidence is, via one method or another, unceremoniously dismissed out of hand.

"Which has provided sufficient (99%+) answers any reasonable person could possibly want . . . "

 

Providing a figure of 99%+ is not so much the use of flawed logic but rather simply a deceptive tactic which is meant to ascribe credibility by way of a employing a near absolute number.  If one were asked to provide the totality of this evidence it would not be forthcoming.  Most likely since it doesn't exist.  But it certainly is easy enough to tout such an unimaginably high number knowing that one doesn't have to provide any evidentiary support whatsoever.  Kinda like a free shot on goal.

Another fallacy of this argument is the use of the phrase "any reasonable person."  It's function is to subtly browbeat.  In other words, if you want to be considered a sane individual you must be in agreement.  Else you will be given any number of derogatory labels.  I actually like the term "Disrupter."  It has a superhero type cast.  I like it a lot.  Tippaporn, The Disrupter!!!  That should send fear into your heart and make your knees tremble!!

". . . concerning the 15 million year primate origin & development leading to us modern humans????????"

 

This statement is purely assumptive speculation given the narrow range of allowable and acceptable information to reach it's conclusion.  If other available information were to be included in the mix and, importantly, if one were forced to fit it in rather that simply sh!tcan it solely because it can't be made to fit that may well wreak havoc on the original verdict.

BTW, the emojis serve well as an exclamation point, I take it, as otherwise the sentence is missing it's full stop.

"So nothing is truly known & some discovered fragment might unravel everything. Right got it. Moved you now to category (2). We’re done."

As mentioned above, yes, it's quite possible that a mere single piece of information can completely annihilate even long established and cherished "truths."  It's happened many times through history and I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to deny the fact, else risk exposing yourself as disingenuous.

 

"such view is typically for (1) professional scientists fully understanding the known 99% yet seeking to close the insignificant knowledge gaps for record purposes …..OR

(2) pseudosciencers rejecting the known 99% & claim to seek an (unnecessary unrealistic) 100% absolute truth before “believing” ( clue: they will never accept any 100% completion).

 

You are neither so no logical need to go there ……..without first becoming (1) above????"

 

I believe I've covered the subtle browbeating.  This time it's not so subtle.    Agree with "professional scientists" or else you will be declared a "pseudo scientist" by we, the sole and final, self appointed arbiters of "truth."  And we will then attack you with the intention of inflicting debilitating harm in every way possible.  Just ask any of the "pseudo scientists" fighting to provide humanity with cheap and effective treatments to Covid.  Ah, there's nothing like good old mob rule.  It must be nice to be in the club.

"Evolution is Fact. Overwhelming Evidence. Gravity is Fact. Overwhelming Evidence. Also no credible alternatives. Both are also (proven) Theories."

It's logical fallacy to suggest that one proven fact proves another unproven fact to be proven fact solely because both have been ascribed to have "Overwhelming Evidence," albeit the unproven fact's "Overwhelming Evidence" is not nearly in the same league of the fact that does have truly "Overwhelming Evidence."

As to "no credible alternatives," again this is a declarative statement to be taken as "truth" though it is impossible to make such a statement genuinely unless one is All-Knowing.  To ask whether or not you are would be purely rhetorical.

(Proven) Theories are simply that.  Facts with a huge asterisk and explanations given in multiple footnotes.  The only people who argue for theories to be treated as facts are the people who desire those theories to be fact.  To everyone else a theory is unproven fact.  Some people like to make up rules to the game and insist everyone else blindly, sheepishly follow along.

I appreciate your use of capitalisation to convey the aura of supreme authority to your self-declarations.  It's so commanding.  As if it came down from high above.  Almost as a God-like pronunciation.

"There are no “flaws” that matter a damn."

What delightful chutzpah!  And scientific to boot!  It's is, after all, critical that we all follow the science.
 

"Absolutists are pointless disrupters, never experts, finding “flaws” in everything & never satisfied. would argue black is white or night is day.

Usually also pseudo- scientists, Flat Earthers & Moon Landing Deniers or Creationists
 

Example: Earth is 4.7 billion years old but some say 4.6. Disrupter says “so we don’t know how old the earth is !”. Yeah,  we do it’s 4.6 to 4.7 billion years old. The difference is insignificant."

Yes, it's so exhausting to have to deal with people's questions.  Why can't they just buy what I'm selling?  Damn Disrupters!!

Well, you can't accuse me of failing to address specific points.  Feel free to address mine. 

 

[Sunmaster]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Now I nominate the directly above post for the award of best display of hubris in a post for at least this year.  I love the creative use of caps.  By God, that makes your declarations of reality compelling to the point of leaving one who might boldly but foolishly be thinking of mounting a contrariwise viewpoint utterly speechless.

Then again the post where you 'prove' that 99%+ of the answers are definitively in, at least amongst 'reasonable' people, and the balance of answers would merely tidy up the books is a major contender.  It's a wonderful ploy to use a figure that suggests that a question is settled but the added + sign really gives it the umph needed to seal it as done and dusted for all time.

So let's break down all of the flawed logic in your above posts.

"Science has answered that question through study of evolution."

The statement implies that science as a whole has answered the question.  Which is patently false.  There is not a 100% consensus.  It would be accurate to say that a portion of the scientific community believes they have enough evidence to answer the question and another portion who believe not only that the evidence is not at all conclusive but lacking as well.  It would also be accurate to say that there are strong arguments that point to the impossibility of the theory based on the immense probabilities that randomness could never arrive at the practical functioning of an innumerable variety of life given the time span for which all of this has supposedly occurred.

Of course openly considering and mentioning these facts would not bode well for your argument so best leave all of that out.  Unless your intention isn't to debate on merits but rather to simply declare your "truth" and chide all those unaccepting of your "truth."

"Advanced mammals inc. Homo sapiens a complete fluke initiated by a random asteroid strike eliminating the dinosaurs who otherwise would still be in charge here."

Here you couch your wholly speculative "truth" as factual.  What you wrote above is, in my humble opinion, poor science fiction at best.  The idea that life is a fluke is based on nothing more than personal belief since you have no means of providing any evidence to your theory, let alone proof.  Given the many admonishments by the scientifically minded sect on the failure of some here to understand the scientific method it seems the height of hypocrisy that a scientifically minded person would then dispense altogether with the scientific method and proceed to promote personal beliefs as fact.

 

"evidential science of animal evolution on planet earth is clear."

Here again is a declarative statement meant to imply that the declaration is beyond debate though the truth is that it is in fact highly debatable.  What "evidential science" really means is only that evidence which agrees with the goal sought conclusion.  Any and all contrarian evidence is, via one method or another, unceremoniously dismissed out of hand.

"Which has provided sufficient (99%+) answers any reasonable person could possibly want . . . "

 

Providing a figure of 99%+ is not so much the use of flawed logic but rather simply a deceptive tactic which is meant to ascribe credibility by way of a employing a near absolute number.  If one were asked to provide the totality of this evidence it would not be forthcoming.  Most likely since it doesn't exist.  But it certainly is easy enough to tout such an unimaginably high number knowing that one doesn't have to provide any evidentiary support whatsoever.  Kinda like a free shot on goal.

Another fallacy of this argument is the use of the phrase "any reasonable person."  It's function is to subtly browbeat.  In other words, if you want to be considered a sane individual you must be in agreement.  Else you will be given any number of derogatory labels.  I actually like the term "Disrupter."  It has a superhero type cast.  I like it a lot.  Tippaporn, The Disrupter!!!  That should send fear into your heart and make your knees tremble!!

". . . concerning the 15 million year primate origin & development leading to us modern humans????????"

 

This statement is purely assumptive speculation given the narrow range of allowable and acceptable information to reach it's conclusion.  If other available information were to be included in the mix and, importantly, if one were forced to fit it in rather that simply sh!tcan it solely because it can't be made to fit that may well wreak havoc on the original verdict.

BTW, the emojis serve well as an exclamation point, I take it, as otherwise the sentence is missing it's full stop.

"So nothing is truly known & some discovered fragment might unravel everything. Right got it. Moved you now to category (2). We’re done."

As mentioned above, yes, it's quite possible that a mere single piece of information can completely annihilate even long established and cherished "truths."  It's happened many times through history and I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to deny the fact, else risk exposing yourself as disingenuous.

 

"such view is typically for (1) professional scientists fully understanding the known 99% yet seeking to close the insignificant knowledge gaps for record purposes …..OR

(2) pseudosciencers rejecting the known 99% & claim to seek an (unnecessary unrealistic) 100% absolute truth before “believing” ( clue: they will never accept any 100% completion).

 

You are neither so no logical need to go there ……..without first becoming (1) above????"

 

I believe I've covered the subtle browbeating.  This time it's not so subtle.    Agree with "professional scientists" or else you will be declared a "pseudo scientist" by we, the sole and final, self appointed arbiters of "truth."  And we will then attack you with the intention of inflicting debilitating harm in every way possible.  Just ask any of the "pseudo scientists" fighting to provide humanity with cheap and effective treatments to Covid.  Ah, there's nothing like good old mob rule.  It must be nice to be in the club.

"Evolution is Fact. Overwhelming Evidence. Gravity is Fact. Overwhelming Evidence. Also no credible alternatives. Both are also (proven) Theories."

It's logical fallacy to suggest that one proven fact proves another unproven fact to be proven fact solely because both have been ascribed to have "Overwhelming Evidence," albeit the unproven fact's "Overwhelming Evidence" is not nearly in the same league of the fact that does have truly "Overwhelming Evidence."

As to "no credible alternatives," again this is a declarative statement to be taken as "truth" though it is impossible to make such a statement genuinely unless one is All-Knowing.  To ask whether or not you are would be purely rhetorical.

(Proven) Theories are simply that.  Facts with a huge asterisk and explanations given in multiple footnotes.  The only people who argue for theories to be treated as facts are the people who desire those theories to be fact.  To everyone else a theory is unproven fact.  Some people like to make up rules to the game and insist everyone else blindly, sheepishly follow along.

I appreciate your use of capitalisation to convey the aura of supreme authority to your self-declarations.  It's so commanding.  As if it came down from high above.  Almost as a God-like pronunciation.

"There are no “flaws” that matter a damn."

What delightful chutzpah!  And scientific to boot!  It's is, after all, critical that we all follow the science.
 

"Absolutists are pointless disrupters, never experts, finding “flaws” in everything & never satisfied. would argue black is white or night is day.

Usually also pseudo- scientists, Flat Earthers & Moon Landing Deniers or Creationists
 

Example: Earth is 4.7 billion years old but some say 4.6. Disrupter says “so we don’t know how old the earth is !”. Yeah,  we do it’s 4.6 to 4.7 billion years old. The difference is insignificant."

Yes, it's so exhausting to have to deal with people's questions.  Why can't they just buy what I'm selling?  Damn Disrupters!!

Well, you can't accuse me of failing to address specific points.  Feel free to address mine. 

 

Excellent post.
Unfortunately, it will likely be dismissed with some more pseudo scientific and pseudo intellectual chaff or not be acknowledged at all.
After all, the main goal is clearly to "win" the argument at any cost and not having an honest, dispassionate discussion. To hell with credibility, dignity and objectivity....who needs those?

Thanks for taking the time to comb through it. I couldn't be bothered.

[TropicalGuy]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Now I nominate the directly above post for the award of best display of hubris in a post for at least this year.  I love the creative use of caps.  By God, that makes your declarations of reality compelling to the point of leaving one who might boldly but foolishly be thinking of mounting a contrariwise viewpoint utterly speechless.

Then again the post where you 'prove' that 99%+ of the answers are definitively in, at least amongst 'reasonable' people, and the balance of answers would merely tidy up the books is a major contender.  It's a wonderful ploy to use a figure that suggests that a question is settled but the added + sign really gives it the umph needed to seal it as done and dusted for all time.

So let's break down all of the flawed logic in your above posts.

"Science has answered that question through study of evolution."

The statement implies that science as a whole has answered the question.  Which is patently false.  There is not a 100% consensus.  It would be accurate to say that a portion of the scientific community believes they have enough evidence to answer the question and another portion who believe not only that the evidence is not at all conclusive but lacking as well.  It would also be accurate to say that there are strong arguments that point to the impossibility of the theory based on the immense probabilities that randomness could never arrive at the practical functioning of an innumerable variety of life given the time span for which all of this has supposedly occurred.

Of course openly considering and mentioning these facts would not bode well for your argument so best leave all of that out.  Unless your intention isn't to debate on merits but rather to simply declare your "truth" and chide all those unaccepting of your "truth."

"Advanced mammals inc. Homo sapiens a complete fluke initiated by a random asteroid strike eliminating the dinosaurs who otherwise would still be in charge here."

Here you couch your wholly speculative "truth" as factual.  What you wrote above is, in my humble opinion, poor science fiction at best.  The idea that life is a fluke is based on nothing more than personal belief since you have no means of providing any evidence to your theory, let alone proof.  Given the many admonishments by the scientifically minded sect on the failure of some here to understand the scientific method it seems the height of hypocrisy that a scientifically minded person would then dispense altogether with the scientific method and proceed to promote personal beliefs as fact.

 

"evidential science of animal evolution on planet earth is clear."

Here again is a declarative statement meant to imply that the declaration is beyond debate though the truth is that it is in fact highly debatable.  What "evidential science" really means is only that evidence which agrees with the goal sought conclusion.  Any and all contrarian evidence is, via one method or another, unceremoniously dismissed out of hand.

"Which has provided sufficient (99%+) answers any reasonable person could possibly want . . . "

 

Providing a figure of 99%+ is not so much the use of flawed logic but rather simply a deceptive tactic which is meant to ascribe credibility by way of a employing a near absolute number.  If one were asked to provide the totality of this evidence it would not be forthcoming.  Most likely since it doesn't exist.  But it certainly is easy enough to tout such an unimaginably high number knowing that one doesn't have to provide any evidentiary support whatsoever.  Kinda like a free shot on goal.

Another fallacy of this argument is the use of the phrase "any reasonable person."  It's function is to subtly browbeat.  In other words, if you want to be considered a sane individual you must be in agreement.  Else you will be given any number of derogatory labels.  I actually like the term "Disrupter."  It has a superhero type cast.  I like it a lot.  Tippaporn, The Disrupter!!!  That should send fear into your heart and make your knees tremble!!

". . . concerning the 15 million year primate origin & development leading to us modern humans????????"

 

This statement is purely assumptive speculation given the narrow range of allowable and acceptable information to reach it's conclusion.  If other available information were to be included in the mix and, importantly, if one were forced to fit it in rather that simply sh!tcan it solely because it can't be made to fit that may well wreak havoc on the original verdict.

BTW, the emojis serve well as an exclamation point, I take it, as otherwise the sentence is missing it's full stop.

"So nothing is truly known & some discovered fragment might unravel everything. Right got it. Moved you now to category (2). We’re done."

As mentioned above, yes, it's quite possible that a mere single piece of information can completely annihilate even long established and cherished "truths."  It's happened many times through history and I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to deny the fact, else risk exposing yourself as disingenuous.

 

"such view is typically for (1) professional scientists fully understanding the known 99% yet seeking to close the insignificant knowledge gaps for record purposes …..OR

(2) pseudosciencers rejecting the known 99% & claim to seek an (unnecessary unrealistic) 100% absolute truth before “believing” ( clue: they will never accept any 100% completion).

 

You are neither so no logical need to go there ……..without first becoming (1) above????"

 

I believe I've covered the subtle browbeating.  This time it's not so subtle.    Agree with "professional scientists" or else you will be declared a "pseudo scientist" by we, the sole and final, self appointed arbiters of "truth."  And we will then attack you with the intention of inflicting debilitating harm in every way possible.  Just ask any of the "pseudo scientists" fighting to provide humanity with cheap and effective treatments to Covid.  Ah, there's nothing like good old mob rule.  It must be nice to be in the club.

"Evolution is Fact. Overwhelming Evidence. Gravity is Fact. Overwhelming Evidence. Also no credible alternatives. Both are also (proven) Theories."

It's logical fallacy to suggest that one proven fact proves another unproven fact to be proven fact solely because both have been ascribed to have "Overwhelming Evidence," albeit the unproven fact's "Overwhelming Evidence" is not nearly in the same league of the fact that does have truly "Overwhelming Evidence."

As to "no credible alternatives," again this is a declarative statement to be taken as "truth" though it is impossible to make such a statement genuinely unless one is All-Knowing.  To ask whether or not you are would be purely rhetorical.

(Proven) Theories are simply that.  Facts with a huge asterisk and explanations given in multiple footnotes.  The only people who argue for theories to be treated as facts are the people who desire those theories to be fact.  To everyone else a theory is unproven fact.  Some people like to make up rules to the game and insist everyone else blindly, sheepishly follow along.

I appreciate your use of capitalisation to convey the aura of supreme authority to your self-declarations.  It's so commanding.  As if it came down from high above.  Almost as a God-like pronunciation.

"There are no “flaws” that matter a damn."

What delightful chutzpah!  And scientific to boot!  It's is, after all, critical that we all follow the science.
 

"Absolutists are pointless disrupters, never experts, finding “flaws” in everything & never satisfied. would argue black is white or night is day.

Usually also pseudo- scientists, Flat Earthers & Moon Landing Deniers or Creationists
 

Example: Earth is 4.7 billion years old but some say 4.6. Disrupter says “so we don’t know how old the earth is !”. Yeah,  we do it’s 4.6 to 4.7 billion years old. The difference is insignificant."

Yes, it's so exhausting to have to deal with people's questions.  Why can't they just buy what I'm selling?  Damn Disrupters!!

Well, you can't accuse me of failing to address specific points.  Feel free to address mine. 

 

Respectable. Extensive Effort. BUT offers nothing of real substance, no proper rebuttals, little value, just frivolous exaggerated objection to my simplicity & style. ????
 

I have no time to write any thesis debunking your “points” nor have I seen any of your “issues” addressed when reading about Evolution and Gravity, as they are irrelevant stylistic guff. ????

 

the probability of present Science being “wrong” substantially, on the big subjects, would be one in a million or so.
 

“99%” used to indicate order of magnitude covering only what we know. Obviously a vast amount of new undeveloped Science ( like Cold Fusion or Wormhole Space Travel etc) we don’t know much about beyond the Concept. 

Apply Sherlock Holmes: “ when the impossible is eliminated, what remains is the truth”. ????
 

and factor in the Odds, Science PLUS Probability are seriously important in this Life & the Universe, when best concluding or deciding all matters. ????

 

must be tiresome believing in nothing, arguing everything and disputing at all levels one thousand expert professors, all of whom “ might” be wrong!????
 

[OneMoreFarang]

Three years and 14,195 comments later and lots of people still don't believe in "god".

It seems there is no evidence. Just accept that it doesn't exist.

 

[TropicalGuy]

15 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Excellent post.
Unfortunately, it will likely be dismissed with some more pseudo scientific and pseudo intellectual chaff or not be acknowledged at all.
After all, the main goal is clearly to "win" the argument at any cost and not having an honest, dispassionate discussion. To hell with credibility, dignity and objectivity....who needs those?

Thanks for taking the time to comb through it. I couldn't be bothered.

My posting is practical & clear not remotely “intellectual”. Unlike you I support proven Science and dismiss your unproven pseudo “higher consciousness” hokum.

It’s clearly you and others pushing pseudo “beliefs” which is all they are. 
 

People believe all kinds of dangerous / harmless nonsense & stupidity ( like “God&Heaven”). Anything like that is Unfalsifiable so should be Dismissed as serious subjects.
 

I’m interested ONLY what can be PROVEN ????Once Proved, like Evolution, Proper Debate is Done With & further “ challenge” is just foolish despised Dogma & Argument. 

[Tippaporn]

46 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Respectable. Extensive Effort. BUT offers nothing of real substance, no proper rebuttals, little value, just frivolous exaggerated objection to my simplicity & style. ????
 

I have no time to write any thesis debunking your “points” nor have I seen any of your “issues” addressed when reading about Evolution and Gravity, as they are irrelevant stylistic guff. ????

 

the probability of present Science being “wrong” substantially, on the big subjects, would be one in a million or so.
 

“99%” used to indicate order of magnitude covering only what we know. Obviously a vast amount of new undeveloped Science ( like Cold Fusion or Wormhole Space Travel etc) we don’t know much about beyond the Concept. 

Apply Sherlock Holmes: “ when the impossible is eliminated, what remains is the truth”. ????
 

and factor in the Odds, Science PLUS Probability are seriously important in this Life & the Universe, when best concluding or deciding all matters. ????

 

must be tiresome believing in nothing, arguing everything and disputing at all levels one thousand expert professors, all of whom “ might” be wrong!????
 

"I have no time to write any thesis debunking your “points” . . . "

 

I know you like to think of those who don't subscribe to your theories as being kinda stupid.  So if we're so stupid why are we able to recognise a copout when we see one?  No time?  That's a laugh.  More like an unwillingness to debate honestly and an inability for any kind of admission that one could be wrong.  Sunmaster has you dead to rights.

"After all, the main goal is clearly to "win" the argument at any cost and not having an honest, dispassionate discussion. To hell with credibility, dignity and objectivity....who needs those?"

I'm sorry to see you chicken out of a debate by waving us off with a dismissive hand.  I'm not at all surprised, though.  It's what people naturally do when they feel they have to be right at all costs but can't win an argument on it's merits.  It speaks to insecurity for one.

Here's a fun fact for you which you can try to make fit, or not, into your evolutionary theory.  We, including yourself hopefully, are conscious, sentient beings who produce effects in this world, are imbued with the power of self determination, possess endless creativity . . . to list just a few of our many inherent attributes . . . and given these undeniable facts how do we effect or steer this evolutionary process?

If your answer is nada you needn't reply to this rebuttal for that answer will be the tell all of your ability to be able to think anywhere outside of the tiny box you've willingly placed yourself in.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Three years and 14,195 comments later and lots of people still don't believe in "god".

It seems there is no evidence. Just accept that it doesn't exist.

 

The evidence is everywhere.  It's a matter of being able to recognise it for what it is.  The argument that something doesn't exist due to a lack of evidence is fallacious logic.  Think of a dog whistle.  The sound it emits is outside the range of frequencies which our ears are currently able to recognise.  To say that it produces no sound would be false since we obviously know that the frequency is picked up by no less than dogs.

Now consider what else exists and operates at frequencies we are not attuned to.  Doesn't this example make one wonder, at least, what else exist unbeknownst to us?  And would it be probable that what else exists is quite extensive?

Now you can at least have a glimmering of why some people don't simply accept the deduction you and so many others put forth.

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, TropicalGuy said:

My posting is practical & clear not remotely “intellectual”.

You're right, they are not remotely intellectual. ????

 

[Tippaporn]

I should amend my post to clarify that I do not believe in the existence of God as God is defined by many religions.  It's a bit more expansive and certainly doesn't tailor God in our image.  I'm not even sure one can define what God is.  I prefer the term All That Is.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You're right, they are not remotely intellectual. ????

You caught that admission, too, I see.  I thought I'd let it go.  I've been rough enough on poor TropicalGuy.  He can't even bring himself to the debate table any longer.  We're all too stupid to debate with. 

[OneMoreFarang]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The evidence is everywhere.  It's a matter of being able to recognise it for what it is.  The argument that something doesn't exist due to a lack of evidence is fallacious logic.  Think of a dog whistle.  The sound it emits is outside the range of frequencies which our ears are currently able to recognise.  To say that it produces no sound would be false since we obviously know that the frequency is picked up by no less than dogs.

Now consider what else exists and operates at frequencies we are not attuned to.  Doesn't this example make one wonder, at least, what else exist unbeknownst to us?  And would it be probable that what else exists is quite extensive?

Now you can at least have a glimmering of why some people don't simply accept the deduction you and so many others put forth.

First you write "evidence is everywhere"

And then you write: "The argument that something doesn't exist due to a lack of evidence is fallacious logic."

So what? Is there evidence or not? If there is evidence then show it!

 

Why do we know that dog whistles work? Because we can measure all frequencies. And this is a LOT more than we can hear. And nobody ever discovered a god frequency or anything remotely like that.

 

Maybe two augments form "my" side:

Why should we believe in anything if there is no evidence at all it might exist? It's like believing there are fluffy pink clouds in the sky even if nobody ever saw them or measured them or any other evidence they might exist. Conclusion: They don't exist. Similar to god.

And my favorite question is: If there would be something like an all powerful god who created everything, sees everything, controls everything, where does he come from? A big bang and suddenly god was there? Or was there a bigger god who created "our" god? It just doesn't add up and makes no sense at all.

[Sunmaster]

22 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

So what? Is there evidence or not? If there is evidence then show it!

 

Just like with the example of the dog whistle sound, which needs instruments to be detected, the evidence for the higher consciousness needs "instruments" too. Those instruments can be contemplation or entheogenic substances among others. 
My father always told me: Use the right tools to do the job right. A lot of people though, insist on using sledgehammers to fine tune a concert piano, so to speak. And when they're being told that it doesn't work like that, they get their knickers in a twist and declare victory. ???? 

 

29 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And nobody ever discovered a god frequency or anything remotely like that.

I beg to differ. Check out "The Spirit Molecule" by clinical psychiatrist Rick Strassman.

 

34 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Why should we believe in anything if there is no evidence at all it might exist?

Nobody wants you to blindly believe, quite the contrary.

What we ask is to simply use the right tools for the job before declaring the issue settled.
Once you do that, the answer to your second question will also become clear.

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Just like with the example of the dog whistle sound, which needs instruments to be detected, the evidence for the higher consciousness needs "instruments" too. Those instruments can be contemplation or entheogenic substances among others. 
My father always told me: Use the right tools to do the job right. A lot of people though, insist on using sledgehammers to fine tune a concert piano, so to speak. And when they're being told that it doesn't work like that, they get their knickers in a twist and declare victory. ???? 

 

I beg to differ. Check out "The Spirit Molecule" by clinical psychiatrist Rick Strassman.

 

Nobody wants you to blindly believe, quite the contrary.

What we ask is to simply use the right tools for the job before declaring the issue settled.
Once you do that, the answer to your second question will also become clear.

Damn, I was just formulating a reply but you beat me to it.    Great response.  I'll reply to OMF too but just to make a few further points and to sledgehammer home some of the points you raised using another perspective.

[mauGR1]

I want to spend a couple of words to compliment  @sunmaster's and @tippaporn's posts.

Excellent posts, all well written, reasonable and clear. 

I'm increasingly aware, as i follow my path,  that a great majority of the people we see is deeply stuck in a materialistic illusion, like a sort of bubble. They cannot see beyond that bubble, which looks literally as a cage for the thought. 

Sometimes it seems that it's useless to talk to them. 

More often than not, it seems just wasted time.

Well, for what is worth, it's a great pleasure for me to read your literary efforts ????

[Hummin]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I want to spend a couple of words to compliment  @sunmaster's and @tippaporn's posts.

Excellent posts, all well written, reasonable and clear. 

I'm increasingly aware, as i follow my path,  that a great majority of the people we see is deeply stuck in a materialistic illusion, like a sort of bubble. They cannot see beyond that bubble, which looks literally as a cage for the thought. 

Sometimes it seems that it's useless to talk to them. 

More often than not, it seems just wasted time.

Well, for what is worth, it's a great pleasure for me to read your literary efforts ????

I always like to believe the things and mysticism is much more simple than we like to believe, therefor very easy to stick with almighty good old nature as our God. So pure, so good,  so cruel, so perfect, and beautiful! Why cant everybody see and feel that? I do, does it mean Im on another level? 
 

I can imagine I feel the energy from trees, and the life around a tree, why can not everybody cherish a tree like me?

[zzaa09]

We are sentient cultish beings.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

Disclaimer: I am not saying something new.

The scientists say that science has no absolutely proven truths but certain theories are extremely close to being a fact e.g. the predictability of gravity. The percentage of likelihood falls slightly to say evolution, then to climate change being real, and down and down till we get to theories on dark matter.

But there are many theories including some of the above where they are simply not disputed as it would be tiresome to do so but there is always room for someone to prove otherwise.

Some on this site seem to then take these scientists to task for talking as though things are true when no one is saying they necessarily are, but they are simply acknowledging that the possibility of them being wrong, is remote. 

No actual scientist is shutting down alternative views as such but may give them short shrift if there is no evidence to back up the theories.

So believers in god, or whatever is the alternative theory of the day, should - please - for the love of god - let scientists do science and either join them in trying to get evidence for their theories or by all means talk about ideas and concepts that have not been proven, and who knows you may be on to something,  but don't criticise scientists if they are simply following scientific methodology and accept gracefully that science wont take notice until you have evidence. It's nothing personal.  

 

[mauGR1]

22 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I always like to believe the things and mysticism is much more simple than we like to believe, therefor very easy to stick with almighty good old nature as our God. So pure, so good,  so cruel, so perfect, and beautiful! Why cant everybody see and feel that? I do, does it mean Im on another level? 
 

I can imagine I feel the energy from trees, and the life around a tree, why can not everybody cherish a tree like me?

I do ! I love plants and trees, their life is amazing. 

The life which is pulsating everywhere is evidence of a careful, artistic design. 

To think that it happens randomly is just unlikely.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

but don't criticise scientists if they are simply following scientific methodology and accept gracefully that science wont take notice until you have evidence. It's nothing personal.  

Is it allowed to criticize scientists if they work against the well being of mankind?

Nothing personal, of course, but no one, imho, is above critical thinking. 

[Hummin]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I do ! I love plants and trees, their life is amazing. 

The life which is pulsating everywhere is evidence of a careful, artistic design. 

To think that it happens randomly is just unlikely.

I do not let that disturb my feelings or thoughts, thinking to much about how did all this become ascwe see it, or not see it. There is so many variables that comes to mind when it comes to how, but what we forget to often, life is short, we have to cherish it now and be thankful for what we are, and whats around us, and the possibilities it have all given us out of what? 
 

We know by now, there is possible large numbers out there in the universe just like us that comes and goes like a cell in your body with limited lifespan, recycled and a new one is borned. 
 

I have planted 200 trees soon, and it feels great giving life to something that lives on air and water. 

[Sunmaster]

7 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Disclaimer: I am not saying something new.

The scientists say that science has no absolutely proven truths but certain theories are extremely close to being a fact e.g. the predictability of gravity. The percentage of likelihood falls slightly to say evolution, then to climate change being real, and down and down till we get to theories on dark matter.

But there are many theories including some of the above where they are simply not disputed as it would be tiresome to do so but there is always room for someone to prove otherwise.

Some on this site seem to then take these scientists to task for talking as though things are true when no one is saying they necessarily are, but they are simply acknowledging that the possibility of them being wrong, is remote. 

No actual scientist is shutting down alternative views as such but may give them short shrift if there is no evidence to back up the theories.

So believers in god, or whatever is the alternative theory of the day, should - please - for the love of god - let scientists do science and either join them in trying to get evidence for their theories or by all means talk about ideas and concepts that have not been proven, and who knows you may be on to something,  but don't criticise scientists if they are simply following scientific methodology and accept gracefully that science wont take notice until you have evidence. It's nothing personal.  

 

You know, I agree with you. A respectable scientists' job is to seek truth, in whichever form it might present itself. And if their knowledge is not enough to come to a definite conclusion, an honest scientist will say "We don't know at this point in time. We don't have enough data to validate or invalidate the issue". For example, the debate among scientists whether consciousness is a product of the brain or not bound to the physical body. 
The problem is that a lot of "armchair scientists" pick and choose whatever is convenient to uphold their preconceived bias, while completely ignoring data that doesn't fit and then triumphantly declare the issue settled. This is contrary to the true spirit of science and any intellectually honest seeker of truth (whether they're materialists or not) should call them out for it.

While I personally don't feel the need for science to validate what I already know, I understand that many do. And that's ok. In fact, several scientific branches are starting to do just that and their research is mind-blowing. You have to understand that this is by definition not a "hard science", so don't expect mathematical equations and such. Soft sciences, such as cognitive psychology for example, use different tools, yet they still conform to the scientific method of making an observation, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Is it allowed to criticize scientists if they work against the well being of mankind?

Nothing personal, of course, but no one, imho, is above critical thinking. 

There is scientific method and application of the scientific findings.

If you were to say nuclear power isn't real, because the evidence is not absolute, I might suggest that you are splitting hairs and not seeing reality.

If you say that decisions to develop nuclear power is a poor one, you might have a stronger argument but  still need some science to back that up, if others can provide conclusive evidence the risk of an accident is now tiny.

You might argue that, for peace of mind, society should not have nuclear power as it the risk may be low but the implications of an accident untenable. That is now delving into an area where scientific knowledge is limited i.e. the psychology of human thinking and your input may be as good as the next person. 

So it depends on what aspect of science you are concerned with.  

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

There is scientific method and application of the scientific findings.

If you were to say nuclear power isn't real, because the evidence is not absolute, I might suggest that you are splitting hairs and not seeing reality.

If you say that decisions to develop nuclear power is a poor one, you might have a stronger argument but  still need some science to back that up, if others can provide conclusive evidence the risk of an accident is now tiny.

You might argue that, for peace of mind, society should not have nuclear power as it the risk may be low but the implications of an accident untenable. That is now delving into an area where scientific knowledge is limited i.e. the psychology of human thinking and your input may be as good as the next person. 

So it depends on what aspect of science you are concerned with.  

Well, to cut a long story short, my impression is that profit, in this era, has become such a religion for so many, that even the noblest of sciences are in danger to be used by few for the detriment of many.

Yet i have hope that, after hitting the bottom, an era of higher consciousness will follow. 

Nothing against nuclear science, or medical science, or any science, but unfortunately, it may happen with any tool, even science can be misused.

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Disclaimer: I am not saying something new.

The scientists say that science has no absolutely proven truths but certain theories are extremely close to being a fact e.g. the predictability of gravity. The percentage of likelihood falls slightly to say evolution, then to climate change being real, and down and down till we get to theories on dark matter.

But there are many theories including some of the above where they are simply not disputed as it would be tiresome to do so but there is always room for someone to prove otherwise.

Some on this site seem to then take these scientists to task for talking as though things are true when no one is saying they necessarily are, but they are simply acknowledging that the possibility of them being wrong, is remote. 

No actual scientist is shutting down alternative views as such but may give them short shrift if there is no evidence to back up the theories.

So believers in god, or whatever is the alternative theory of the day, should - please - for the love of god - let scientists do science and either join them in trying to get evidence for their theories or by all means talk about ideas and concepts that have not been proven, and who knows you may be on to something,  but don't criticise scientists if they are simply following scientific methodology and accept gracefully that science wont take notice until you have evidence. It's nothing personal. 

I sense the waving of a white flag.  Not in surrender but perhaps in a call for a truce in the throwing of barbs.

The folks here who hold convictions which lie outside of the accepted realm of science have from day one been mercilessly attacked by the 'respectable men of science" for being little more than ignorant pagans who shun science for blind faith.  Respectable men who have no respect for anyone who disagrees with their conclusions of reality.

The hubris of science declaring that they are the sole purveyors of truth and that their methodology is the only methodology which can ascertain the whole of reality is a bit too much to bear.  By God, it infers that pre-science humanity had no avenue to understand the reality in which it found itself.  That notion is beyond preposterous.  As is the notion that science alone holds the keys to the kingdom.

Respect for the beliefs of others and a bit of humility seems to be too much to ask for.  All I ask is that science not slam the door on the inquisitiveness of others.  And I heartily suggest that they take upon themselves the temerity to at least suspend their convictions just long enough to consider the potential of other ideas.  No one is asking that those of science relinquish their beliefs.  Simply that they be temporarily suspended because that is an absolute requirement to gaining any knowledge that resides outside of what is currently known.  Is that so much to ask for?  Your old beliefs will always be there waiting for you to fit right back into their clothing.  Where's the threat?  What's the danger?

 

But alas conformity and dogma have settled in, no different than with religion.  If there's a true scientist by occupation on this thread do tell what would happen to your reputation if you would be so honest as to suggest to your community a hypothesis which falls too far outside of established and accepted thought.  You would be quickly ostracised, your funding would dry up, and your reputation tarnished and slandered.

"Some on this site seem to then take these scientists to task for talking as though things are true when no one is saying they necessarily are, but they are simply acknowledging that the possibility of them being wrong, is remote."

Have you read TropicalGuy's posts above.  No science disciple here has made the claim that evolutionary theory is indeed fact for all intents and purposes?  What you wrote is only partially true.  There are some, and admissions at times by others, that science can never prove anything to be true; science can only prove something to be false.  But by and large I would say that claims of absolute truth ore made more often than not.

For what it's worth to you, and it may have no worth at all to you since it's coming from me, I do appreciate your post.

 

48 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Is it allowed to criticize scientists if they work against the well being of mankind?

Nothing personal, of course, but no one, imho, is above critical thinking. 

In your appeal to not criticise scientists when they are simply following scientific methodology mauGR1 makes a valid point.  What say you?

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

In your appeal to not criticise scientists when they are simply following scientific methodology mauGR1 makes a valid point.  What say you?

I made that very same point many times, and all i have heard has been deafening silence ????

 

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I made that very same point many times, and all i have heard has been deafening silence ????

 

They can rarely tolerate criticism.  The "evils" perpetrated by science upon humanity is a more or less verboten topic.  Well, you're free to bring it up, even specific instances, but do not expect them to agree and admit that they've played a role in the creation of mass deaths and misery.  Covid vaccines anyone?  Weapons of mass destruction?  GMOs?  Could go on endlessly.

But what else can one expect from an institution which believes life was a cosmic accident and existence is nothing more than a game of random chance in which the individual is completely powerless to determine his own future?  Would one seriously expect such a system to produce morals which might be useful in tempering the directions which they take science?  Hardly.  So anything goes.  And don't expect any exhibits of shame for any miscreations.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

24 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I sense the waving of a white flag.  Not in surrender but perhaps in a call for a truce in the throwing of barbs.

The folks here who hold convictions which lie outside of the accepted realm of science have from day one been mercilessly attacked by the 'respectable men of science" for being little more than ignorant pagans who shun science for blind faith.  Respectable men who have no respect for anyone who disagrees with their conclusions of reality.

The hubris of science declaring that they are the sole purveyors of truth and that their methodology is the only methodology which can ascertain the whole of reality is a bit too much to bear.  By God, it infers that pre-science humanity had no avenue to understand the reality in which it found itself.  That notion is beyond preposterous.  As is the notion that science alone holds the keys to the kingdom.

Respect for the beliefs of others and a bit of humility seems to be too much to ask for.  All I ask is that science not slam the door on the inquisitiveness of others.  And I heartily suggest that they take upon themselves the temerity to at least suspend their convictions just long enough to consider the potential of other ideas.  No one is asking that those of science relinquish their beliefs.  Simply that they be temporarily suspended because that is an absolute requirement to gaining any knowledge that resides outside of what is currently known.  Is that so much to ask for?  Your old beliefs will always be there waiting for you to fit right back into their clothing.  Where's the threat?  What's the danger?

 

But alas conformity and dogma have settled in, no different than with religion.  If there's a true scientist by occupation on this thread do tell what would happen to your reputation if you would be so honest as to suggest to your community a hypothesis which falls too far outside of established and accepted thought.  You would be quickly ostracised, your funding would dry up, and your reputation tarnished and slandered.

"Some on this site seem to then take these scientists to task for talking as though things are true when no one is saying they necessarily are, but they are simply acknowledging that the possibility of them being wrong, is remote."

Have you read TropicalGuy's posts above.  No science disciple here has made the claim that evolutionary theory is indeed fact for all intents and purposes?  What you wrote is only partially true.  There are some, and admissions at times by others, that science can never prove anything to be true; science can only prove something to be false.  But by and large I would say that claims of absolute truth ore made more often than not.

For what it's worth to you, and it may have no worth at all to you since it's coming from me, I do appreciate your post.

 

In your appeal to not criticise scientists when they are simply following scientific methodology mauGR1 makes a valid point.  What say you?

Thanks for that. I find your posts interesting. 

Keep in mind science itself has no hubris and it is an evidential methodology and so by definition it is up to the theoretician to fit it's rules or leave that part of science to one side if they haven't got to the stage of having a body of evidence. 

I mentioned once before that this is a good place for people to put forward theories, for which there may not be objective evidence at this stage, because it is interesting and there could be some real insights. 

But I don't think it's fair if some feel that science itself has some bias against their approach.  It may be that from time to time some scientists are corrupt, or aren't open to new ideas, but that's a people thing and not a science thing.