Scientific evidence for god discovered

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29476
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Sun May 24, 2015 1:01 am

My nickname is "Gorgeous". Because of spellcheck. When my friend tried to send a voice text, the spellchecker turned "I'm going to pick up Gord just now" into "I'm going to pick up gorgeous now".
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby digress » Sun May 24, 2015 1:31 am

Poodle wrote:
digress wrote:
Poodle wrote:
digress wrote:Interesting. The concept of a reflection had to exist prior to seeing yourself in water because to use the word reflection, to describe what was visible in water, would have been a metaphorical understanding. "Seeing" your reflection. The term would not have had its literalism like it does today. Something we take for granted.


I'm not convinced, digress. I'm not at all sure that anyone having no experience whatsoever of reflections would even consider that they might be images of themselves - they would be the wrong way round for a start. There is a (tenuous, I admit) idea that such an occurrence may be the basis of the European Bronze Age habit of chucking nice objects into the water for the use of the ancestors and/or gods. They certainly chucked a lot of stuff in.


You don't think it would have been considered. Well, I had not considered that.


No - that's not quite what I said. My point was how the concept of a reflection being related directly to an observer would even be possible. I'm not sure that it COULD have been considered, let alone would have been.Our "first observer" had no idea what he/she looked like.


I think the pattern to consider here is; what is that > why does it move as i do > confirm it moves as i do > tell a friend > water looks like friend > moves as friend > isnt friend but is > isnt me but is.

But this is all a digression in speculation of scrmbldgg's image and your curious comment, How did that person know it was a reflection?

It bear no ground on my first use of the word. As soon as people began to develop a sophistication of themselves they saw themselves elsewhere. That was the insight I wished to share, on topic.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19810
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun May 24, 2015 1:33 am

Gord wrote:My nickname is "Gorgeous". Because of spellcheck. When my friend tried to send a voice text, the spellchecker turned "I'm going to pick up Gord just now" into "I'm going to pick up gorgeous now".


And thus the scientific evidence for Gord discovered.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Sun May 24, 2015 1:57 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfbmjUQOFxs

Do you choose to disregard all science based speculations beyond the sum of everything science has evidence of regarding the universe? Right now the scientific community doesn't know the significance of what it doesn't know.

How do you deal with things that right now are beyond science's capabilities but which aren't impossible; ignore them? Existence of the supernatural does fall within the category of "not impossible", although I ignore the possibility. Another possible scenario that I ignore is that every consciousness which becomes capable of pondering the nature of existence, reality, god, or God, or even the The Stork Theory of Reproduction gets exactly what s/he believes.

But I don't ignore many science based speculations.

I've no beef with "people of like mind (organizing) and (inviting) others of like mind to discover a community that's been not available until then" but do make a point of reminding them that the very existence of anything (such as said organizations) changes the overall equation. Organizations by nature present views appealing to the overall collective of their membership but each member may (or may not) believe everything being advocated.

My "tribe"? Oh, I suppose you mean 'tribe, i.e."diatribe". If so, good for me!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAzTnsSgs2s


scrmbldggs wrote:
toroid wrote:The significance of things believed to exist is for a believer (or non-believer) to assess. God's significance is for each human consciousness to evaluate. The same for existence.

God's significance depends on evidence to her/his existence. AFAIK, no such evidence has ever been discovered, no matter how much those who merely believe assert it exists.

So for me, said significance is nil. I was born without a god involved and no one has been able to talk me into accepting the existence of one on their (and others) word alone either.



What's your beef with people of like mind to organize and invite others of like mind to discover a community that's been not available until then. And that the running of such an organization naturally demands resources just as any other does?

Interest groups advocating atheism seek donations and more adherents to their expressed non-beliefs. The path at that juncture becomes crooked indeed because it involves simultaneous non-belief and belief from donors and followers. Debating god is silly (for me.)

Tough luck. Your tribe is the cause for the debates.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Sun May 24, 2015 2:49 pm

Apparently the disagreement between us (gord & me) goes beyond mere belief in the existence of god, but extends to the nature of what's knowable about "everyone" within a given set of individuals.

My Gord, you bring up at least one interesting point, the "confidence" I have about the nature of reality as science presents it. I'm not confident. But I've gotta' deal with that stipulated lack of confidence as much as anything.

Since the expertise of professionals in scientific fields doesn't extend to matters beyond their fields, their propositions regarding the non-existence of god are at best (very) educated guesses which I arbitrarily choose not to follow, not because they're ignorant but because that description ignores the beginning of understanding that science has recently (less than, say, 200 years, but especially within the past 50 years) become capable of observing about everything "observable". Scientists discount the significance their own research that I can't help being aware of.

So I include it by calling all scientifically verified, or speculated, possibilities about the nature of reality and how it operates, god.

I believe that doing so is, over time, a more effective way of communicating to religious believers that the now crumbling belief of God is obsolete. Attacking ancient beliefs directly is IMHO counterproductive. Better to focus on what is, not what isn't. YMMV!

Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
toroid wrote:I'm a skeptic, just like you, but my skepticism is focused on your view that a "universe" that popped into existence for no apparent reason.


Tell us your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe

Does it involve magic wands and unicorns?

Go back through the thread; there's no point in going round and round about things we (you and me) disagree about.

You don't answer straight questions.

I don't think you are a skeptic just like anyone here. If you're focused on the view that the Universe "popped into existence for no apparent reason", then can you at least tell us which part of that you're skeptical about? Is it the "popped" part? I can't believe it would be the "existence" part; surely we can take that for granted. And if it's the "no apparent reason" part, then that sounds like a claim that there is a reason and that it's apparent, in which case I'd like to find out from you what that reason is and how you know it.

Straight questions? As opposed to gay questions, crooked questions, or something else?

Yeah, just like that. You avoid answering. I'm beginning to suspect that you're trying to avoid having to face questions because you aren't confident in your answers.

The comment which resulted in your negative observation IMHO is straightforward. I'd suggest starting around post #60.

You failed to give us any idea of your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe.

I've already made a full reply to post #60. The universe exists. That's the only thing you've said. You also asked us some questions, which some people have answered (I'm one of them); our answers differed, but you yourself never gave your own answers, so we don't know if you agree with any of our answers.

We know that you believe "god is the name of the process underlying reality" but I still can't figure out why you believe that. I'm not even sure what means, or even if it has any significant meaning at all.

I covered your last paragraph in previous posts.

You "covered" it by failing to answer my questions. I don't consider that "covered". I'll ask them again: If you're focused on the view that the Universe "popped into existence for no apparent reason", then can you at least tell us which part of that you're skeptical about? Is it the "popped" part? I can't believe it would be the "existence" part; surely we can take that for granted. And if it's the "no apparent reason" part, then that sounds like a claim that there is a reason and that it's apparent, in which case I'd like to find out from you what that reason is and how you know it.

It's annoying that you won't answer even my questions about which questions I should be asking you.

Why does going around and around regarding all permutations and combinations of ideas behind differing beliefs appeal to you?

The reason I keep asking you questions is because you keep going around and around without giving any information that would answer those questions. You walk a crooked path.

It's easy to be annoying to an individual and difficult to annoy everybody. The comment you made relates with certainty only to your views as an individual.

God is what a person thinks it, or s/he is or isn't. You shouldn't be asking me questions. It's annoying. There's nothing to figure out.

Interest groups advocating atheism seek donations and more adherents to their expressed non-beliefs. The path at that juncture becomes crooked indeed because it involves simultaneous non-belief and belief from donors and followers. Debating god is silly (for me.)

The universe is. Beyond that nothing can be stated with certainty (except, philosophically: "I am because I think I am.") The significance of things believed to exist is for a believer (or non-believer) to assess. God's significance is for each human consciousness to evaluate. The same for existence. My belief holds answers for me but not for you.

We (you and I) disagree.

We certainly do disagree.

It's quite easy to annoy everyone who is listening. I've known several experts.

"God" is not what a person thinks it is. "God" is a word with a definition. You should be explaining your non-standard definition, otherwise what you're saying won't convey the meaning you intend. Your non-standard use of words leaves everything to figure out.

No one here is asking for a donation. No one here is even debating god. No one (that I'm aware of) is seeking adherents. We're looking for understanding, and you're failing to provide it. You keep using the term "god" but you seem to be doing so with a non-standard definition, which I'd like to understand.

There is a great deal that can be stated with equal certainty to the statement, "the universe is". Remember, I agreed that "the universe exists" is a given; that simply means I won't dispute it, not that it can't be disputed. There are people on this forum who have disputed it in the past. (I am not one of those who have done so...at least, I think I'm not. It's possible I may have done so to demonstrate a point, but I don't remember it.)

So, please. Explain your beliefs in understandable ways if you're going to post about them at all.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun May 24, 2015 2:50 pm

toroid wrote:How do you deal with things that right now are beyond science's capabilities but which aren't impossible
Easy. You first make an observation and determine if there is any evidence that the paranormal claim is actually going on.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Sun May 24, 2015 7:13 pm

Your reply is true, but it misconstrues the question.The question was meant to state: How do you deal with science based speculations by professionals in a field that the speculation connects with? My apologies.

Supposed paranormal events aren't scientific, but many speculations based on science are beyond current scientific capabilities to observe or confirm.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19810
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun May 24, 2015 7:26 pm

Seems you're putting the cart before the horse.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Sun May 24, 2015 7:53 pm

(I suppose you're replying to the post above.)

Please elaborate. (Or not.)

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19810
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun May 24, 2015 8:21 pm

To me it seems you want to change the face and terminology of both science and non-belief and are working from your personal presuppositions.

Good luck with that. :-P
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Sun May 24, 2015 8:53 pm

I don't know what "the face" means. I believe some current definitions are at best incomplete, possibly misleading, and encourage tactics which aren't the most persuasive. My views stem from personal presuppositions. Good luck is cool, sarcasm less so, but "que sera sera".

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Poodle » Sun May 24, 2015 11:39 pm

toroid wrote:Your reply is true, but it misconstrues the question.The question was meant to state: How do you deal with science based speculations by professionals in a field that the speculation connects with? My apologies.

Supposed paranormal events aren't scientific, but many speculations based on science are beyond current scientific capabilities to observe or confirm.


I think you've just described science. Isn't all scientific research speculations based on science beyond current scientific capabilities to observe or confirm? Otherwise we're all going to spend our time reconfirming that which has already been confirmed. The point is that the speculations must be based upon some firm foundation.

E.g. 1. "Let's speculate that the Standard Model is incomplete". 2. "OK - here's an LHC."

On the other hand ... 1. "Let's speculate that the Standard Model is completely and utterly wrong". 2. "Bye bye".

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Mon May 25, 2015 1:10 am

OK, but isn't the paranormal beyond science.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon May 25, 2015 1:24 am

toroid wrote:OK, but isn't the paranormal beyond science.


Until someone supplies evidence of the paranormal actual occurring, it is beyond science in the same way as Sherlock Holmes, Jaws, Scooby Doo and other fictional entertainments.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Poodle » Mon May 25, 2015 1:24 am

toroid wrote:OK, but isn't the paranormal beyond science.


Not by definition, obviously. If it existed, then it would be explicable and therefore within the reach of legitimate scientific enquiry. As no one has yet managed to demonstrate any paranormal phenomenon, there is no reason to suppose that it exists other than in the realm of wishful thinking.

EDIT: Which Matthew just pipped me to saying, in fact.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29476
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Mon May 25, 2015 4:01 am

toroid wrote:Do you choose to disregard all science based speculations beyond the sum of everything science has evidence of regarding the universe?

I do when I'm cutting bread.

Right now the scientific community doesn't know the significance of what it doesn't know.

That's true of everyone. Narrowing it to "the scientific community" is pointless.

How do you deal with things that right now are beyond science's capabilities but which aren't impossible; ignore them?

Again, yes; I do when I'm cutting bread.

Cutting bread is just an example, of course. I ignore all sorts of irrelevant things when I'm doing something. I deem them irrelevant if their relevance to the chore at hand is inconceivable.

...I don't ignore many science based speculations.

How does that affect the way you drive?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29476
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Mon May 25, 2015 4:11 am

toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
toroid wrote:I'm a skeptic, just like you, but my skepticism is focused on your view that a "universe" that popped into existence for no apparent reason.


Tell us your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe

Does it involve magic wands and unicorns?

Go back through the thread; there's no point in going round and round about things we (you and me) disagree about.

You don't answer straight questions.

I don't think you are a skeptic just like anyone here. If you're focused on the view that the Universe "popped into existence for no apparent reason", then can you at least tell us which part of that you're skeptical about? Is it the "popped" part? I can't believe it would be the "existence" part; surely we can take that for granted. And if it's the "no apparent reason" part, then that sounds like a claim that there is a reason and that it's apparent, in which case I'd like to find out from you what that reason is and how you know it.

Straight questions? As opposed to gay questions, crooked questions, or something else?

Yeah, just like that. You avoid answering. I'm beginning to suspect that you're trying to avoid having to face questions because you aren't confident in your answers.

The comment which resulted in your negative observation IMHO is straightforward. I'd suggest starting around post #60.

You failed to give us any idea of your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe.

I've already made a full reply to post #60. The universe exists. That's the only thing you've said. You also asked us some questions, which some people have answered (I'm one of them); our answers differed, but you yourself never gave your own answers, so we don't know if you agree with any of our answers.

We know that you believe "god is the name of the process underlying reality" but I still can't figure out why you believe that. I'm not even sure what means, or even if it has any significant meaning at all.

I covered your last paragraph in previous posts.

You "covered" it by failing to answer my questions. I don't consider that "covered". I'll ask them again: If you're focused on the view that the Universe "popped into existence for no apparent reason", then can you at least tell us which part of that you're skeptical about? Is it the "popped" part? I can't believe it would be the "existence" part; surely we can take that for granted. And if it's the "no apparent reason" part, then that sounds like a claim that there is a reason and that it's apparent, in which case I'd like to find out from you what that reason is and how you know it.

It's annoying that you won't answer even my questions about which questions I should be asking you.

Why does going around and around regarding all permutations and combinations of ideas behind differing beliefs appeal to you?

The reason I keep asking you questions is because you keep going around and around without giving any information that would answer those questions. You walk a crooked path.

It's easy to be annoying to an individual and difficult to annoy everybody. The comment you made relates with certainty only to your views as an individual.

God is what a person thinks it, or s/he is or isn't. You shouldn't be asking me questions. It's annoying. There's nothing to figure out.

Interest groups advocating atheism seek donations and more adherents to their expressed non-beliefs. The path at that juncture becomes crooked indeed because it involves simultaneous non-belief and belief from donors and followers. Debating god is silly (for me.)

The universe is. Beyond that nothing can be stated with certainty (except, philosophically: "I am because I think I am.") The significance of things believed to exist is for a believer (or non-believer) to assess. God's significance is for each human consciousness to evaluate. The same for existence. My belief holds answers for me but not for you.

We (you and I) disagree.

We certainly do disagree.

It's quite easy to annoy everyone who is listening. I've known several experts.

"God" is not what a person thinks it is. "God" is a word with a definition. You should be explaining your non-standard definition, otherwise what you're saying won't convey the meaning you intend. Your non-standard use of words leaves everything to figure out.

No one here is asking for a donation. No one here is even debating god. No one (that I'm aware of) is seeking adherents. We're looking for understanding, and you're failing to provide it. You keep using the term "god" but you seem to be doing so with a non-standard definition, which I'd like to understand.

There is a great deal that can be stated with equal certainty to the statement, "the universe is". Remember, I agreed that "the universe exists" is a given; that simply means I won't dispute it, not that it can't be disputed. There are people on this forum who have disputed it in the past. (I am not one of those who have done so...at least, I think I'm not. It's possible I may have done so to demonstrate a point, but I don't remember it.)

So, please. Explain your beliefs in understandable ways if you're going to post about them at all.

Apparently the disagreement between us (gord & me) goes beyond mere belief in the existence of god, but extends to the nature of what's knowable about "everyone" within a given set of individuals.

It extends beyond that, too.

Since the expertise of professionals in scientific fields doesn't extend to matters beyond their fields, their propositions regarding the non-existence of god are at best (very) educated guesses which I arbitrarily choose not to follow, not because they're ignorant but because that description ignores the beginning of understanding that science has recently (less than, say, 200 years, but especially within the past 50 years) become capable of observing about everything "observable". Scientists discount the significance their own research that I can't help being aware of.

So I include it by calling all scientifically verified, or speculated, possibilities about the nature of reality and how it operates, god.

That's insane. Why don't you just call it shoe or oven mitt instead?

I believe that doing so is, over time, a more effective way of communicating to religious believers that the now crumbling belief of God is obsolete. Attacking ancient beliefs directly is IMHO counterproductive. Better to focus on what is, not what isn't. YMMV!

So let me see if I understand this: You're attempting to hijack the word "god" away from religions and change it into a scientific term so that, in the future, no one will be able to talk about the currently defined meaning of the word?

Or, to phrase it a slightly different way: You don't actually believe in god(s), but you want to use the word "god" to refer to the things you do believe in, so that you can ignore the current beliefs in god(s) and hope they go away.

I've had to piece this together from what you're saying, so I admit I may have got it wrong. Please correct me where I've made mistakes.

Also, what's your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Mon May 25, 2015 4:58 pm

Ol' Webster defines "paranormal" as: " very strange and not able to be explained by what scientists know about nature and the world"

Why not accept the dictionary definition and exclude paranormal from scientific explorations?

Poodle wrote:
toroid wrote:Your reply is true, but it misconstrues the question.The question was meant to state: How do you deal with science based speculations by professionals in a field that the speculation connects with? My apologies.

Supposed paranormal events aren't scientific, but many speculations based on science are beyond current scientific capabilities to observe or confirm.


I think you've just described science. Isn't all scientific research speculations based on science beyond current scientific capabilities to observe or confirm? Otherwise we're all going to spend our time reconfirming that which has already been confirmed. The point is that the speculations must be based upon some firm foundation.

E.g. 1. "Let's speculate that the Standard Model is incomplete". 2. "OK - here's an LHC."

On the other hand ... 1. "Let's speculate that the Standard Model is completely and utterly wrong". 2. "Bye bye".

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Mon May 25, 2015 5:00 pm

Yup.

Matthew Ellard wrote:
toroid wrote:OK, but isn't the paranormal beyond science.


Until someone supplies evidence of the paranormal actual occurring, it is beyond science in the same way as Sherlock Holmes, Jaws, Scooby Doo and other fictional entertainments.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Mon May 25, 2015 5:01 pm

Yup.

Poodle wrote:
toroid wrote:OK, but isn't the paranormal beyond science.


Not by definition, obviously. If it existed, then it would be explicable and therefore within the reach of legitimate scientific enquiry. As no one has yet managed to demonstrate any paranormal phenomenon, there is no reason to suppose that it exists other than in the realm of wishful thinking.

EDIT: Which Matthew just pipped me to saying, in fact.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Mon May 25, 2015 5:21 pm

Oh my Gord, your post is so brillig it's beyond my ability to add to it. Like totally equal to, or better than; "It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide."

Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:Do you choose to disregard all science based speculations beyond the sum of everything science has evidence of regarding the universe?

I do when I'm cutting bread.

Right now the scientific community doesn't know the significance of what it doesn't know.

That's true of everyone. Narrowing it to "the scientific community" is pointless.

How do you deal with things that right now are beyond science's capabilities but which aren't impossible; ignore them?

Again, yes; I do when I'm cutting bread.

Cutting bread is just an example, of course. I ignore all sorts of irrelevant things when I'm doing something. I deem them irrelevant if their relevance to the chore at hand is inconceivable.

...I don't ignore many science based speculations.

How does that affect the way you drive?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29476
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Mon May 25, 2015 5:22 pm

toroid wrote:Oh my Gord, your post is so brillig it's beyond my ability to add to it. Like totally equal to, or better than; "It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide."

I know, right?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19810
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon May 25, 2015 5:26 pm

toroid wrote:Ol' Webster defines "paranormal" as: " very strange and not able to be explained by what scientists know about nature and the world"

Why not accept the dictionary definition and exclude paranormal from scientific explorations?


Why not accept that there are those who wish to prove its validity, apparently can't do so, but won't give it a rest? And those who seriously look into their claims.

From another dictionary:
http://skepdic.com/paranormalinvestigator.html wrote:As psychologist Ray Hyman once quipped: don't try to explain something until you're first sure it happened.

There are a few individuals and groups who have earned the reputation of being scientific in their approach to paranormal investigations: Peter Brugger, Joe Nickell, Ben Radford, Jan Willem Nienhuys, Richard Wiseman, Chris French, Massimo Polidoro, Luigi Garlaschelli, Karen Stollznow, Independent Investigations Group, the Skeptical Analysis of the Paranormal Society (SAPS), and a good part of The Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP). Some might object to my examples because all of them except ASSAP are skeptics or affiliated with skeptical organizations. Skeptics might object to the inclusion of ASSAP because of its history. However, if you understand what a skeptic is, you shouldn't quibble with including the skeptics. Only if you mistakenly believe that a skeptic is automatically a denier who rejects without inquiry every claim about ghosts, demons, lake monsters, UFOs, etc., would you object to including these skeptics as scientific investigators. As noted above, being a denier is distinct from being a skeptic. Any good scientist must be a skeptic; no good scientist is a denier. The scientist must be open-minded, willing to investigate claims that will probably turn out to be unfounded, and willing to test several hypotheses in the search for the truth.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Mon May 25, 2015 6:49 pm

I agree with you that we certainly do disagree. The exchange of posts is a debate as much as the investigations of science have provided hitherto unkknown info about the cosmos and the reality that underlies it.

To enable clarity for readers I copied and pasted three paragraphs from near the bottom of your post to here:

"So let me see if I understand this: You're attempting to hijack the word "god" away from religions and change it into a scientific term so that, in the future, no one will be able to talk about the currently defined meaning of the word?

Or, to phrase it a slightly different way: You don't actually believe in god(s), but you want to use the word "god" to refer to the things you do believe in, so that you can ignore the current beliefs in god(s) and hope they go away.

I've had to piece this together from what you're saying, so I admit I may have got it wrong. Please correct me where I've made mistakes."

You've succeeded in getting it wrong.

The belief in God is "going away", not as fast as you may wish, but nevertheless it has been measurably declining.

Followers oF ISIS can resonably be said to believe in God as much as, or more than, anybody else, judging from their enthusiasm for sacrificing themselves and everybody who opposes them. Few Christian fundies are their equal.

From http://www.livescience.com/:

"Male ISIS martyrs will receive 72 virgin maidens in paradise as a reward for their sacrifice" while "female martyrs can expect to find their husbands in paradise. A woman who had multiple husbands in life will be able to choose the best one as her eternal spouse in the afterlife."

Hey, those guys and gals believe!

These beliefs tend toward accelerating the realization among those who don't share them that belief in God is kinda' crazy.

But there still is "something" that science has revealed.

I choose to call it "god", because it truly is powerful and universal and awesome.

One of the most interesting aspects of the operating systems of reality is they're totally neutral about morality while giving intelligent consciousnesses produced by reality's web of systems total freedom to develop whatever they choose to enter into an ever present competition for ascendancy. Humans thus are free to create values without offending or trasgressing the powers that enabled them to exist. Cool!

Among traditionalists God is on a path toward becoming a niche term. I choose arbitrarily to describe something that exists with a term related to, but not the same as the capitalized word that is becoming increasingly irrelevant. IMHO traditionalists will increasingly "get it" while not being as open to a frontal assault on their traditional belief system.

Call the web of operating systems regulating the parameters of reality whatever you wish. I do.



Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
toroid wrote:I'm a skeptic, just like you, but my skepticism is focused on your view that a "universe" that popped into existence for no apparent reason.


Tell us your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe

Does it involve magic wands and unicorns?

Go back through the thread; there's no point in going round and round about things we (you and me) disagree about.

You don't answer straight questions.

I don't think you are a skeptic just like anyone here. If you're focused on the view that the Universe "popped into existence for no apparent reason", then can you at least tell us which part of that you're skeptical about? Is it the "popped" part? I can't believe it would be the "existence" part; surely we can take that for granted. And if it's the "no apparent reason" part, then that sounds like a claim that there is a reason and that it's apparent, in which case I'd like to find out from you what that reason is and how you know it.

Straight questions? As opposed to gay questions, crooked questions, or something else?

Yeah, just like that. You avoid answering. I'm beginning to suspect that you're trying to avoid having to face questions because you aren't confident in your answers.

The comment which resulted in your negative observation IMHO is straightforward. I'd suggest starting around post #60.

You failed to give us any idea of your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe.

I've already made a full reply to post #60. The universe exists. That's the only thing you've said. You also asked us some questions, which some people have answered (I'm one of them); our answers differed, but you yourself never gave your own answers, so we don't know if you agree with any of our answers.

We know that you believe "god is the name of the process underlying reality" but I still can't figure out why you believe that. I'm not even sure what means, or even if it has any significant meaning at all.

I covered your last paragraph in previous posts.

You "covered" it by failing to answer my questions. I don't consider that "covered". I'll ask them again: If you're focused on the view that the Universe "popped into existence for no apparent reason", then can you at least tell us which part of that you're skeptical about? Is it the "popped" part? I can't believe it would be the "existence" part; surely we can take that for granted. And if it's the "no apparent reason" part, then that sounds like a claim that there is a reason and that it's apparent, in which case I'd like to find out from you what that reason is and how you know it.

It's annoying that you won't answer even my questions about which questions I should be asking you.

Why does going around and around regarding all permutations and combinations of ideas behind differing beliefs appeal to you?

The reason I keep asking you questions is because you keep going around and around without giving any information that would answer those questions. You walk a crooked path.

It's easy to be annoying to an individual and difficult to annoy everybody. The comment you made relates with certainty only to your views as an individual.

God is what a person thinks it, or s/he is or isn't. You shouldn't be asking me questions. It's annoying. There's nothing to figure out.

Interest groups advocating atheism seek donations and more adherents to their expressed non-beliefs. The path at that juncture becomes crooked indeed because it involves simultaneous non-belief and belief from donors and followers. Debating god is silly (for me.)

The universe is. Beyond that nothing can be stated with certainty (except, philosophically: "I am because I think I am.") The significance of things believed to exist is for a believer (or non-believer) to assess. God's significance is for each human consciousness to evaluate. The same for existence. My belief holds answers for me but not for you.

We (you and I) disagree.

We certainly do disagree.

It's quite easy to annoy everyone who is listening. I've known several experts.

"God" is not what a person thinks it is. "God" is a word with a definition. You should be explaining your non-standard definition, otherwise what you're saying won't convey the meaning you intend. Your non-standard use of words leaves everything to figure out.

No one here is asking for a donation. No one here is even debating god. No one (that I'm aware of) is seeking adherents. We're looking for understanding, and you're failing to provide it. You keep using the term "god" but you seem to be doing so with a non-standard definition, which I'd like to understand.

There is a great deal that can be stated with equal certainty to the statement, "the universe is". Remember, I agreed that "the universe exists" is a given; that simply means I won't dispute it, not that it can't be disputed. There are people on this forum who have disputed it in the past. (I am not one of those who have done so...at least, I think I'm not. It's possible I may have done so to demonstrate a point, but I don't remember it.)

So, please. Explain your beliefs in understandable ways if you're going to post about them at all.

Apparently the disagreement between us (gord & me) goes beyond mere belief in the existence of god, but extends to the nature of what's knowable about "everyone" within a given set of individuals.

It extends beyond that, too.

Since the expertise of professionals in scientific fields doesn't extend to matters beyond their fields, their propositions regarding the non-existence of god are at best (very) educated guesses which I arbitrarily choose not to follow, not because they're ignorant but because that description ignores the beginning of understanding that science has recently (less than, say, 200 years, but especially within the past 50 years) become capable of observing about everything "observable". Scientists discount the significance their own research that I can't help being aware of.

So I include it by calling all scientifically verified, or speculated, possibilities about the nature of reality and how it operates, god.

That's insane. Why don't you just call it shoe or oven mitt instead?

I believe that doing so is, over time, a more effective way of communicating to religious believers that the now crumbling belief of God is obsolete. Attacking ancient beliefs directly is IMHO counterproductive. Better to focus on what is, not what isn't. YMMV!

So let me see if I understand this: You're attempting to hijack the word "god" away from religions and change it into a scientific term so that, in the future, no one will be able to talk about the currently defined meaning of the word?

Or, to phrase it a slightly different way: You don't actually believe in god(s), but you want to use the word "god" to refer to the things you do believe in, so that you can ignore the current beliefs in god(s) and hope they go away.

I've had to piece this together from what you're saying, so I admit I may have got it wrong. Please correct me where I've made mistakes.

Also, what's your alternative working theory for the creation of the universe?

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Mon May 25, 2015 6:57 pm

Hey guy, if that's what ya' wanna' do, go for it! Do your thing.

It's been fun spending time here on a nice rainy day, but too much is never enough and I gotta' do other things. Later, dudes and dudettes!

scrmbldggs wrote:
toroid wrote:Ol' Webster defines "paranormal" as: " very strange and not able to be explained by what scientists know about nature and the world"

Why not accept the dictionary definition and exclude paranormal from scientific explorations?


Why not accept that there are those who wish to prove its validity, apparently can't do so, but won't give it a rest? And those who seriously look into their claims.

From another dictionary:
http://skepdic.com/paranormalinvestigator.html wrote:As psychologist Ray Hyman once quipped: don't try to explain something until you're first sure it happened.

There are a few individuals and groups who have earned the reputation of being scientific in their approach to paranormal investigations: Peter Brugger, Joe Nickell, Ben Radford, Jan Willem Nienhuys, Richard Wiseman, Chris French, Massimo Polidoro, Luigi Garlaschelli, Karen Stollznow, Independent Investigations Group, the Skeptical Analysis of the Paranormal Society (SAPS), and a good part of The Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP). Some might object to my examples because all of them except ASSAP are skeptics or affiliated with skeptical organizations. Skeptics might object to the inclusion of ASSAP because of its history. However, if you understand what a skeptic is, you shouldn't quibble with including the skeptics. Only if you mistakenly believe that a skeptic is automatically a denier who rejects without inquiry every claim about ghosts, demons, lake monsters, UFOs, etc., would you object to including these skeptics as scientific investigators. As noted above, being a denier is distinct from being a skeptic. Any good scientist must be a skeptic; no good scientist is a denier. The scientist must be open-minded, willing to investigate claims that will probably turn out to be unfounded, and willing to test several hypotheses in the search for the truth.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue May 26, 2015 12:15 am

toroid wrote:Hey guy, if that's what ya' wanna' do, go for it! Do your thing.


This is a skeptic forum. Are you surprised that people here are being skeptical? You came here. We didn't go to you.

However, Gord is right. "Sherlock Holmes" is a fictional character from fictional literature. People describe "Sherlock Holmes" in the same way through common understanding of fictional literature "God" is a fictional character from fictional literature. People describe "God" in the same way from common understanding of fictional literature.

You are unable to describe the characteristics of the magical entity that matches your fuzzy views, and therefore you have subjectively borrowed "God" from one source of fiction and applied it to your own subjective views. You are giving "God" powers that "God" never had. You are deliberately avoiding clear communications on a science forum.

How can well read skeptics relate "God" of the bible, who made man in his image and lost battles against bronze age Egyptians, also have the characteristics that you are giving "God"? It simply doesn't make sense.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29476
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Tue May 26, 2015 12:25 am

toroid wrote:I agree with you that we certainly do disagree. The exchange of posts is a debate as much as the investigations of science have provided hitherto unkknown info about the cosmos and the reality that underlies it.

I thought it was a period of questions and non-answers about why you use the term "god" to describe things that others describe differently.

To enable clarity for readers I copied and pasted three paragraphs from near the bottom of your post to here:
Gord wrote:"So let me see if I understand this: You're attempting to hijack the word "god" away from religions and change it into a scientific term so that, in the future, no one will be able to talk about the currently defined meaning of the word?

Or, to phrase it a slightly different way: You don't actually believe in god(s), but you want to use the word "god" to refer to the things you do believe in, so that you can ignore the current beliefs in god(s) and hope they go away.

I've had to piece this together from what you're saying, so I admit I may have got it wrong. Please correct me where I've made mistakes."

You've succeeded in getting it wrong.

The belief in God is "going away", not as fast as you may wish, but nevertheless it has been measurably declining.

Followers oF ISIS can resonably be said to believe in God as much as, or more than, anybody else, judging from their enthusiasm for sacrificing themselves and everybody who opposes them. Few Christian fundies are their equal.

From http://www.livescience.com/:

"Male ISIS martyrs will receive 72 virgin maidens in paradise as a reward for their sacrifice" while "female martyrs can expect to find their husbands in paradise. A woman who had multiple husbands in life will be able to choose the best one as her eternal spouse in the afterlife."

Hey, those guys and gals believe!

These beliefs tend toward accelerating the realization among those who don't share them that belief in God is kinda' crazy.

None of what you just said is a response to what I've said. Whether or not the belief is god(s) is "going away" is beside the point. I was posting about your use of the word "god" to replace other people's use of the word, hoping that your use would become the predominant one, so that people trying to discuss their own beliefs would not have that word to play with.

Also, I find your evidence that belief in god(s) will "go away" to be less than compelling. The insanity that seems inherent in one religion has, to my knowledge, never before led to people rejecting their own religions. In fact, it seems to me to be quite the opposite: People who feel threatened by someone else with a nasty religion appear to be turning to their own religious beliefs as some sort of gang that will counter the threatening group with their own increase in counter-nastiness.

But there still is "something" that science has revealed.

I choose to call it "god", because it truly is powerful and universal and awesome.

WHY??? Are you doing it ironically? Ignorantly? Counterintuitively? To piss off the god-botherers? (Sorry, "god-botherers" is a term my nephews learned to use because they grew up next to a church and had to put up with the weekly congregation of annoying people. It's a term that others have used with a different meaning, so I felt I should explain my own use if I wanted you to understand me.)

One of the most interesting aspects of the operating systems of reality is they're totally neutral about morality while giving intelligent consciousnesses produced by reality's web of systems total freedom to develop whatever they choose to enter into an ever present competition for ascendancy. Humans thus are free to create values without offending or trasgressing the powers that enabled them to exist. Cool!

Among traditionalists God is on a path toward becoming a niche term. I choose arbitrarily to describe something that exists with a term related to, but not the same as the capitalized word that is becoming increasingly irrelevant. IMHO traditionalists will increasingly "get it" while not being as open to a frontal assault on their traditional belief system.

Call the web of operating systems regulating the parameters of reality whatever you wish. I do.

[prepare for sarcasm] Yes, let's call it "shoe" then. No one will get confused by our use of that word and think we're talking about something else. [/sarcasm temporarily over]

toroid wrote:It's been fun spending time here on a nice rainy day, but too much is never enough and I gotta' do other things. Later, dudes and dudettes!

:sigh: Okay, buh-bye.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue May 26, 2015 1:30 am

Therefore don't accept my definition. You're a creature possesing free will (unless free will is an illusion, as has been proposed.)

Matthew Ellard wrote:
toroid wrote:Hey guy, if that's what ya' wanna' do, go for it! Do your thing.


This is a skeptic forum. Are you surprised that people here are being skeptical? You came here. We didn't go to you.

However, Gord is right. "Sherlock Holmes" is a fictional character from fictional literature. People describe "Sherlock Holmes" in the same way through common understanding of fictional literature "God" is a fictional character from fictional literature. People describe "God" in the same way from common understanding of fictional literature.

You are unable to describe the characteristics of the magical entity that matches your fuzzy views, and therefore you have subjectively borrowed "God" from one source of fiction and applied it to your own subjective views. You are giving "God" powers that "God" never had. You are deliberately avoiding clear communications on a science forum.

How can well read skeptics relate "God" of the bible, who made man in his image and lost battles against bronze age Egyptians, also have the characteristics that you are giving "God"? It simply doesn't make sense.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue May 26, 2015 1:43 am

You and I continue to disagree. I have opinions but don't expect them to be accepted here. I'm not here to get acceptance from you or anybody for my views but enjoy the opportunity to present ideas that others may never have contemplated. Instead of shoe, I say shoo (to you). Buh-bye.

Gord wrote:
toroid wrote:I agree with you that we certainly do disagree. The exchange of posts is a debate as much as the investigations of science have provided hitherto unkknown info about the cosmos and the reality that underlies it.

I thought it was a period of questions and non-answers about why you use the term "god" to describe things that others describe differently.

To enable clarity for readers I copied and pasted three paragraphs from near the bottom of your post to here:
Gord wrote:"So let me see if I understand this: You're attempting to hijack the word "god" away from religions and change it into a scientific term so that, in the future, no one will be able to talk about the currently defined meaning of the word?

Or, to phrase it a slightly different way: You don't actually believe in god(s), but you want to use the word "god" to refer to the things you do believe in, so that you can ignore the current beliefs in god(s) and hope they go away.

I've had to piece this together from what you're saying, so I admit I may have got it wrong. Please correct me where I've made mistakes."

You've succeeded in getting it wrong.

The belief in God is "going away", not as fast as you may wish, but nevertheless it has been measurably declining.

Followers oF ISIS can resonably be said to believe in God as much as, or more than, anybody else, judging from their enthusiasm for sacrificing themselves and everybody who opposes them. Few Christian fundies are their equal.

From http://www.livescience.com/:

"Male ISIS martyrs will receive 72 virgin maidens in paradise as a reward for their sacrifice" while "female martyrs can expect to find their husbands in paradise. A woman who had multiple husbands in life will be able to choose the best one as her eternal spouse in the afterlife."

Hey, those guys and gals believe!

These beliefs tend toward accelerating the realization among those who don't share them that belief in God is kinda' crazy.

None of what you just said is a response to what I've said. Whether or not the belief is god(s) is "going away" is beside the point. I was posting about your use of the word "god" to replace other people's use of the word, hoping that your use would become the predominant one, so that people trying to discuss their own beliefs would not have that word to play with.

Also, I find your evidence that belief in god(s) will "go away" to be less than compelling. The insanity that seems inherent in one religion has, to my knowledge, never before led to people rejecting their own religions. In fact, it seems to me to be quite the opposite: People who feel threatened by someone else with a nasty religion appear to be turning to their own religious beliefs as some sort of gang that will counter the threatening group with their own increase in counter-nastiness.

But there still is "something" that science has revealed.

I choose to call it "god", because it truly is powerful and universal and awesome.

WHY??? Are you doing it ironically? Ignorantly? Counterintuitively? To piss off the god-botherers? (Sorry, "god-botherers" is a term my nephews learned to use because they grew up next to a church and had to put up with the weekly congregation of annoying people. It's a term that others have used with a different meaning, so I felt I should explain my own use if I wanted you to understand me.)

One of the most interesting aspects of the operating systems of reality is they're totally neutral about morality while giving intelligent consciousnesses produced by reality's web of systems total freedom to develop whatever they choose to enter into an ever present competition for ascendancy. Humans thus are free to create values without offending or trasgressing the powers that enabled them to exist. Cool!

Among traditionalists God is on a path toward becoming a niche term. I choose arbitrarily to describe something that exists with a term related to, but not the same as the capitalized word that is becoming increasingly irrelevant. IMHO traditionalists will increasingly "get it" while not being as open to a frontal assault on their traditional belief system.

Call the web of operating systems regulating the parameters of reality whatever you wish. I do.

[prepare for sarcasm] Yes, let's call it "shoe" then. No one will get confused by our use of that word and think we're talking about something else. [/sarcasm temporarily over]

toroid wrote:It's been fun spending time here on a nice rainy day, but too much is never enough and I gotta' do other things. Later, dudes and dudettes!

:sigh: Okay, buh-bye.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29476
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Gord » Tue May 26, 2015 1:54 am

toroid wrote:You and I continue to disagree. I have opinions

whatever they are

but don't expect them to be accepted here. I'm not here to get acceptance from you or anybody for my views

whatever they are

but enjoy the opportunity to present ideas

whatever they are

that others may never have contemplated. Instead of shoe, I say shoo (to you). Buh-bye.

You don't have to leave, I can just put you on my Ignore list. Then you won't have to deal with any of my annoying questions that you avoid answering.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26776
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue May 26, 2015 1:58 am

toroid wrote:Therefore don't accept my definition.
Offer us a detailed definition that you have applied to "God". The definition needs to include the characteristics and abilities that you think "God" has.

It is my view that you can't do this and you know it.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue May 26, 2015 10:43 am

Gord wrote: I can just put you on my Ignore list...


I never use an ignore list. Buh-bye.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue May 26, 2015 10:57 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Offer us a detailed definition that you have applied to "God"...

It is my view that you can't do this and you know it.


It is my view I can't either, because God is beyond what is knowable. But why are you talkin' about God? The most relevant thing I've said about God is "he's" becoming more irrelevant over time.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue May 26, 2015 11:10 am

Thanks for posting. You've illustrated rather well the most significant weakness I see in Skepticism as an organized effort. For me the paranormal like many other unprovable things isn't worth spending time on while you gotta' "prove" it isn't worth spending time on.

scrmbldggs wrote:
toroid wrote:Ol' Webster defines "paranormal" as: " very strange and not able to be explained by what scientists know about nature and the world"

Why not accept the dictionary definition and exclude paranormal from scientific explorations?


Why not accept that there are those who wish to prove its validity, apparently can't do so, but won't give it a rest? And those who seriously look into their claims.

From another dictionary:
http://skepdic.com/paranormalinvestigator.html wrote:As psychologist Ray Hyman once quipped: don't try to explain something until you're first sure it happened.

There are a few individuals and groups who have earned the reputation of being scientific in their approach to paranormal investigations: Peter Brugger, Joe Nickell, Ben Radford, Jan Willem Nienhuys, Richard Wiseman, Chris French, Massimo Polidoro, Luigi Garlaschelli, Karen Stollznow, Independent Investigations Group, the Skeptical Analysis of the Paranormal Society (SAPS), and a good part of The Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP). Some might object to my examples because all of them except ASSAP are skeptics or affiliated with skeptical organizations. Skeptics might object to the inclusion of ASSAP because of its history. However, if you understand what a skeptic is, you shouldn't quibble with including the skeptics. Only if you mistakenly believe that a skeptic is automatically a denier who rejects without inquiry every claim about ghosts, demons, lake monsters, UFOs, etc., would you object to including these skeptics as scientific investigators. As noted above, being a denier is distinct from being a skeptic. Any good scientist must be a skeptic; no good scientist is a denier. The scientist must be open-minded, willing to investigate claims that will probably turn out to be unfounded, and willing to test several hypotheses in the search for the truth.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue May 26, 2015 11:29 am

Your comments don't make sense. My "god" has nothing to do with God except being a homonym.

Oh, and this isn't exactly a science forum, it's also entertainment, a science forum for eccentrics who gotta' prove that when somebody else believes something that to me isn't worth considering in the first place (such as the existence of paranormal events), it's worth spending endless time to "prove" that such things aren't worth spending time on.

(YMMV)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qssWO8NSq0

Matthew Ellard wrote:
toroid wrote:Hey guy, if that's what ya' wanna' do, go for it! Do your thing.


This is a skeptic forum. Are you surprised that people here are being skeptical? You came here. We didn't go to you.

However, Gord is right. "Sherlock Holmes" is a fictional character from fictional literature. People describe "Sherlock Holmes" in the same way through common understanding of fictional literature "God" is a fictional character from fictional literature. People describe "God" in the same way from common understanding of fictional literature.

You are unable to describe the characteristics of the magical entity that matches your fuzzy views, and therefore you have subjectively borrowed "God" from one source of fiction and applied it to your own subjective views. You are giving "God" powers that "God" never had. You are deliberately avoiding clear communications on a science forum.

How can well read skeptics relate "God" of the bible, who made man in his image and lost battles against bronze age Egyptians, also have the characteristics that you are giving "God"? It simply doesn't make sense.
Last edited by toroid on Tue May 26, 2015 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Poodle » Tue May 26, 2015 12:13 pm

toroid wrote:Your comments don't make sense. My "god" has nothing to do with God except being a homonym.

Oh, and this isn't exactly a science forum, it's also entertainment, a science forum for eccentrics who gotta' prove that when somebody believes something they don''t that's not worth spending time on, that it's not worth spending time on.

(YMMV)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qssWO8NSq0

Matthew Ellard wrote:
toroid wrote:Hey guy, if that's what ya' wanna' do, go for it! Do your thing.


This is a skeptic forum. Are you surprised that people here are being skeptical? You came here. We didn't go to you.

However, Gord is right. "Sherlock Holmes" is a fictional character from fictional literature. People describe "Sherlock Holmes" in the same way through common understanding of fictional literature "God" is a fictional character from fictional literature. People describe "God" in the same way from common understanding of fictional literature.

You are unable to describe the characteristics of the magical entity that matches your fuzzy views, and therefore you have subjectively borrowed "God" from one source of fiction and applied it to your own subjective views. You are giving "God" powers that "God" never had. You are deliberately avoiding clear communications on a science forum.

How can well read skeptics relate "God" of the bible, who made man in his image and lost battles against bronze age Egyptians, also have the characteristics that you are giving "God"? It simply doesn't make sense.


You confuse me, toroid. You seem not to want to be here, but you're here. You talk about God, but you don't want to talk about God. You want to talk about science but say this is not a science forum (you're right, by the way - it's a skeptics' forum as it says on the tin). And you come up with statements like " ... a science forum for eccentrics who gotta' prove that when somebody believes something they don''t that's not worth spending time on, that it's not worth spending time on" which, to be frank, is gibberish. Perhaps if you removed any chips you may have on your shoulder and expressed yourself more clearly, I may get to know what the {!#%@} you're on about.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby Lausten » Tue May 26, 2015 5:46 pm

toroid wrote:The universe is limited in both size and age, had a creation moment, and eventually will fade to an eternal state of darkness forever approaching absolute zero. The universe is not a creation worthy of god or even God. For god to exist an endless multiverse is the minimum requirement. Science can't (yet) prove there's a multiverse but many respected scientists speculate that reality is precisely an ulimited multiverse.

If you find all this confusing, let's agree to disagree and join the fun with pussy willow and cat tree speculations. It's not worth endlessly yakking about current politically correct beliefs of an UnGodly universe from what is essentially a special interest advocacy group asking for donations to increase acceptance of unGodliness.

I think that's the wrong approach. But YMMV.

Where'd this one come from? He's funny. (sorry if I err'd on the gender). Kinda all over the map. Can't tell if he's got a theory of what will happen to the universe or just uses that as a strawman. What does "not a creation worthy of god or even God" mean, I wonder aloud, not expecting a coherent answer. I also wonder if he can name even one of these "many respected scientists" he speaks of (without googling). And he wonders if we find it all confusing, isn't that precious.
Last edited by Lausten on Tue May 26, 2015 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby digress » Tue May 26, 2015 5:46 pm

toroid wrote:I never use an ignore list.


Encore!
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue May 26, 2015 6:00 pm

I have nothing to say about God I haven't already said: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=464051#p464051

I posted about an agenda weeks ago and yours was the first reply: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=462251#p462251

Uh-oh, I do see, thanks to you, a sentence that reads as gibberish as posted. I fugged up when editing before posting. My apologies, I'll edit it after posting this. The sentence should read; "Oh, and this isn't exactly a science forum, it's also entertainment, a science forum for eccentrics who gotta' prove that when somebody else believes something that to me isn't worth considering in the first place (such as the existence of paranormal events), it's worth spending endless time to "prove" that such things aren't worth spending time on." For me that degree of skepticism is counterproductive and silly.

Does any of this help you understand WTF I mean?

Poodle wrote:You confuse me, toroid. You seem not to want to be here, but you're here. You talk about God, but you don't want to talk about God. You want to talk about science but say this is not a science forum (you're right, by the way - it's a skeptics' forum as it says on the tin). And you come up with statements like " ... a science forum for eccentrics who gotta' prove that when somebody believes something they don''t that's not worth spending time on, that it's not worth spending time on" which, to be frank, is gibberish. Perhaps if you removed any chips you may have on your shoulder and expressed yourself more clearly, I may get to know what the {!#%@} you're on about.

toroid
Poster
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:42 am

Re: Scientific evidence for god discovered

Postby toroid » Tue May 26, 2015 6:35 pm

I've got a gender, but sex appeal is more important than gender. (FYI, I'm male.)

Damn, I just told you the theory I accept, and you think I'm lying?

I already posted, after being criticized, that "worthy" was the wrong word to use in that context.

Lawrence Krauss is they guy that wrote the book that first made me realize that although Krauss (and Dawkins) deserve complete attention for their scientific knowledge, they can each be as big a (lovable) jerk as Sheldon Cooper when presenting opinions interpreting the science they're experts in.

Daniel Dennett is a philosopher, not a scientist, but he's worth paying attention to as well, as long as he stays with his professional expertise and doesn't toss out one of his non-professional "enlightened" opinions.

Lausten wrote:
toroid wrote:The universe is limited in both size and age, had a creation moment, and eventually will fade to an eternal state of darkness forever approaching absolute zero. The universe is not a creation worthy of god or even God. For god to exist an endless multiverse is the minimum requirement. Science can't (yet) prove there's a multiverse but many respected scientists speculate that reality is precisely an ulimited multiverse.

If you find all this confusing, let's agree to disagree and join the fun with pussy willow and cat tree speculations. It's not worth endlessly yakking about current politically correct beliefs of an UnGodly universe from what is essentially a special interest advocacy group asking for donations to increase acceptance of unGodliness.

I think that's the wrong approach. But YMMV.

Where'd this one come from? He's funny. (sorry if I err'd on the gender). Kinda all over the map. Can't tell if he's got a theory of what will happen to the universe or just uses that as a strawman. What does "not a creation worthy of god or even God" mean, I wonder aloud, not expecting a coherent answer. I also wonder if he can name even one of these "many respected scientists" he speaks of (without googling). And he wonders if we find it all confusing, isn't that precious.


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest