Author Topic: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.  (Read 12878 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #290 on: October 24, 2011, 04:46:20 PM »
Okay, YY, I have time now to go over your list.   I find it hilarious that you have decided to broaden the discussion to all sorts of things that have nothing to do with showing love, and have removed the context of other verses that show that this “god love” is only for believers.   

Congratulations velkyn. I submit to your tenacity. I disagree what you wrote, but either way, you will surely take this to levels that I cannot match so you win. If you see the holy books as being filled with hate, then who am I to challenge your interpretation?

Offline RaymondKHessel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1914
  • Darwins +73/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Born with insight, and a raised fist.
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #291 on: October 24, 2011, 05:23:22 PM »
Okay, YY, I have time now to go over your list.   I find it hilarious that you have decided to broaden the discussion to all sorts of things that have nothing to do with showing love, and have removed the context of other verses that show that this “god love” is only for believers.   

Congratulations velkyn. I submit to your tenacity. I disagree what you wrote, but either way, you will surely take this to levels that I cannot match so you win. If you see the holy books as being filled with hate, then who am I to challenge your interpretation?

She ain't the only one, chief. Seriously, how can you NOT see the holy books filled with hate? Somebody dies horribly like every other page. Or if they're not dying, they're suffering. Or if they're not suffering, somebody's threatening somebody else with death or suffering.

If you don't want to see *hate*, well, at the very least, there's a deplorable amount of cruelty.
Born with insight, and a raised fist.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #292 on: October 24, 2011, 06:18:57 PM »
Hi GB.
 
Quote
I fail to see what you mean by “experienced” could you define that term for the board?
First online dictionary I consulted: Experience: the apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind. 'Apprehension' has the sense of understanding, or grasping; perception as well as cognition. So your experience of an event is your 'take' on it. I'm OK with that definition if you are?

Quote
Reality is the commonly shared experience.
Using the above definition, experiences can't be shared, because a person can't occupy the perceptual or mental system of another person. I cannot experience your experience.You cannot experience mine. Both are real. (If you and I agree that our experiences are similar, we may create another form of reality, Consensus Reality).
 
I'm agreeing with what the psychiatrist R.D. Laing had to say about experience, in the opening chapter of The Politics of Experience:
Quote
Even facts become fictions without adequate ways of seeing "the facts". We do not need theories so much as the experience that is the source of the theory. We are not satisfied with faith, in the sense of an implausible hypothesis irrationally held: we demand to experience the "evidence".
 
We can see other people"s behaviour, but not their experience. This has led some people to insist that psychology has nothing to do with the other person"s experience, but only with his behaviour.
 
The other person"s behaviour is an experience of mine. My behaviour is an experience of the other. The task of social phenomenology is to relate my experience of the other"s behaviour to the other"s experience of my behaviour. Its study is the relation between experience and experience: its true field is inter-experience.
 
I see you, and you see me. I experience you, and you experience me. I see your behaviour. You see my behaviour. But I do not and never have and never will see your experience of me. Just as you cannot "see" my experience of you. My experience of you is not "inside" me. It is simply you, as I experience you. And I do not experience you as inside me. Similarly, I take it that you do not experience me as inside you.
 
"My experience of you" is just another form of words for "you-as-l-experience-you", and "your experience of me" equals "me-as-you-experience-me". Your experience of me is not inside you and my experience of you is not inside me, but your experience of me is invisible to me and my experience of you is invisible to you.
 
I cannot experience your experience. You cannot experience my experience. We are both invisible men. All men are invisible to one another. Experience used to be called The Soul. Experience as invisibility of man to man is at the same time more evident than anything. Only experience is evident. Experience is the only evidence.
Does that make any sense to you, GB?
 
Quote
you and I share a cup of tea from the same pot. You may well drink yours and continue with our conversation. I would have the strongest gagging reflex and be quite unable to continue.
So our experiences of 'drinking tea' are completely different, we evidently don't 'share' the same experience. Your reality is painful, mine is pleasurable; both are real.
 
Quote
Quote
This isn't solipsism, by the way. We don't create our subjective realities out of thin air; there is something 'out there' on which we base our constructions.
Really? Pix or it didn’t happen.
I'm not sure that's necessary. I know from previous conversations that Velkyn regards solipsism as a cop-out, and I was merely pre-empting such an accusation, as I'm not a solipsist either. So I can't see the point of spending any time disproving solipsism.
 
Quote
It is not necessary to describe the universe in this manner. It is sufficient for humankind to have a well-documented set of observations for our common understanding to be supported and considered normal.
You can't have observations without observers, hypothetical or otherwise..
Quote
If you could explain why most people experience much the same things and thus understand one another, that would be great.
Because we have similar perceptual/cognitive systems and we can empathize; but we don't understand what it feels like to be a whale or a bat, who have their own realities.
 
Quote
If you then say that justifies a delusion about supernatural beings who defy time and space, who can flick their fingers and create galaxies…
I'm not saying anything like that.

Offline Finntroll

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #293 on: October 24, 2011, 06:59:31 PM »
Congratulations. You're officially a square. 

It's alright though. Somebody out there is bound to pick up what I'm puttin' down.  ;)
Are you talkin' to me, huh? Are you talkin' to me? :D
If so, I'm too stupid to understand.
Some kind of zen-koan maybe? :D
Or "square" as the opposite of "hip" like in 60's lingo?
Not me! Are you stoned or something? :D

If you classify me as the geometric form square, I bet you have some trouble of explaining that paradigm even to yourself not to mention communicating that to others.

I don´t mean anything like somebody is a square if somebody says that when meaning a regular square.
Or maybe you have a coherent world view there, so please feel free to use it. I don't have to.

It is the language yes. But more than language.
For example where were the individual colors before monkeys started to see them in order not to eat raw fruit?
Nowhere. The evolutionary need to split wavelengts to colors created the colors. (and even the thing wavelenght is a modern way to isolate, split or should I say divide the world)

However, if you and I rode a time machine to where color vision had not yeat been evolved, or if we just talk about that time, sure there is colors. We carry our own way to split or divide the world. But it is us, not an universal truth. Both are true. There were colors and the were no colors.

I bet intelligent animals like whales in their marine environment have a totally different way of dividing the world than us. And their bits of the world are just as true than ours. Many truths, but only one set of facts from each viewpoint or question.

You can ask nonsense questions though. Western philosophy went to Hell when Socrates and Plato dreamed that there was only one ontological truth somewhere out there. What would be the instrument to measure such a thing? It ain't like asking a real question like what is the temperature of the Sun. There is no way to measure, to get an answer to that philosophical bogus question, so that One Truth does not exist.

But Western philosophy became sort of theology searching for that "one truth". As disgusting as religion and justification for people to be controlled by some "wise men" or know-it-all dictatorships.

To piss people of Im going to  quote JESUS :D but from the Gospel of Thomas.
I don´t know if Jesus actually said that, but it sure sounds like zen. With no moral or otherwordly dogma in there like in the Gospel versions of the same incident.

.(1) Jesus saw infants being suckled.
(2) He said to his disciples:
"These little ones being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom."
(3) They said to him: "Then will we enter the kingdom as little ones?"
(4) Jesus said to them: "When you make the two into one,
and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside
and the above like the below –
(5) that is, to make the male and the female into a single one,
so that the male will not be male and the female will not be female –
(6) and when you make eyes instead of an eye
and a hand instead of a hand and a foot instead of a foot,
an image instead of an image, (7) then you will enter [the kingdom]."


Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2101
  • Darwins +375/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #294 on: October 24, 2011, 07:16:34 PM »
What, to you, is the difference between saying 'all of reality exists' and 'god exists'?

I apologize in advance for this quick reply as I'm very short on free time. You're doing quite a good job at reiterating my belief and I understand why many ask why I choose to call it God rather than an existing term. Besides what I've already written, here's the best way to explain the feeling I get about the interconnectedness of our lives and experiences by having God as the unifying power.

It would be best explained of the feeling you get in the relationship with your own child (or immediate family member) vs. that of a stranger. They are both "people", but there's obviously more effort given in the parent/child relationship than the person/stranger relationship. 

So it's not merely a matter of semantics. There is feeling behind the word.

Don't worry, I think we all have a lack of free time.  That's the beauty of message boards - no need for instantaneous responses.

I think you're an atheist.  I'm failing to see where the god label fits into your belief structure.  What you are explaining is how you perceive the external world - you've established this emergent property 'god' to the totality of existence, but haven't established any aspect of that property separable from the lack of that property.  You feel a sort of spiritual kinship with existence, but that's about it.  There isn't some sentience, personality, will, or effect associated with the totality of existence, just the feelings you have from existence.

I'm going to go ahead and throw another question out there, which is basically a food-for-thought exercise.  If there were no living beings in the entirety of existence (say, like a vacuum metastability catastrophe occurs and all livings things stop being alive), would god still exist?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #295 on: October 24, 2011, 09:32:26 PM »
Congratulations. You're officially a square. 

It's alright though. Somebody out there is bound to pick up what I'm puttin' down.  ;)

could be an unjust call Ray ;)   .............depends on how old FT is. 

Have you asked him "are you experienced?" yet?
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #296 on: October 25, 2011, 05:51:27 AM »
You guys linking to Wiki cracks me up.  And you say I should educate myself. 

You were the one confusing Evolution with Abiogenesis, two different fields of scientific study, not me.

Wikipedia is duly referenced. You can seek out scientific journals on the matter. Which is what I meant by educating yourself.

Quote
Hahahahahaha  That is if you still are beholden to the Miller–Urey experiment [In Wiki's definition of abiogenesis anyway as linked to by one of you geniuses] and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory (Key word hypothetical....meaning scientific fact to you guys I guess). 

Of course the Miller–Urey experiment was a simulation and of course the conditions of the earth are hypothetical. We don't have a fucking time machine, or a billion years of time on our hands, to go see it happening in real time. Scientists didn't pull those conditions out of their asses like you do when you make baseless claims. Evidence of the earth's geological history comes from many fields of scientific study. This evidence helps scientists build a simulated model of what the earth's early conditions were.

Science is a self-correcting process. New discoveries will be made and new evidence will replace old theories and hypotheses. That's why science is great. Is improves over time.

Quote
Oh but wait a minute, now they use cloning....I know you heard about Dolly's birth.  Did you hear about her death?

Cloning has nothing to do with this discussion.
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #297 on: October 25, 2011, 06:12:05 AM »
I did not ignore his post.  I went to Wiki and soon found out that part of the hypothetical (ah, er, I mean fact) they discuss is the Miller experiment, which, I immediately debunked.

Really? You debunked abiogenesis? Somebody give this guy a nobel prize!

* facepalm *

Here's the best part ... even if we throw out Abiogenesis and Evolution... how does that make your magic-man skydaddy supernatural boogieman claim any more plausible?

You still need to prove the existence of your deity. You still have all your work ahead of you after 'debunking' all of science.

Quote
I have not seen any evidence and ask you to provide it concerning bacteria being observed evolving into a higher life form.  I agree, bacteria has been able to adapt (I think there is confusion here because this is called evolution) to environments containing higher doses and different types of antibiotics, but they are STILL BACTERIA!  Unfortunately for me, even creationists have adopted the term "micro-evolution", which, to all scientists means changes within a species, not a new one. 

Bacteria is not a species, you massive ignoramus. Bacteria is a domain that contains millions of different species.

Bacteria has been observed to transition from one species to another species:
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/suppl.2/10800.full

Transitions in bacteria take much less time and are therefore observable in the lab. For a unicellular organism to evolve into a higher life-form it would take millions of years. However, we can determine ancestry via DNA sequencing. Which is why we know that Chimpanzees and Bonobos descend from the same lineage of Apes as Homo Sapiens.

Quote
To plethora, it obviously means we came from a primordial gooz by chance.

You have, once again, managed to confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis. When will you get it through your your head that these are different things?

----

I have to go now... I'll be back to address the last few points later today.
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #298 on: October 25, 2011, 08:13:52 AM »
Quote from: jtp56
DNA, which is basically information or blueprints in code (how did that evolve?), is unique to a species.

DNA is made up of chemicals that react to each other in certain ways. We refer to these sequences and patterns as 'codes' or 'information' but only as an analogy.

Quote from: jtp56
Just because there are similarities doesn't make it the same.  My Chevy is kinda like my Ford.

DNA is DNA whether it's in a pig, a fly or a plant. The differences in the sequence of the base chemicals are what result in different species as you scale up. Species are different ... DNA is the same just arranged differently.

Quote from: jtp56
Comparative anatomy.  And that PROVES evolution how? 

Comparative anatomy shows how different species share traits and characteristics indicating they had common ancestors in the evolutionary timeline.

Quote from: jtp56
Does a creator have to redesign the wheel?  Think!!!! about this one.

First, prove that there was a 'creator' in the first place before spewing drivel.

Second... this about this one... if all complex things require a creator and the creator is at least as complex as these things if not more, then the creator also requires a creator by definition.

If you claim that the creator does not require a creator, then you are committing a special pleadingWiki fallacy. You make a rule and then immediately make an exception to the rule to accommodate your narrow-minded worldview.

Quote from: jtp56
Modern day environmentalists go ballistic about saving habitat.  So the habitat had to be evolving, by chance, at the same rate as the critter, by chance.  Just think a little about your beliefs in this.  What came first, the critter or the habitat?

I'm not sure I understand what you tried to blabber here. The environment came first, jtp56. Living things adapt to their environment. Sometimes, living things adapt their environment to them (beavers make dams). What's your point?

Quote from: jtp56
The fossil record does not show progressive transitions.  Only distinct forms.  They haven't found the missing link.  Do I need to post references from your guys admitting this to convince you?  You should know this by now.

The evolution of the horse:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

Quote
II. Timescale and Horse Family Tree

Recent        10,000 years ago to present
Pleistocene   2.5-0.01 My (million years ago)
Pliocene        5.3-2.5 My
Miocene        24-5.3 My
Oligocene        34-24 My
Eocene        54-34 My

And here's the tree...note that the timescale is a bit weird (e.g. the Oligocene is compressed almost to nothing) to keep it from being too long. All the names on the tree are genus names, so recall that each genus encompasses a cluster of closely related species.

The is a brief description of the tree for those who are visually impaired. Hyracotherium is shown giving rise to three lineages. Two lineages quickly go extinct. The third branches many times. There are many branches alive during most times until two million years ago when only the various species of Equus remain. The tree itself is unreadable to those who are visually impaired so skip the tree graphic.

2My        Old & New World Equus
                \  |  /
                 \ | /
4My   Hippidion  Equus                                           Stylohipparion
         |        |                   Neohipparion   Hipparion   Cormohipparion
         |        |    Astrohippus         |           |             |
         |        |    Pliohippus          ---------------------------
12My     Dinohippus    Calippus                     \  |  /
             |          |         Pseudhipparion     \ | /
             |          |              |               |
             -------------------------------------------     Sinohippus
15My                  \  |  /                                 |
                       \ | /                     Megahippus   |
17My                Merychippus                      |        |
                         |           Anchitherium    Hypohippus
                         |                 |           |
23My                Parahippus             Anchitherium             Archeohippus
                         |                       |                       |
                  (Kalobatippus?)-----------------------------------------
25My                              \  |  /
                                   \ | /
                                     |
35My                                 |
                                Miohippus  Mesohippus
                                      |        |
40My                                  Mesohippus
                                          |
                                          |
                                          |
45My                      Paleotherium    |
                              |          Epihippus
                              |              |
                       Propalaeotherium      |       Haplohippus
                              |              |       |
50My         Pachynolophus    |              Orohippus
                   |          |                 |
                   |          |                 |
                   ------------------------------
                                    \  |  /
                                     \ | /
55My                             Hyracotherium

Here's an image showing the fossils of four species, each belonging to a different genus of the above evolutionary tree in chronological order:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Equine_evolution.jpg

Here's a list of transitional fossils as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

You were saying?
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline RaymondKHessel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1914
  • Darwins +73/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Born with insight, and a raised fist.
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #299 on: October 25, 2011, 09:24:16 AM »
Congratulations. You're officially a square. 

It's alright though. Somebody out there is bound to pick up what I'm puttin' down.  ;)
Are you talkin' to me, huh? Are you talkin' to me? :D
If so, I'm too stupid to understand.
Some kind of zen-koan maybe? :D
Or "square" as the opposite of "hip" like in 60's lingo?
Not me! Are you stoned or something? :D

If you classify me as the geometric form square, I bet you have some trouble of explaining that paradigm even to yourself not to mention communicating that to others.

I don´t mean anything like somebody is a square if somebody says that when meaning a regular square.
Or maybe you have a coherent world view there, so please feel free to use it. I don't have to.

It is the language yes. But more than language.
For example where were the individual colors before monkeys started to see them in order not to eat raw fruit?
Nowhere. The evolutionary need to split wavelengts to colors created the colors. (and even the thing wavelenght is a modern way to isolate, split or should I say divide the world)

However, if you and I rode a time machine to where color vision had not yeat been evolved, or if we just talk about that time, sure there is colors. We carry our own way to split or divide the world. But it is us, not an universal truth. Both are true. There were colors and the were no colors.

I bet intelligent animals like whales in their marine environment have a totally different way of dividing the world than us. And their bits of the world are just as true than ours. Many truths, but only one set of facts from each viewpoint or question.

You can ask nonsense questions though. Western philosophy went to Hell when Socrates and Plato dreamed that there was only one ontological truth somewhere out there. What would be the instrument to measure such a thing? It ain't like asking a real question like what is the temperature of the Sun. There is no way to measure, to get an answer to that philosophical bogus question, so that One Truth does not exist.

But Western philosophy became sort of theology searching for that "one truth". As disgusting as religion and justification for people to be controlled by some "wise men" or know-it-all dictatorships.

To piss people of Im going to  quote JESUS :D but from the Gospel of Thomas.
I don´t know if Jesus actually said that, but it sure sounds like zen. With no moral or otherwordly dogma in there like in the Gospel versions of the same incident.

.(1) Jesus saw infants being suckled.
(2) He said to his disciples:
"These little ones being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom."
(3) They said to him: "Then will we enter the kingdom as little ones?"
(4) Jesus said to them: "When you make the two into one,
and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside
and the above like the below –
(5) that is, to make the male and the female into a single one,
so that the male will not be male and the female will not be female –
(6) and when you make eyes instead of an eye
and a hand instead of a hand and a foot instead of a foot,
an image instead of an image, (7) then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Yikes. Uh, I'm sorry. I meant no offense. I'm... I'm just gonna go now. O...Okay? I, ah, I have to get home to my babies... Did I mention I have babies? Ah ha ha ahem... Uh yes, I have 8 err I mean 12 little teeny tiny babies and uh, they're all special needs kids with like alzheimers and leprosy and erectile dysfunction and SIDS n' junk... My youngest has spider baby syndrome and their mother died during child birth and all the granparents blew up the last time the world was split so you know, they like, really depend on me for stuff like, ah, milk and... umm... fish sticks? You know just all the stuff that babies need, they need me to get it all for 'em so... Umm so here I go; I'm leaving... Oh, errrrr I'm leaving TOTALLY full up on tasty enlightenment by the way; mmmm-mmm that was good stuff I couldn't take another bite really so thank you so much it was just great and you are great and good luck to you and the whales with the whole splitting/dividing/multiplying the world gimmick I'm leaving now thanks bye! 

 
Born with insight, and a raised fist.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #300 on: October 25, 2011, 09:57:37 AM »
Okay, YY, I have time now to go over your list.   I find it hilarious that you have decided to broaden the discussion to all sorts of things that have nothing to do with showing love, and have removed the context of other verses that show that this “god love” is only for believers.   

Congratulations velkyn. I submit to your tenacity. I disagree what you wrote, but either way, you will surely take this to levels that I cannot match so you win. If you see the holy books as being filled with hate, then who am I to challenge your interpretation?

Wow, what a pathetic little whine.   Yes, YY, I will take it to "levels" you can't match since you cannot support your claim.   You claimed soemthing that was not true and you failed.  I'm sure you do disagree. But, you know, so what if you are simply WRONG? ;D   You just keep with your willful ignorance, YY.   

I do love the "then who am I to challenge your interpretation?"    Well, you'd be an intelligent honest person if you did honestly feel this way and had the evidence to support your claim.   But you don't, and now you seem to want to blame me for it, that mean ol' Velkyn simply won't accept your lies as the "TRUTH" and thus you'll leave me to my "misconceptions". 

This is pretty much what I expected, and pretty much your tactic in the 9/11 thread too.   "Oh, poor pitiful creatures who don't agree with me, I'll just pick up my skirts and go when you don't accept my claims as gospel.  oh, indeed I feel that I will faint when someone asks me for evidence."   ;D  Like we couldn't see this coming a mile away.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #301 on: October 25, 2011, 10:01:59 AM »
My view is something akin to relativism, pragmatism, zen or whateverthehell you call it.

I think there is many "truths", that is an infinite number of ways to split the world. How we split the world into pieces both creates the world and does not create the world. Without splitting the world we could not perceive it.
  Finn, I do get the whole philosophy thing, but vague claims like this annoy me.  How do we "split" this world?  How does this create (or not create) the world?  It sounds like the usual vague handwaving that most, if not all, philosophy engages in.  Nice navel gazing but not demonstrable in the least. 

I think you need a new word for what you call "truths" since that word does not seem to mean what you want to claim it does.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #302 on: October 25, 2011, 04:06:32 PM »
Hi Velkyn,
 
Quote
Quote
Science says that those glorious colours of the spectrum are only in your head - there are no colours 'out there' in the world. And science also says that no two people see the same rainbow (because every rainbow is centred on the eyes of each observer)- so there is no 'objective' rainbow at all.
Where in teh world does "science" say that?  Water droplets split sunlight and light has various frequencies depending on color (or vice versa).  They do exist. Seeing rainbows depends on physical orientation to the sun and droplets.  They certainly are not hallucinations nor are they subjective experiences.
1. I'm referring to the Illusion Theory of Colour (which I concede not all philosophers agree with). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's description (here):
Quote
It would seem that, as far as our conceptual practices governing color are concerned, physical objects do not have the kinds of color they are represented as having. The colors that objects are represented as having are illusory: no physical object actually has those colors. <snip> The way that the concepts of color operate, to serve their various functions and roles, is through the way colors appear. For these purposes and roles, objects do not need the actual colors. It will be sufficient if they appear to have colors. For these purposes, it is sufficient that "it is as if they have the colors".

2. From chapter 3 of Richard Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow (my bolding):
Quote
So, why do you see a complete rainbow? Because there are lots of different raindrops. A band of thousands of raindrops is giving you green light (and simultaneously giving blue light to anybody who might be suitably placed above you, and simultaneously giving red light to somebody else below you). Another band of thousands of raindrops is giving you red light (and giving somebody else blue light...), another band of thousands of raindrops is giving you blue light, and so on. The raindrops delivering red light to you are all at a fixed distance from you — which is why the red band is curved (you are the centre of the circle). The raindrops delivering green light to you are also at a fixed distance from you, but it is a shorter one. So the circle on which they sit has a smaller radius and the green curve sits inside the red curve. Then the blue curve sits inside that, and the whole rainbow is built up as a series of circles with you at the centre. Other observers will see different rainbows centred on themselves.

So, far from the rainbow being rooted at a particular ‘place’ where fairies might deposit a crock of gold, there are as many rainbows as there are eyes looking at the storm. Different observers, looking at the same shower from different places, will piece together their own separate rainbows using light from different collections of raindrops.

ie if we all 'piece together our own separate rainbows', then each rainbow is a subjective experience. (The book is available here, if anyone's interested).

Quote
funny how reality has it's own definition and dreams, etc have their own.  No, they aren''t reality, not by a long shot.   Do you realy have to resort to trying to redefine words, gnu?
I'm not resorting to anything, Velkyn. Graybeard just asked me to define 'experience', but I didn't immediately accuse him of playing dictionaries, as it's a valid exercise to check that we're using the same definitions.

So, one definition of 'reality' is 'what exists'. If we agreed on that definition (and we might not, let me know), then everything that happens in our heads is real. Your thoughts exist, do they not? They are part of the universe. So they are real. But subjectively real, as no-one else can experience them - just as no-one else can experience your subjective rainbow.

Quote
I'm sorry, gnu, but it certainly seems like solipcism.
Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. I'm not saying that. So I'm not a solipsist.

Quote
You seem to wish to claim that there is some "out there" that we can't know about, which is simply nonsense.
If I'm not making sense, I'll try to explain myself better.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 04:11:39 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #303 on: October 26, 2011, 08:32:14 AM »
hey my friendly philosophical ungulate :D

Thanks for the response.  I’m curious where “science” says that “those glorious colors are only in your head – there are no colours ‘out there’ in the world”.   As far as I know, philosophy isn’t science, in that it can’t be proven, replicated, etc.  Philosophy can say all sorts of ridiculous things because of exactly that, the unprovablity of it.

Yes, everyone sees a “different” rainbow since we can’t occupy the same position in time/space as another person, but that certainly doesn’t mean that rainbows are hallucinations.  Objects reflect certain wavelengths and this gives them color.  Thus, a Red Delicious apple will not show up as vibrant gree or plaid to anyone as far as I understand optics, waves, etc.  They do have a color since their physical attributes control what wavelengths they reflect.  And optics work, we use them everyday.  The glasses I wear during my waking hours prove this and I do not expect physics to suddenly cease working.  Again, these effects are not hallucinations, imagination or dreams.   


Quote
So, one definition of 'reality' is 'what exists'. If we agreed on that definition (and we might not, let me know), then everything that happens in our heads is real. Your thoughts exist, do they not? They are part of the universe. So they are real. But subjectively real, as no-one else can experience them - just as no-one else can experience your subjective rainbow.
  Just how do you get from “that which exists is reality” to “what’s in our heads is reality”   Well, I do think I know how.  You want to claim that thoughts are reality and thus that means that anything that springs from the brain is reality. It is, in a very broad sense, we can use CAT scans to brain activity which doesn’t exist if there are no thoughts.  However, that is not what I am getting at.  Are the voices in one’s head that one hears and claims are real, are they actually voices from some magical external source?  What happens when we can experience someone else’s thoughts which doesn’t seem that impossible anymore?  Are they then objective?  Is what happens in dream real e.g. do you really fly, really lose your teeth, really fall? 

Quote
Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. I'm not saying that. So I'm not a solipsist.
Granted. Howver, you seem to wish to think that nearly everything, if not everything, is based solely on subjective perception.  You seem one small step away from solipsism. 

Quote
]If I'm not making sense, I'll try to explain myself better.
Please do.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #304 on: October 26, 2011, 09:47:39 AM »
I think you're an atheist.  I'm failing to see where the god label fits into your belief structure.  What you are explaining is how you perceive the external world - you've established this emergent property 'god' to the totality of existence, but haven't established any aspect of that property separable from the lack of that property.  You feel a sort of spiritual kinship with existence, but that's about it.  There isn't some sentience, personality, will, or effect associated with the totality of existence, just the feelings you have from existence.

I'm going to go ahead and throw another question out there, which is basically a food-for-thought exercise.  If there were no living beings in the entirety of existence (say, like a vacuum metastability catastrophe occurs and all livings things stop being alive), would god still exist?

I believe in an afterlife so I'm not in agreement with atheists there.

In your hypo - yes God would still exist. God would be conscious if that vacuum catastrophe happened. It may have happened already, several times, many times. I believe God creates to experience. There is no experience in the vacuum so it doesn't stay that way.

Offline YY

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +1/-21
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #305 on: October 26, 2011, 09:51:29 AM »
Okay, YY, I have time now to go over your list.   I find it hilarious that you have decided to broaden the discussion to all sorts of things that have nothing to do with showing love, and have removed the context of other verses that show that this “god love” is only for believers.   

Congratulations velkyn. I submit to your tenacity. I disagree what you wrote, but either way, you will surely take this to levels that I cannot match so you win. If you see the holy books as being filled with hate, then who am I to challenge your interpretation?

Wow, what a pathetic little whine.   Yes, YY, I will take it to "levels" you can't match since you cannot support your claim.   You claimed soemthing that was not true and you failed.  I'm sure you do disagree. But, you know, so what if you are simply WRONG? ;D   You just keep with your willful ignorance, YY.   

I do love the "then who am I to challenge your interpretation?"    Well, you'd be an intelligent honest person if you did honestly feel this way and had the evidence to support your claim.   But you don't, and now you seem to want to blame me for it, that mean ol' Velkyn simply won't accept your lies as the "TRUTH" and thus you'll leave me to my "misconceptions". 

This is pretty much what I expected, and pretty much your tactic in the 9/11 thread too.   "Oh, poor pitiful creatures who don't agree with me, I'll just pick up my skirts and go when you don't accept my claims as gospel.  oh, indeed I feel that I will faint when someone asks me for evidence."   ;D  Like we couldn't see this coming a mile away.

I never said it was the truth. You always say that I say it is the truth and I'm the only one who knows it. You constantly put words in my mouth. And don't give me the "evidence to support your claim" line. I listed 100 different passages and see them with love while you see them with hate. So like the rainbow reference, I'm seeing colors that you aren't. But I have a feeling our lives reflect this same perception.

You called someone out for being adverse to conflict. It seems to me that you thrive on conflict and use religion and proof as fuel for your fire.

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #306 on: October 26, 2011, 10:11:09 AM »
I believe in an afterlife

Out of curiosity, I'd like to try a different tack...


What makes you believe that an afterlife exists?
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #307 on: October 26, 2011, 10:31:08 AM »
I never said it was the truth. You always say that I say it is the truth and I'm the only one who knows it. You constantly put words in my mouth. And don't give me the "evidence to support your claim" line. I listed 100 different passages and see them with love while you see them with hate. So like the rainbow reference, I'm seeing colors that you aren't. But I have a feeling our lives reflect this same perception.
Claimed what to be the truth?  the 9/11 stuff? that the bible and various holy books have more love in them than hate?  You said
Quote
If you can prove that holy books have more instances of hatred than love, then I'd agree with your point. If you can't show that, then you are merely projecting your atheist bias.
  You obviously believe that you are correct in this claim since you have yet to withdraw your accusation of “atheist bias”. Then you cite verses.  I went through them and shows where your claims of how the bible, and other holy books, have more love than hate in them, are not supported by them.  You may construe them to mean “love” but you can’t even give me a definition of love, which I’ve asked for.  Do you now withdraw your accusation of “atheist bias” and do you agree with my point? I rather suspect that you won't, in that now it's become a matter of "opinion" and you will likely never change that since, I believe it was you who I asked what would make you give up your beliefs and I did not get a response. 

As for the 9/11 stuff, from my perspective, you have indicated that you do not believe the government’s version of the events.  Thus, you seem to think you know something more valid than that?  Do you?  Are they lying and are your claims of what happened the truth?  Simple questions. Which will demonstrate whether my saying you are claiming have the only access to the truth.  Will you answer them?

As for your verses that you cited, I went through them and shows where your claims of how the bible, and other holy books, have more love than hate in them, are not supported by them.  You may construe them to mean “love” but you can’t even give me a definition of love, which I’ve asked for.   
Quote
You called someone out for being adverse to conflict. It seems to me that you thrive on conflict and use religion and proof as fuel for your fire.
No, I actually hate conflict.  However, I do hold the truth in high regard and ignore my discomfort.  I don’t walk away from deceit just because it would make be happier to do so and let everyone spread whatever nonsense they’d like, sitting down and shutting up like a “good” atheist.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Finntroll

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #308 on: October 26, 2011, 10:54:09 AM »
My view is something akin to relativism, pragmatism, zen or whateverthehell you call it.

I think there is many "truths", that is an infinite number of ways to split the world. How we split the world into pieces both creates the world and does not create the world. Without splitting the world we could not perceive it.
  Finn, I do get the whole philosophy thing, but vague claims like this annoy me.  How do we "split" this world?  How does this create (or not create) the world?  It sounds like the usual vague handwaving that most, if not all, philosophy engages in.  Nice navel gazing but not demonstrable in the least. 

I think you need a new word for what you call "truths" since that word does not seem to mean what you want to claim it does.

Oh, I understand that all can't be as enlightened as me. Clearly you have not yet been touched by the Noodly Appendage of our Lord, the Flying Spaghetti Monster :D

Nothing vague or unproven in what I called "splitting" or "dividing" the world. Nothing special or mystical or otherworldly. Everybody knows this.

I already gave examples like what is a book to me is food for a termite.
Different species perceive the world quite differently. If you were suddenly turned into a bat, you could make no sense of the world with your previous human "split" what things are.
Human cultures classify or divide stuff different ways.
So do languages, anybody who knows more than one language knows that they "divide" the world a bit differently.

About things being created by this and at the same time not being created one more example. I hear that some time the eskimos had the need for hundreds of colors describing ice. White man perceives and calls tem all as "white". And so do urbanized modern young eskimos. So where were these hundreds of ice-colors before the eskimos started to use them? Where are those colors when that tradition is forgotten? I mean not just the words for them, but the individual colors themselves? Sure we can talk about Wavelenght, but that chart does not have lines to separete those eskimo colors. So the eskimos did not just discover those colors, they created them. For their own practical uses. And same time did not create, because the ice is there and someone else can split the colors differently. (But of course the separation of ice from say snow or water is a one relative way to divide the world too)

So there is many ways to split the world and it is happening all the time. Nothing special. The world is made from these pieces, without splitting they would not exist. Just a blank mass with no detail. And even perceiving it as blank mass needs someone to classify it as such.

This does not mean that a hot iron bar won't burn. Or that if we search for scientific facts with the questions of that doctrine, they could not be found. But lets say physics and musicology measure different things from the sound of a symphony. Both are right. Reducing the artistic value to physics would not answer the artistic questions.

Neither do I mean it´s "all in our head".
Whose head? In zen they challenge the pupils to find the "me" who experiences things, feels and thinks. It can't be separated from what we perceive and feel. The perceiving mind is not there sitting like a dwarf in our head, so the world is not in the mind.
(Don't get me wrong. I don't "practice zen", meditate, sit in a funny posture and Buddha was some fat guy.)

Using the word "Truth" and separating it from "facts" was just a layman's term from me. Philosophy talks about "ontology". Which roughly is asking "what really is", but not in a practical or scientific way but metaphysically. There still are many philosophers who claim there is only one true ontology, or "truth" behind all these differing worldviews or "splits" I talked about. For me that sounds like religion and theology. It requires a faith in something that can't be measured. Far more complicated and unsubstantiated than what I just wrote above.

Plato claimed that we only see shadows of the true reality, which is hidden from us. In that reality are "ideas", like the original casts of all that there is. Aristotle thought that it is all in this world, but that the world is divided in just one way. That is religion. Even bigotry. Even these days there are eminent philosophers who invent a ontological split or division of the world, and when they get it internally coherent, think that they have discovered what the world really is.

It would hopeless for me to get them understand what I mean. It would be like trying to prove a two-dimensional creature that the third dimension does exist by waving a pen up and down. All they could see is the individual dots in their flat plane.. which they have drawn full of complicated and learned pictures. They would not be impressed.

Thats why I like philosophers like Wittgenstein who actually hated philosophy and said it is nonsense bogus questions. Philosophers, like priests, did not get it and of course elevated him a Saint or Jesus in their religion.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2685
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #309 on: October 26, 2011, 11:01:47 AM »
@ Finntroll

If I were to say to you that there are as many different realities as there are people[1] to perceive it, would you agree or disagree?
 1. Also allowing for termites and jellyfish and such
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Finntroll

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #310 on: October 26, 2011, 11:49:24 AM »
@ Finntroll

If I were to say to you that there are as many different realities as there are people[1] to perceive it, would you agree or disagree?
 1. Also allowing for termites and jellyfish and such
Put in those words. I would agree. And when we die, that reality is no more.
Now excuse me, I must watch "The Big Bang Theory" on TV :D
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 11:51:13 AM by Finntroll »

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #311 on: October 26, 2011, 03:38:02 PM »
Different species perceive the world quite differently. If you were suddenly turned into a bat, you could make no sense of the world with your previous human "split" what things are.

   Why not just use the word "perception" instead of "split"? It becomes vague when you use terms that are don't mean what you're using them for. If you're going to split the world, you're probably a super-villian with a giant laser, whereas someone who perceives the world differently is just focusing on different details.

I hear that some time the eskimos had the need for hundreds of colors describing ice. White man perceives and calls tem all as "white".

   It was the type of ice, not its color. We use the word "ice" to encompass everything because we don't need to know its minor properties for everyday use, but since they lived within an environment of ice, they needed to be able to distinguish its properties very quickly since ice made up so much of their environment.

   It isn't that they see ice that only exists in their "world", which is what you seem to be implying, but that they are better able to recognize the minutia about ice faster than someone from the equator. It would be possible, however, to point out the differences so another could recognize it. The world the eskimos live in is the same world the Australians live in - because all the hard data is identical. The only difference between our "splits", as you call them, is the details we individually focus on.

   Also; I don't call ice white, I call it clear - usually with a blueish tint.
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #312 on: October 26, 2011, 04:10:42 PM »
I notice, yy, that you still have failed consistently to in any manner provide a justification for how your beliefs can be taken as anything even remotely serious.

You talk about "other proof" and such things but you've still failed to show how these "other proofs" povide any means of providing any reliable infomation in regards to knowing the truth. What I have gotten is a long list of Strawman arguments and poor attempts at dodging on your part and word redefinitions for reasons that seem to exist only to give false support to your ideas. There's also the various ad hominems as well.

Did you actually have even one single justification for yourself? As I pointed out, if you can provide just one means of using your views that allow someone to come to the truth, then you'll have easily destroyed everything I've said up until this point.

Since you should so obviously have the advantage in this, why is it so hard for you to produce the answer that is being asked? Why is it, I wonder, that you constantly can resort only to dishonest tactics in a discussion? Especially since you portray your position as being so good and the atheist position so poor, ego-driven, and limited.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 04:15:56 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #313 on: October 27, 2011, 06:19:20 AM »
Clearly, you are persuaded of a spiritual realm. Could you please share with us, without going off at a tangent or assuming accusations, the evidence that led you to your belief?

GB Moderator


The line I have taken introduces the disclaimer that the proof I present will not be that of the traditional sense. I ask that we consider the possibility that God might exist in a form that is not of your (plural) agreement or understanding. I then go into an extremely long explanation of MY personal belief in this God. I've offered "evidence" to support my claims although this evidence does not have traditional proof.
I did not ask for a traditional proof. Here you are again deflecting the question with an answer to a question that I did not ask.

Quote
I'm not sure where we go from here, but I think we're beating a dead horse if neither of us can suspend disbelief. I think it's time we put one last bullet into this dead horse and work on other threads.
Here you go deflecting again. Your passive-aggressive suggestion of ending the thread does not answer anything.

And then in #274, we have: I know the standards for evidence and proof. I said up front that I will not be able to comply with those standards.

Do it anyway!

Please, once more.

Clearly, you are persuaded of a spiritual realm. Could you please share with us, without going off at a tangent or assuming accusations, the evidence that led you to your belief?

If you have a difficulty with the word "evidence" you can change it for either "the thing that made me think the way I do about the nature and existence of a god and the reason I conclude that god exists in the manner and form that I believe." or something not too far removed from it.

GB Moderator



« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 06:21:14 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #314 on: October 27, 2011, 07:30:13 AM »
A late response:
Hi GB.
 
Quote
I fail to see what you mean by “experienced” could you define that term for the board?
First online dictionary I consulted: Experience: the apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind. 'Apprehension' has the sense of understanding, or grasping; perception as well as cognition. So your experience of an event is your 'take' on it. I'm OK with that definition if you are?

Quote
Reality is the commonly shared experience.
Using the above definition, experiences can't be shared, because a person can't occupy the perceptual or mental system of another person. I cannot experience your experience. You cannot experience mine. Both are real. (If you and I agree that our experiences are similar, we may create another form of reality, Consensus Reality).
And this is where that school of philosophy falls apart. This reduction is simply not supported by any evidence. It is not a case of “we may create another form of reality, Consensus Reality” it is a case of Consensus Reality is the only one we have.

The only possible case for a personal reality would be a human neonate who manages to survive on an island alone and without help. As this is clearly an impossibility, we have to take it that Consensus Reality is the only one with which we are acquainted.
 
Quote
I'm agreeing with what the psychiatrist R.D. Laing had to say about experience, in the opening chapter of The Politics of Experience:
Quote
Even facts become fictions without adequate ways of seeing "the facts". We do not need theories so much as the experience that is the source of the theory. We are not satisfied with faith, in the sense of an implausible hypothesis irrationally held: we demand to experience the "evidence".
R. D. LaingWiki Ah yes, the Ted Haggard and Pat Robertson of psychiatry. Quite frankly, he was a man who either stated the blindingly obvious, or got it wrong. If I continue here, it will be classed as ad hominem.
 
Quote
I see you, and you see me. I experience you, and you experience me. I see your behaviour. You see my behaviour. But I do not and never have and never will see your experience of me. […]We are both invisible men. All men are invisible to one another.
But nevertheless, when I phone a plumber to fix a leak, he does not come round, deliver a box of vegetables and leave.
Quote
Experience used to be called The Soul. Experience as invisibility of man to man is at the same time more evident than anything. Only experience is evident. Experience is the only evidence. Does that make any sense to you, GB?
All this is very interesting if you are having a few beers and short of a discussion topic, “Can we really know anything?”. However, I think we will get much further by living in the real world, the one ruled by Consensus Reality, which is the only one that there is.

I did earlier say that it is the weight people put upon the conclusions drawn from their experience that creates their outlook but we should all have some basis in Consensus Reality in doing this.
 
Quote
Quote
you and I share a cup of tea from the same pot. You may well drink yours and continue with our conversation. I would have the strongest gagging reflex and be quite unable to continue.
So our experiences of 'drinking tea' are completely different, we evidently don't 'share' the same experience. Your reality is painful, mine is pleasurable; both are real.
Yes we do, we know what the reality of 'drink', 'tea' and 'gag' is; we simply react differently and can explain to each other why this is.

This is not a mystery. Go back to the example of the vegetable plumber.
Quote
Quote
If you could explain why most people experience much the same things and thus understand one another, that would be great.
Because we have similar perceptual/cognitive systems and we can empathize; but we don't understand what it feels like to be a whale or a bat, who have their own realities.
Good – but ignoring whales and bats – I think we are now agreed that delusion and mental illness are broadly recognisable and that Consensus Reality is the only reality that counts in a functioning society.

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #315 on: October 27, 2011, 07:58:17 PM »

 
Quote
I see you, and you see me. I experience you, and you experience me. I see your behaviour. You see my behaviour. But I do not and never have and never will see your experience of me. […]We are both invisible men. All men are invisible to one another.
But nevertheless, when I phone a plumber to fix a leak, he does not come round, deliver a box of vegetables and leave.


leeks in a box   vegetable and leaves.   my abject apologies I couldn't help myself :-[




Quote
Quote
Because we have similar perceptual/cognitive systems and we can empathize; but we don't understand what it feels like to be a whale or a bat, who have their own realities.
Good – but ignoring whales and bats – I think we are now agreed that delusion and mental illness are broadly recognisable and that Consensus Reality is the only reality that counts in a functioning society.
my bold....

Agreed.
We are condemned to sharing this CR alone (as telepathy doesn't seem to be effective) while in human animal functioning default mode.
It is only mental gymnastics that can posit alternatives, or an actual mental break may "apparently" exclude one from the CR into some singlecell subset but even that still intersects with the rest (CR) as they put you in your padded room and observe you.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 08:07:59 PM by kin hell »
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #316 on: October 28, 2011, 09:29:20 PM »
I did not ignore his post.  I went to Wiki and soon found out that part of the hypothetical (ah, er, I mean fact) they discuss is the Miller experiment, which, I immediately debunked.

Really? You debunked abiogenesis? Somebody give this guy a nobel prize!

* facepalm *

Here's the best part ... even if we throw out Abiogenesis and Evolution... how does that make your magic-man skydaddy supernatural boogieman claim any more plausible?

You still need to prove the existence of your deity. You still have all your work ahead of you after 'debunking' all of science.

Quote
I have not seen any evidence and ask you to provide it concerning bacteria being observed evolving into a higher life form.  I agree, bacteria has been able to adapt (I think there is confusion here because this is called evolution) to environments containing higher doses and different types of antibiotics, but they are STILL BACTERIA!  Unfortunately for me, even creationists have adopted the term "micro-evolution", which, to all scientists means changes within a species, not a new one. 

Bacteria is not a species, you massive ignoramus. Bacteria is a domain that contains millions of different species.

Bacteria has been observed to transition from one species to another species:
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/suppl.2/10800.full

Transitions in bacteria take much less time and are therefore observable in the lab. For a unicellular organism to evolve into a higher life-form it would take millions of years. However, we can determine ancestry via DNA sequencing. Which is why we know that Chimpanzees and Bonobos descend from the same lineage of Apes as Homo Sapiens.

Quote
To plethora, it obviously means we came from a primordial gooz by chance.

You have, once again, managed to confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis. When will you get it through your your head that these are different things?

----

I have to go now... I'll be back to address the last few points later today.

Who's the ignoramus?  I read your link....there is no observational proof or evidence of bacteria evolving into a higher life form.  I did not disagree that there are new bacteria or more robust bacteria, were getting new bacteria probably daily.  You said there are millions (billions?).  You win on that one!  I don't disagree.  So What!   They are still bacteria!!  You yourself state it takes millions of years for evolution to take place, it can't be observed.

You say: "Which is why we know that Chimpanzees and Bonobos descend from the same lineage of Apes as Homo Sapiens"  No!!!  You say that based on assumptions taken from observations that can prove creation as well.  It has not been observed!!!  I may confuse Abiogenesis with evolution, worse yet, you confuse observational science with historical science.  At least we needed Abiogenesis to start evolution.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline C

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Counter-Theist Taskforce
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #317 on: October 28, 2011, 11:57:00 PM »
Quote
Who's the ignoramus? I read your link....there is no observational proof or evidence of bacteria evolving into a higher life form.

You clearly did not even get past the Abstract. You are still the ignoramus.

Quote
I did not disagree that there are new bacteria or more robust bacteria, were getting new bacteria probably daily.  You said there are millions (billions?).  You win on that one!  I don't disagree.

Um..that's not what Plethora was even addressing but okay.

Quote
So What!   They are still bacteria!!

Completely missed the point.

Quote
You yourself state it takes millions of years for evolution to take place, it can't be observed.

Yes it can take millions of years, but it can still be observed in various scenarios. You can observe changes in the gene pool of a certain species and so forth. I will give you a very basic example: Pesticides are introduced in the year 1950. Insects that are exposed to pesticides die. Some survive. And in the year 1960, some insects develop a resistance to pesticides. Note that this can be observed and that it also shows how diverse living organisms can get.

Also, Plethora mentioned the valid DNA sequencing (as opposed to other methods of observation such as comparative anatomy or something as simple as the geographical distribution of species found) as a way to see that the "Chimpanzees and Bonobos descend from the same lineage of Apes as Homo Sapiens."

Yet you responded with:

Quote
You say: "Which is why we know that Chimpanzees and Bonobos descend from the same lineage of Apes as Homo Sapiens"  No!!!

You completely edited out his mention of DNA/gene sequencing and simply typed "No!!!" just to avoid thinking.
You win the Ignoramus Award of 2011.




Quote
You say that based on assumptions taken from observations that can prove creation as well.

No. Just No. Creationism is one of the most pathetic things humanity has ever thought up. It has been debunked, unnecessarily, thousands of times. The very premise of the arguments creationists make depends on how false THEIR version of the Theory of Evolution is, NOT the actual one.

What you said about evolution being impossible to observe earlier, guess who made that shit up? Creationists.

Quote
It has not been observed!!!  I may confuse Abiogenesis with evolution, worse yet, you confuse observational science with historical science.  At least we needed Abiogenesis to start evolution.

... I think someone's parents could have used a book about the importance of not dropping infants on their heads.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2011, 12:01:59 AM by C »
The Second C

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #318 on: October 29, 2011, 01:21:28 AM »


Who's the ignoramus? 

You are you cowardly dropkick.

You, displaying that astounding knowledge and christian honesty claimed that a "drop" was not a scientific unit of measurement.
I instantly showed you wrong.

And then your braveheart soldier of truth mode kicked in, (your idiot god has obviously got the craven idiot followers it deserves) and instead of acknowledging you had made an error, you fucking ran away.

And you have dodged this same point that I continue to raise every time I find your deceitful carcass stinking up another thread.

Are you really that thick skinned, or is it  you are just that thick, and even though I showed you wrong, you still believe you are right?

Anyway jtp56  I call you out as a spineless, intellectually and morally limited organ of noise that just proves by its very actions the value of the central belief system of its life.

Lastly I say again oh noisemaker, what credibility have you got if you cannot even acknowledge your proven errors?

Absolutely none you lying ignoramus.
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise