Topic: Why Science Does Not Disprove God - page 2. (Read 7927 times)

I think therefore I am= Consciousness. Is Consciousness Energy? Does Consciousness have a mass?

Therefore E=MC²=Conciousness. Could that be correct?

*cough* Bollocks! *cough*

Dude, quoting flowery prose from people who live by way of magical thinking does not a reasonable assertion make.


*sigh* No he didn't, not really, and, even if he did, as you lot LOVE to claim, so feckin' what? 'Origin of Species' is based on reason and critical thinking, 'it must be designed by an intelligence', is the same wildly speculative crap that falls wayyyy outside of the reasoning process.

Here's a tip you really need to understand, ALL of your pro-woo Creationist 'science' is garbage, designed to satisfy what YOU are looking for so you can agree with it and assume it safely answers all the questions satisfactorily.

Learn about fallacious argument, your lots' 'research' data is full of it. Oh, and lies, it's full of lies too.

Besides, I already pulled apart 'appeal to authority' fallacy much earlier in this thread.

Objective scientific research doesn't need to spin its information to suit a predetermined wish about how reality might work. It just deals in the cold soul-less facts of the Universe.

I've never heard of Darwin saying such a thing. He seemed to consider himself an agnostic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

Darwin believed that natural laws were designed by an intelligence.... just like von Braun. You won't have any luck knocking down ALL of these eminent intellectuals:

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers#researchers_turing

 

The survival hypothesis has something to say about one's sense of self, and it is a viable hypothesis, backed by many strong cases.

All information we currently have about the personality suggests its survival after death.

http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml


It is dishonest to discuss the self without evaluating the evidence for survival.

This is one of the most common sceptical queries about evolution, i.e. "why would simple/chaotic things spontaneously become more complex/ordered?"

The answer, of course, is that they didn't. With each generation of (e.g.) self-replicating prebiotic organic chemicals:

• some were replicated with variations that made them more complex
• some were replicated perfectly
• some were replicated with variations that made them less complex

All completely at random (chaotic). The non-random (non-chaotic) process is natural selection - the prebiotic chemicals whose variations made them more likely to 'survive' and self-replicate replaced those without such variations. And so on and so forth, to single and multi-celled seagoing organisms, to reptiles, to small and then large land mammals, to primates, to hominids, to us.

The reason life has become more complex is simply that complex organisms are (generally) better at surviving and reproducing than very simple organisms, and so natural selection has tended towards complexity.

Goodness me, the level of misunderstanding and outright misrepresentation being shown here is staggering.
'Spiritualists', first stop assuming that such a thing as a 'spirit' exists and then seeking to cherry-pick information to support your assumption.

We are a brain that functions as a filter, otherwise the sheer amount of data our senses receive would absolutely render us incapable of functioning. Our sense of 'self' is that filter. All information we currently have about the brain suggest this to be so.

'Intelligent Design' Creationists, no, no you may not keep pointing us in the direction of shonky science 'proof' that, likewise, serves to misrepresent data in order to work backwards to your intended aim of claiming your assertion as anything more than utterly baseless wild speculation.

What is it about theism that encourages so much dishonesty?

@Joint - Warmth, you've been told already is not definable outside of subjective personal sensory perspective. Otherwise it is simply a 'temperature' objectively measurable by technologies we create to do so.

The 'feeling' you get at one level of 'warmth' is not going to be the same 'feeling' I get, or someone else gets. Our brain, our body, creates sensory feedback from reactions from the radiation of heat across nerves which fire information to the brain and gets translated into 'warmth' as a rapid way for us to interpret the level of heat in order to what? Yes, in order to ensure we react to it quick enough not to get burnt! It allows us to respond without actually having to spend time thinking about it.

Without nerve signalling to the brain, in cases where there is numbness, people find themselves only knowing they are burning their skin when they smell it cooking.

@Wilikon - E=MC² In a nutshell, matter is energy slowed down. Matter and energy interact with different types of matter and energy to create, guess what, different matter and energy types!

This.

For a theory to be scientific, it must always be open to disproof - there is no such thing as "proven beyond a doubt". The scientific theory that explains the most evidence without being disproved is the "truth" (for now) - evolution by natural selection fits this category.

Why is the stuff on the periodic table need to create more complex structures to ultimately create consciousness? Why not simply be what they are forever? Is gravity the answer from a genesis of pure energy, even before the concept of pure chaos?

What do you mean by need? I think essentially everything is the result of gravity. Without it what would could exist?

Why is there a need for mutations, for generations after generations from a cloud of pure energy from the bigbang? Is Evolution, and ultimately consciousness, the result of gravity?

No, I'm not joking.  But, I'm trying to make a subtle distinction I'm not sure you're picking up on.

I'm talking about the difference between the direct experience of an event vs. subsequent abstraction of that event which may include thinking about the event or attempting to explain it.  

A "brain failure" or an attempt to explain an illusion may render the person experiencing the failure and/or illusion incapable of explaining the event, but there is nothing fallacious about direct experiences because these experiences preclude abstraction and therefore explanation.  There is nowhere to find fallacy in the total absence of explanation, and yet the experience itself is very real in a truer sense than what can be communicated through abstraction.

Another way to conceptualize this is to think of abstraction or explanation as requiring a separation between the explainer (subject) and what is being explained (object); this is why the root word of 'rationale' is 'ratio' as explanations are really explanatory *relationships*.  In contrast, direct experience of an event requires the unification of subject and object; you'll notice that if you experience warmth there is no distinct separation between you and the warmth itself, and it's interesting to note how this is even reflected in the language we use (e.g. "I'm warm").  Scientifically, this claim "I'm warm" would be dismissed without at least some other reference point for comparision (i.e. Warm compared to what?); this other reference point catalyzes a 'ratio' which enables us to 'rationalize' about it.  But, the person experiencing the warmth doesn't need some other reference point to understand or know what he is experiencing.

Are skeptical theories open to disproof?

A theory with sufficient supporting evidence can supply a disproof. A theory that's good enough is the truth standing now, but subject to change, as you mentioned.


And I should mention here, not only the evidence in favor of the transmission theory of mind, but also the vast evidence for the survival hypothesis as well.

Such theories are subject to disproof only if skeptical or alternative theories have better evidence or better explanations, but this is NOT evident in the parapsychology literature.

Repeated observations and repeatable experiments haven't convinced skeptics. Statements by Nobel prize winning scientists who were convinced by evidence hasn't convinced skeptics. When pushed to the limit, the skeptic always has recourse to the last bastions of skepticism: accusations of fraud, incompetence, and self-delusion.

Turing and other eminent researchers

So given all of this it is not hard to imagine that there is evidence, viable hypotheses, and even entire theories that are being ignored in biosciences as well, scientists are discussing the issues but the discussion must grow. As I recall, some of the latest evidence casts doubt upon the macroevolutionary paradigm (I have read a great review but have unfortunately lost the source).

I disagree. Human evolution does not appear to be compatible with macro-evolutionary theory, as discerned from multiple of lines of inquiry and mentioned in the video.

Furthermore, I don't think god of the gaps applies to the broader argument that I am making about the survival hypothesis. Of course, you can call that argument a god of the gaps fallacy, but then you are just putting the label "unknown" onto one of the central concepts in spirituality and I perceive that as a cop-out.

I'd rather you clarify this doubt-inducing video since it seems not all the evidence is being evaluated honestly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUpHrILke_Q&list=PL5E1C6F0C32270E31

I am responding to you with an "accepted fact" about language. Hopefully this has shown why there is reason to doubt. 

I think a good question to ask is wether or not you think god would be an atheist... or agnostic... or maybe he's also a believer? lol

Whatever the power that created the Universe was, it's not the same as the person made up in the bible. And it's all probably beyond human comprehension.

Here, let me clarify something for you:

Scientific theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.


The 'Theory of Evolution' is not, "Hey, I have a theory about . . .", in the way that the fungelicals like to pretend it is in order to crowbar their 'Intelligent Design' Creationism 2.0 wildly speculative and arbitrary notion as being deserving of equal consideration.

A scientific theory describes an accepted fact whilst still always being open to correction in future were there to be new data that supplanted the old. Evolution is something that has been demonstrably accepted across a wide swathe of scientific fields by way of multitudes of repeated observations and experiments.

I don't understand why people never apply this same logic to god. According to the bible god made us in his image. It is only logical therefore to assume that god also needs a designer, because by definition he is infinitely more complex and intelligent than us.

We aren't talking about formal sciences here, but natural sciences; as such, the theory of evolution is as "proven" as one of these can be: you can make observations, predictions and repeat experiments with predictable results. But that isn't to say it won't undergo changes as new knowledge is acquired.

Out of curiosity, do you also refuse to take medicine when you're sick? Because chemistry is also a natural science... 

As for the movie you link, their main (but by no means only) fallacy is "god of the gaps". Here's a quote from Wikipedia for it:


As you can see, even theologians don't rely on it.