Atheists - A Question...

[nPeace]

Why doesn't he mention what I have highlighted with red in his text, it took me less than 2 minutes to look up?

I didn't read through what they wrote.
I know that these are just a few cases of many, that people point out.

Why doesn't this person mention that the scientific community is well aware of it, and actively make sure that this is known to people? And purely using your own reasoning, do you think that textbooks today teaches student these false things when a University on their very website explain that it is wrong?

My guess is that you will be able to do the exact same things for the last two examples, but do you think that the person in the link is honest?

I think they are honestly pointing out what they observe, and what annoys them.
I think they are highlighting the fact that because people are scientists that doesn't make them Saints, and so, they do not ignore this, and join those who put their faith in whatever scientists say, because they believe, "Hey, Science will get it right. It will be corrected."
Get what I mean.

As I told you, mistakes and people cheating in science happen, it doesn't surprise anyone. But as I also said, science is self-correcting, because of the method it relies on, which allows others to evaluate and test others' work to see if they reach the same conclusion or to see if errors were made, so they can be corrected.

See what I mean.

I know my mother is, but I think my dad is more open about the general idea. But he doesn't really know a lot about it, and also thinks that people don't really believe in all this stuff in the bible etc. and that they know it's not really true. So he might be open to the idea of a higher power, but I don't think he buys any of the religious stuff as it is written, or that he at least just sees them as made-up stories. Despite me having tried to explain to him that people actually do believe these things.

But religion is not something we talk about very often, I'm the only one in my family that has any interest in it at all. My brother is also more open to the idea of a higher power, but again knows very little about it and to him, Moses might as well be Abraham or one of the others. So they don't lean towards one of the established religions. But again, religion has never been important in my family, it is not something which has been discussed or my parents telling me what to believe or not. I guess you can compare it to your family never discussing Cricket if none of you has an interest in it, then it is simply not relevant in your life.

I understand, thanks.

I think you understood what I meant when I explained it.

No. Not really, Nimos.

Obviously, I don't suggest that evolution is designing anything in regards to how we understand a designer, as that infers intention. But rather that evolution evolves things according to whatever inputs it has and based on that some features survive or evolve or they don't.

You make evolution into what it's not. "evolution evolves things"?
Evolution is a process. What are you trying to say... or do?
Seems you are trying hard to account for design in nature, but not in the usual way, but rather, trying to make it work for your belief system... Like having your cake, and eating it too.

Imagine this.

You and I are standing and looking at a pile of wood.

Both of us know that I know everything, both past, present and future, it is my special ability.

Ah. We can stop here.
That explains the problem.
If you believe that God knows all the future, no need to go further.
That requires God to do absolutely nothing. No need to intervene, or maneuver anything, etc., but that's not in line with the scriptures.

I tell you that the pile of wood is going to burn and exactly how it will happen.

This would mean that nothing you can do will change that. You might come up with all sorts of ideas of how to avoid it. But if my special abilities are true, the pile of wood will burn exactly as I said it will. Therefore whatever you think or believe is irrelevant, because things will happen as I know they will. So you might use your "free will" to do whatever you feel like, but it doesn't change anything, because all that is already known to me and is taken into account. Therefore the only perspective that is relevant is mine if I know how everything will turn out and also being the only one able to change anything. Your "free will" is nothing but an illusion.

It's still your free will, Nimos. Because you can't change something, doesn't mean you aren't exercising free will.
Think of it this way... The world's strongest man tells you to pull an 18 wheeler.
All you try. No mater how much energy you exert, you can't
Does that mean you haven't used your strength, or you have none? No.

Thanks for that.

And you are not incorrect, I do not see any value in having a go at others for having a lack of knowledge about something or simply having misunderstood something, or simply assuming that they are out to "trick" me. There are plenty of things I have absolutely no clue about and if I were to ask "stupid" questions or completely misunderstand something, then I see little value in someone coming along that knows it, making fun or talking down to me or assuming I was trying to trick them, rather than explaining to me how it actually is.

I will rather have people intentionally think that they can fool me or play dumb if they believe they get something out of that. I'm pretty sure I can handle that without any issues anyway and doesn't particularly rub me the wrong way, as I think it is rather obvious who the real fool would be in such a case.

Yes. Sometimes a person may say something that sounds stupid. Not that it actually is stupit, but to you it is, because it is in disagreement with what you think is sensible. ...and so you think the person is obtuse, or dishonest, or being a trickster.
Not you. ...but this is how it goes with some, here.

We have a common ancestor with them, just to be precise. So a being that is neither or both, depending on how you want to look at it.

Some here, say we are apes.
Many others say we are apes.
What does it mean that humans are related to apes?
It means that we share a common ancestor with that of Other apes. It means that We Too ARE Apes.

It is a fact that we generally are considered apes, as people use the expression, 'humans and other apes'.
They may not always make it clear, but this is the way most see it. Just as they would say dinosaurs are birds, but not always make that clear.

Humans together with the other great apes are classified into the taxonomy "Great apes" based on shared characteristics, which means that we are apes in that sense. Basically in the same way as you could classify a station car from Toyota, Kia or Ford etc. into a group called "Cars", then you might have a group called "Trucks", "Motorcycles" etc. and all these have an ancestor group called "Vehicles" and one could imagine that planes and boats might be connected somewhere as well. So just for fun, we could imagine that a vehicle, in this case, would be something that is neither a car, truck or boat etc. But eventually evolved into these. I think you get the point.

See. You just did it.
"Humans together with the other great apes..."

Obviously, you can't defend against stupidity. If there are people that are set on claiming that science can never be wrong, what can you do? You have shown examples of it here in the link you posted, and I have shown you how the scientific community have dealt with it, not trying to hide it. What more can you do, if these people will not admit it?

I think they know, but just don't want to admit certain things, because they feel it's admitting they lost the argument... which they did, actually, because they are arguing for Scietism, and not sticking to real science.
I think they basically love to argue strong, though wrong.

But my impression is that there are very few people like this and that the majority is well aware that mistakes happen and understand that science as a concept, is self-correcting, even if a mistake survives for 50 years, eventually someone will figure it out and correct it.

When they talk to you, they will give you that impression. Believers on the other hand, are given a different impression. So I can see that being the case.

You don't have to worry about that

Those working with evolution wouldn't allow God in there as an explanation in the first place. Supernatural things are not part of science. If God was allowed as an explanation, anything would be possible, so it is not because they are against God, but it would cause serious issues when it comes to objectivity.

I understand that.

 

[nPeace]

No, I'm talking purely from a logical point of view. As my example with the pile of firewood in the last post.

Sure you can demonstrate it.

If a person murders another person, that action will affect not only these two people but every one that is related to them. Isn't that fairly obvious, that a person's fate can not be looked at individually?

No. ...and no, you haven't demonstrated it, as I have demonstrated.

Yes, but did God know that he would become king because he murdered him the next morning, or did God not expect that? And if God knew that this was what he would do, could he have chosen not to? and if so, why didn't God know this already?

God looked ahead, Nimos.
That doesn't mean looking ahead at everything.
Do you think it's impossible to focus on one or a few particular or specific things? It's not.

The bible says that God is all-knowing right? or what do you mean?

Never read that, but what does that mean, anyway?

 

[Alien826]

I don't want to seem biased.
If I said the same thing about the religion that is true, you would deny it.
I deny what you said too.
So maybe we aren't biased about what we believe. We just see what is, to us, but can't see what the other sees.
What do you think?

I'm getting really puzzled. What is it that I said that you deny? Everything? That modern medical science is effective? That seems like such a bizarre claim that I can't believe you mean it without you confirming it. So, are you saying that all modern medical science is ineffective, or even harmful?

Incidentally, don't assume that I would deny any religious claim that you made. It would depend on the claim. I try to understand where the other person is coming from and reply accordingly.

Same thing applies here.
Establish the existence of a God. Done.
Establish that this God actually inspired the scriptures. Done.
Christians don't believe you have established the things you believe. ...and a reasonable alternative to those beliefs is already accepted.

Yet another sweeping generalization. Some Christians believe as you do and others don't.

Well we Christians have been saying the same thing, but based on the ongoing arguments, that's not going to happen, because one side thinks as you claimed in your initial comments in your post here... which isn't actually true.

I don't see how that applies to the standard of evidence. The truth of both claims would be examined with the same standard of evidence, that's all.

I'll give you two examples in medicine - blood transfusions, and extremely dangerous drugs.

Seriously, and once again, are you suggesting that a few examples like that invalidate all medical science? Maybe so, as you have used a similar approach to attack science in general.

What is wrong with blood transfusions? And yes, a few drugs have proven to be dangerous and have been withdrawn. Others have caused harm by being misused (by addicts, for example). Most are perfectly safe if used as directed.

Orthodox views may hold sway due to $$$, but alternatives still stand in opposition, and continue advancing... and gaining millions of informed supporters.

Could you tell me what is your alternative to medical science? I know there are some religions that object to some particular things, but you seem to want to sweep it all aside, in favor of ... what?

 

[Jose Fly]

Let's go through the first two examples given in that link, doing some quick google on the topics.

Peppered Moths

Some thought the adults were changing their colors the same way the larvae could match the color of the twigs. Others thought the chemicals in the smoke darkened the moths.

Finally it was found that the color was genetic. Moths passed their color to the next generation. Eggs from light moths developed into light moths and dark moth eggs turned to dark adults. The dark color was caused by a mutation in the DNA of a single moth, and the mutated gene had been passed to all its offspring.

Why doesn't he mention what I have highlighted with red in his text, it took me less than 2 minutes to look up?

This is the sort of thing that fascinates me about creationists. If you look at the site @nPeace linked to, it makes the following claim: "There were some big problems with the research, however. Mainly, peppered moths don’t land on the trunks of trees."

There's no other way to put it, but that's simply not true. The following is from Majerus, Industrial Melanism, Evolution in Action

So clearly nPeace's source is wrong. Peppered moths are found on tree trunks.

But I find this sort of thing particularly interesting given nPeace's rhetoric about "scientists being wrong about things" and how people who trust scientists are engaging in "scientism". Yet despite the fact that nPeace's own source is wrong on a very fundamental level, I'm betting that won't cause him to be more skeptical about his own creationist sources.

I hope I'm not the only one who sees the hypocrisy in that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think they are honestly pointing out what they observe, and what annoys them.
I think they are highlighting the fact that because people are scientists that doesn't make them Saints, and so, they do not ignore this, and join those who put their faith in whatever scientists say, because they believe, "Hey, Science will get it right. It will be corrected."
Get what I mean.

The fact that scientists aren't saints is part of what helps science work.

Peer review and replication work just fine when scientists are ambitious and back-stabby. If you can refute an established theory or get a new one recognized, you get personal glory, so self-interested people are incentivized to look for any weakness in current scientific thought.

Self-interest also supports a high standard of rigor, since ambitious, back-stabby members of the scientific community aren't going to go along with a standard that lets others seize glory unless it's clear that the glory is deserved.

The trick is to make sure that scientists will lose face if they get caught doing bad work... which, again, isn't a problem if you have lots of self-interested scientists trying to find fault with each other.

 

[Alien826]

But I find this sort of thing particularly interesting given nPeace's rhetoric about "scientists being wrong about things" and how people who trust scientists are engaging in "scientism". Yet despite the fact that nPeace's own source is wrong on a very fundamental level, I'm betting that won't cause him to be more skeptical about his own creationist sources.

I hope I'm not the only one who sees the hypocrisy in that.

You're not. I do too.

My own (very long) experience with this is that creationists are not really interested in being right about the theory of evolution, or any science that might contradict their Bible based world view.. What they do is sort through the literature looking for things that can be used to throw doubt on the ToE, misrepresenting it if necessary. If one of their arguments is debunked, they simply move on to another.

To understand it, it helps to realize that the intended audience is not the educated biologist (or layman), but someone who believes in creationism but may waver in their belief if they are exposed to information that contradicts it. I would not wish to give an overall motivation, but what I've seen directly is that they see themselves a sheepdogs defending the sheep from the wolves (us!). And the danger to the sheep is not some intellectual conversion, but a literal condemnation to hell if they abandon the "true faith".

 

[Alien826]

You and I are standing and looking at a pile of wood.

Both of us know that I know everything, both past, present and future, it is my special ability.

I tell you that the pile of wood is going to burn and exactly how it will happen.

This would mean that nothing you can do will change that. You might come up with all sorts of ideas of how to avoid it. But if my special abilities are true, the pile of wood will burn exactly as I said it will. Therefore whatever you think or believe is irrelevant, because things will happen as I know they will. So you might use your "free will" to do whatever you feel like, but it doesn't change anything, because all that is already known to me and is taken into account. Therefore the only perspective that is relevant is mine if I know how everything will turn out and also being the only one able to change anything. Your "free will" is nothing but an illusion.

I'd like to explore this with you, if you don't mind. Just you, please. I have a viewpoint on this "free will" thing, and I'd welcome your opinion.

It seems to me that in your example, the pivotal point is that you tell me that the wood will burn. Once you do that, you have changed the parameters, in that I can deliberately try to prove your prediction wrong. If you have the power to enforce my actions, you can make it all happen as you predicted, but that's not simply "knowing". If I do change my actions, that invalidates your power to see the future, not my free will.

If you don't tell me your prediction (write it in a sealed envelope if you want to prove your powers) I will continue with whatever I do, and if that results in the wood burning then your predictive power is proven.

My view is that your simply knowing what I will do doesn't mean I don't have free will. I perform every action without outside influence.

What do you think?

By the way, it's similar to the time travel paradox. If I go back and simply observe the past it has no effect. If I start doing things, I change the past and could cause a paradox like killing my grandfather as a child.

 

[Jose Fly]

You're not. I do too.

Glad it's not just me.

My own (very long) experience with this is that creationists are not really interested in being right about the theory of evolution, or any science that might contradict their Bible based world view.. What they do is sort through the literature looking for things that can be used to throw doubt on the ToE, misrepresenting it if necessary. If one of their arguments is debunked, they simply move on to another.

Yup....I refer to them as "conveyor belt creationists", sending one copied argument after another down the line at you with no concern at all about accuracy.

To understand it, it helps to realize that the intended audience is not the educated biologist (or layman), but someone who believes in creationism but may waver in their belief if they are exposed to information that contradicts it. I would not wish to give an overall motivation, but what I've seen directly is that they see themselves a sheepdogs defending the sheep from the wolves (us!). And the danger to the sheep is not some intellectual conversion, but a literal condemnation to hell if they abandon the "true faith".

Agreed.

But what truly fascinates me is how it all seems so lacking in self-awareness. I mean, if a scientist being wrong about something and then correcting it is somehow an indictment against science and scientists, what then do we say about all the creationist errors, distortions, and outright lies (e.g., quote mines)? By the creationist's own standards, creationist organizations and websites are not trustworthy at all!

Yet they are seemingly completely oblivious to that.

But then with Jehovah's Witnesses like @nPeace I can't ignore the elephant in the room....the JW belief that "if evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose". I suppose if they truly believe that, then misrepresenting the data on moths pales in comparison to losing all purpose to one's life.

IOW, the stakes for them couldn't be any higher, so if they have to fudge and distort things a bit, so be it. At the end of the day, all that matters is that they've maintained their faith and sense of purpose.

 

[Nimos]

I didn't read through what they wrote.
I know that these are just a few cases of many, that people point out.

Ok, maybe not the best choice to use them as a reference then, just saying

I think they are honestly pointing out what they observe, and what annoys them.

This is a classic website trying to fool people with nonsense, meaning that they present 50% of the truth and leave everything out that they don't agree with. It is not uncommon, because they have an agenda.

See what I mean.

No I don't? If that was what you meant, why would you link to a site like you did, if you know or at least are aware of them being wrong, makes no sense to me?

You make evolution into what it's not. "evolution evolves things"?
Evolution is a process. What are you trying to say... or do?
Seems you are trying hard to account for design in nature, but not in the usual way, but rather, trying to make it work for your belief system... Like having your cake, and eating it too.

No, there is no designer or creator in evolution!!

Things evolved based on the environment that a living organism lives in. That was why I said that you could say that nature is the designer. But don't confuse this with me saying that nature makes things with a specific purpose in mind, like what a human or God would, but bees make their beehive the way they do because that was how they evolved and they had the best success with. But there are not some bee designers sitting around having decided this, nature made it like through the process of evolution.

It's still your free will, Nimos. Because you can't change something, doesn't mean you aren't exercising free will.
Think of it this way... The world's strongest man tells you to pull an 18 wheeler.
All you try. No mater how much energy you exert, you can't
Does that mean you haven't used your strength, or you have none? No.

That is not the same, because in such a case there would be a logical reason why I might not be able to do it. Also, I could probably train to be able to do it if I really wanted or maybe a smaller truck or whatever.

But if it was known by someone that no matter what or how much I trained I wouldn't be able to do it, even though someone of similar strength could do it. Then it wouldn't matter whether I trained or not, I wouldn't be able to do it. I might train anyway, under the impression that I could, if I didn't know such a person with that knowledge existed. But it would be me, training for nothing.

Some here, say we are apes.
Many others say we are apes.
What does it mean that humans are related to apes?
It means that we share a common ancestor with that of Other apes. It means that We Too ARE Apes.

It is a fact that we generally are considered apes, as people use the expression, 'humans and other apes'.
They may not always make it clear, but this is the way most see it. Just as they would say dinosaurs are birds, but not always make that clear.

Yes, we are apes as we share a common ancestor with them.

God looked ahead, Nimos.
That doesn't mean looking ahead at everything.
Do you think it's impossible to focus on one or a few particular or specific things? It's not.

So in that case God makes mistakes right?

Never read that, but what does that mean, anyway?

That's a good question. If God can't make mistakes, then he must know everything, otherwise, I would say that mistakes will happen. It also makes one wonder, when he is going to judge people, how many mistakes are made here because he didn't really pay attention to that person.

 

[Nimos]

So clearly nPeace's source is wrong. Peppered moths are found on tree trunks.

Agree, it doesn't surprise me, I have seen a lot of these websites before, this isn't all that new, to be honest, So details like that I don't really bother checking, but it is very obvious that their focus is on pointing out flaws in whatever thing they can find, and "forget" to explain that the scientific community is well aware of it, and my guess is that it was also the very same community that pointed out the error, to begin with but again they kind of forgot to mention that.

 

[Nimos]

I'd like to explore this with you, if you don't mind. Just you, please. I have a viewpoint on this "free will" thing, and I'd welcome your opinion.

It seems to me that in your example, the pivotal point is that you tell me that the wood will burn. Once you do that, you have changed the parameters, in that I can deliberately try to prove your prediction wrong. If you have the power to enforce my actions, you can make it all happen as you predicted, but that's not simply "knowing". If I do change my actions, that invalidates your power to see the future, not my free will.

If you don't tell me your prediction (write it in a sealed envelope if you want to prove your powers) I will continue with whatever I do, and if that results in the wood burning then your predictive power is proven.

My view is that your simply knowing what I will do doesn't mean I don't have free will. I perform every action without outside influence.

What do you think?

By the way, it's similar to the time travel paradox. If I go back and simply observe the past it has no effect. If I start doing things, I change the past and could cause a paradox like killing my grandfather as a child.

It doesn't really matter if I tell you exactly how it is going to happen or not. Only that I have said powers, so these powers are set in stone, meaning I can't be wrong no matter what.

So me telling you how it will happen and you choose to act upon this knowledge I have given you. Is already part of what I know, I know that me telling you, will cause you to do whatever you do, and you might even try to fool me and do something completely different at the very last second. Doesn't really matter, because all that, given my powers are already taken into account. So you can't fool me, or do anything that I wouldn't be aware of.

So you might think that you pouring water on the pile of wood before it catches fire, is you making use of your free will to come up with it, but I already knew you were going to do that, at the moment I told you how it would burn, so you basically did exactly as I knew you would.

 

[Jose Fly]

Agree, it doesn't surprise me, I have seen a lot of these websites before, this isn't all that new, to be honest, So details like that I don't really bother checking, but it is very obvious that their focus is on pointing out flaws in whatever thing they can find, and "forget" to explain that the scientific community is well aware of it, and my guess is that it was also the very same community that pointed out the error, to begin with but again they kind of forgot to mention that.

This particular case though is a bit different to me. Basically, it's not a simple mistake.

The creationist website @nPeace cited is simply copying from the ID creationist Jonathan Wells and his 2002 book Icons of Evolution, which is where the "moths don't rest on tree trunks" claim originated. Of course as the data shows, moths do rest on tree trunks. Further, Wells and other creationists have been made aware of that many times by many people, yet they persist in repeating the falsehood.

IMO, that's not merely being mistaken.....that's blatant and deliberate dishonesty.

 

[Nimos]

This particular case though is a bit different to me. Basically, it's not a simple mistake.

The creationist website @nPeace cited is simply copying from the ID creationist Jonathan Wells and his 2002 book Icons of Evolution, which is where the "moths don't rest on tree trunks" claim originated. Of course as the data shows, moths do rest on tree trunks. Further, Wells and other creationists have been made aware of that many times by many people, yet they persist in repeating the falsehood.

IMO, that's not merely being mistaken.....that's blatant and deliberate dishonesty.

Again it is not new when it comes to creationists, they do this a lot and get called out for it time after time.

The reason is that creationists have nothing to offer really, so their main goal is to basically cast doubt on evolution and try to find flaws in it.

This is a very good debate between evolution and creationism and I won't hide it, it is a slaughter of biblical proportions, to be honest.

 

[Alien826]

It doesn't really matter if I tell you exactly how it is going to happen or not. Only that I have said powers, so these powers are set in stone, meaning I can't be wrong no matter what.

So me telling you how it will happen and you choose to act upon this knowledge I have given you. Is already part of what I know, I know that me telling you, will cause you to do whatever you do, and you might even try to fool me and do something completely different at the very last second. Doesn't really matter, because all that, given my powers are already taken into account. So you can't fool me, or do anything that I wouldn't be aware of.

So you might think that you pouring water on the pile of wood before it catches fire, is you making use of your free will to come up with it, but I already knew you were going to do that, at the moment I told you how it would burn, so you basically did exactly as I knew you would.

So you're you're factoring in my knowledge that you just gave me. That somehow doesn't seem right ... OK.

Let's say you predict that the wood will burn. You tell me that, and I immediately distribute the wood so it's not a pile and determine never to reassemble it. Now your prediction is wrong, but wait! You really foresaw that I would do that, and the real prediction is that there will be no fire. So in that case you haven't really told me the prediction, just a lie. Now you tell me that I will distribute the pile. I determine not to do that. So once again the prediction you give me is wrong. Another lie. So the only way you can truly predict the outcome is to keep it to yourself, because interfering in the chain of events in any way changes the result.

In your example, if you tell me, at any stage, that I will pour water over it, I have a chance not to do so and make your prediction of a wet pile of sticks false. If you tell me when it's too late to stop pouring it, it's not prediction it's real time observation. Incidentally, it gets more complicated if you include your own actions. If you decide to tell me the prediction before you do so (and it's difficult to see how you could avoid that) then you could change your mind and make it all false by removing your own predicted action.

 

[Alien826]

Glad it's not just me.


Yup....I refer to them as "conveyor belt creationists", sending one copied argument after another down the line at you with no concern at all about accuracy.

And we keep trying to explain why they are wrong! Why do we do that?

IOW, the stakes for them couldn't be any higher, so if they have to fudge and distort things a bit, so be it. At the end of the day, all that matters is that they've maintained their faith and sense of purpose.

I think that sums it up. I don't think the average skeptic fully understands just how important these beliefs are to those who hold them. It's not just, hey was wrong, I can change my views easily enough. I'm not emotionally committed to the ToE, I just think it's the best explanation I know.

 

[Jose Fly]

And we keep trying to explain why they are wrong! Why do we do that?

From what I've seen, the reasons are pretty diverse....dedication to countering anti-science misinformation, seeing debate as a sport, a desire to counter religion, an excuse to learn some science, fascination with human behavior, appealing to any "lurkers" in the thread, etc.

For me, it's mostly my fascination with human behavior. There are lots of times I'm genuinely baffled by creationists and how they seem to be completely oblivious to what they're doing.

I think that sums it up. I don't think the average skeptic fully understands just how important these beliefs are to those who hold them. It's not just, hey was wrong, I can change my views easily enough. I'm not emotionally committed to the ToE, I just think it's the best explanation I know.

Definitely. When interacting with a creationist I sometimes have to remind myself that their religious beliefs are probably the most important aspect of their identity, which means they likely see me and what I'm advocating as very real threats. So I can't be surprised or overreact when they become defensive and emotional.

 

[Nimos]

So you're you're factoring in my knowledge that you just gave me. That somehow doesn't seem right ... OK.

Let's say you predict that the wood will burn. You tell me that, and I immediately distribute the wood so it's not a pile and determine never to reassemble it. Now your prediction is wrong, but wait! You really foresaw that I would do that, and the real prediction is that there will be no fire. So in that case you haven't really told me the prediction, just a lie. Now you tell me that I will distribute the pile. I determine not to do that. So once again the prediction you give me is wrong. Another lie. So the only way you can truly predict the outcome is to keep it to yourself, because interfering in the chain of events in any way changes the result.

In your example, if you tell me, at any stage, that I will pour water over it, I have a chance not to do so and make your prediction of a wet pile of sticks false. If you tell me when it's too late to stop pouring it, it's not prediction it's real time observation. Incidentally, it gets more complicated if you include your own actions. If you decide to tell me the prediction before you do so (and it's difficult to see how you could avoid that) then you could change your mind and make it all false by removing your own predicted action.

The rule is that I can't be wrong because I know the future.

Meaning that if me telling you that you put water on it, would cause you to not put water on it, then the future I would see would be different, whatever it would end up with. The important thing here is that I would not lie, because I wouldn't have to because I can't be wrong about the future.

Obviously, it sounds stupid I agree, but if the rule is that I have these powers, then logically there is no other solution. And I'll admit that the pile of wood is probably not the best example.

But using the original example is that God knows what is on the person's tongue before they do. Then that person will have no free will, because again, God can't be wrong and I doubt God can be surprised either, meaning that you can't trick him either in the last millisecond.

And it is not way off if you look at some of the science that has been done in this area:

Fourteen study participants were each placed in an fMRI machine and shown two distinct patterns, one with red horizontal stripes and one with green vertical stripes. They were given up to 20 seconds to decide between one or the other, after which they pressed a button to indicate their choice and were told to imagine it as vividly as they could.

By monitoring brain activity during the selection process, the researchers were able to see signs indicating which image a person would select in four distinct areas of the brain. Watching for these signs, researchers could predict a person's choice up to 11 seconds before the choice was made.

This is obviously why it can be debated whether or not we actually have free will or not, in the sense that we understand it if the decision is made in this case 11 seconds before we are basically aware of it ourselves. But this is another discussion I guess

 

[Alien826]

The rule is that I can't be wrong because I know the future.

Meaning that if me telling you that you put water on it, would cause you to not put water on it, then the future I would see would be different, whatever it would end up with. The important thing here is that I would not lie, because I wouldn't have to because I can't be wrong about the future.

Obviously, it sounds stupid I agree, but if the rule is that I have these powers, then logically there is no other solution. And I'll admit that the pile of wood is probably not the best example.

But using the original example is that God knows what is on the person's tongue before they do. Then that person will have no free will, because again, God can't be wrong and I doubt God can be surprised either, meaning that you can't trick him either in the last millisecond.

And it is not way off if you look at some of the science that has been done in this area:

Fourteen study participants were each placed in an fMRI machine and shown two distinct patterns, one with red horizontal stripes and one with green vertical stripes. They were given up to 20 seconds to decide between one or the other, after which they pressed a button to indicate their choice and were told to imagine it as vividly as they could.

By monitoring brain activity during the selection process, the researchers were able to see signs indicating which image a person would select in four distinct areas of the brain. Watching for these signs, researchers could predict a person's choice up to 11 seconds before the choice was made.

This is obviously why it can be debated whether or not we actually have free will or not, in the sense that we understand it if the decision is made in this case 11 seconds before we are basically aware of it ourselves. But this is another discussion I guess

I don't understand the fMRI example. They were shown two patterns and given 20 seconds to think about then then asked to register their choice? And the choice was shown in their brain patterns after 9 seconds? How does this indicate anything but that they had decided which one to pick after 9 seconds? Do you have a link to the actual study?

 

[Nimos]

I don't understand the fMRI example. They were shown two patterns and given 20 seconds to think about then then asked to register their choice? And the choice was shown in their brain patterns after 9 seconds? How does this indicate anything but that they had decided which one to pick after 9 seconds? Do you have a link to the actual study?

They were shown two lines, different colors one horizontal and one vertical and had 20 seconds to think about which one they would choose after which they would press a button with their selection.
During these 20 seconds, the researchers could predict based on brain patterns which one they would end up choosing when the time was up, meaning that they needed at least 9 seconds to figure out the answer, meaning they could predict it 11 seconds before the person actually pressed the button or made the choice.

Decoding the contents and strength of imagery before volitional engagement | Scientific Reports

 

[nPeace]

I'm getting really puzzled.

I am not surprised at that.

What is it that I said that you deny?

"You have to look at the process as a whole, and if you do so you will see an inexorable movement toward correctness, not error."

Everything?

No. Just the above quote.

That modern medical science is effective?

Hmm. So pre modern medicine isn't effective?

That seems like such a bizarre claim that I can't believe you mean it without you confirming it.

No. I didn't say that.

So, are you saying that all modern medical science is ineffective, or even harmful?

No. I didn't say that either.
This is the same thing as accusing a person of dismissing everything based on a few "errors"
I know why the opposition does that though. They try to pin "anti" on to anyone that points out, or draws attention to something that is factual.

Incidentally, don't assume that I would deny any religious claim that you made. It would depend on the claim. I try to understand where the other person is coming from and reply accordingly.

That's good to hear.

Yet another sweeping generalization. Some Christians believe as you do and others don't.

That depends on what you consider a Christian.
If you are referring to the world's view, which I believe you are, then that's every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Just mutter the words Jesus Christ, and you are in.
I'm not referring to those. I didn't say "Christians". I said Christians.
Perhaps you can define Christian, if you don't understand what I am saying.

I don't see how that applies to the standard of evidence. The truth of both claims would be examined with the same standard of evidence, that's all.

You don't see how what applies?

Seriously, and once again, are you suggesting that a few examples like that invalidate all medical science? Maybe so, as you have used a similar approach to attack science in general.

Hmm. I use medical science.
Are you suggesting medical science is only what you agree with?

What is wrong with blood transfusions? And yes, a few drugs have proven to be dangerous and have been withdrawn.

Ha Ha. Thanks for the joke.
I'm not in the mood to list all those dangerous drugs out there, which people are prescribed.

What's wrong with blood transfusions?
Heart Attack Patients Who Receive Blood Transfusion Have Higher Mortality Risk
Blood transfusions, thrombosis, and mortality in hospitalized patients with cancer - PubMed
Association of blood transfusion with increased mortality in myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis and diversity-adjusted study sequential analysis - PubMed
Red blood cell transfusion associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair - PubMed

The list is too long though. I won't get paid for this, so you can try google's results.

Others have caused harm by being misused (by addicts, for example). Most are perfectly safe if used as directed.

Ha Ha. Another good joke.

Could you tell me what is your alternative to medical science? I know there are some religions that object to some particular things, but you seem to want to sweep it all aside, in favor of ... what?

"alternative to medical science"? What???
So any medical science aside from orthodox medical science, is not medical science?

...and no. I don't attack science... anymore than scientist do.
Some people don't like to hear anything contrary to their beliefs. That's all.