Couldn't design it if you tried

[George-ananda]

The question is what causes lightning and thunder.

Do you want to take your answer from:

1. The God of the OT
2. Vikings 3000 years ago
3. Indra
4. Science

If you choose anything other than 4, you are a Creationist.

On that question, I would consider all four and conclude that science’ has the satisfactory answer.

I find mainstream science to be my go-to wisdom tradition for understanding natural physical phenomena. On issues involving consciousness such as my claim here of ‘conscious intent’ the Adaita Vedantic wisdom tradition is my go-to source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do realize the statement "It has only been shown that there does not appear to be a need for one" is purely a subjective opinion. Weather or not God is needed or not needed for evolution to occur is an non-provable subjective judgment. Even though there is no evidence for God's existence or God's involvement (or evidence that you would accept as evidence of God's participation), doesn't mean you can claim God is not participating in the definitive.

No, it is not subjective. It is objective. If a need for a God had been shown then my claim would be false. And the temperature or if it is raining or not does not matter. Please try to learn the difference between "weather" and "whether".

Lastly I did not claim that a god is not participating. I pointed out that there is no evidence of such a participation. Again, this is not "subjective". If there is evidence then post it, otherwise your inability to answer supports my claim. Please note that I did not say that there never would be any evidence. The reason that rational people do not believe in a god is because of the lack of evidence for a god.

The reason that rational people do not believe in pixies is because there is no evidence for pixies.

The reason that rational people do not believe in leprechauns is because there is no evidence for leprechauns.

If you want to change a person's mind about any of those please provide reliable evidence.

 

[ecco]

On that question, I would consider all four and conclude that science’ has the satisfactory answer.

I find mainstream science to be my go-to wisdom tradition for understanding natural physical phenomena. On issues involving consciousness such as my claim here of ‘conscious intent’ the Adaita Vedantic wisdom tradition is my go-to source.

Given that the Vedic god Indra is responsible for lightning, thunder, storms, rains and river flows, why do you consider lightning and thunder to be part of natural physical phenomena?

Conversely, why do you consider consciousness to be outside natural physical phenomena?

 

[ecco]

The reason that rational people do not believe in a god is because of the lack of evidence for a god.

The reason that rational people do not believe in pixies is because there is no evidence for pixies.

The reason that rational people do not believe in leprechauns is because there is no evidence for leprechauns.

The reason that some rational people do not believe in gods is because of the preponderance of evidence for the argument that gods are the creations of man's imaginings.

I'm not an atheist because there is a lack of evidence for gods. I am an atheist because of the vast amount of evidence that shows gods are fiction.

 

[George-ananda]

Given that the Vedic god Indra is responsible for lightning, thunder, storms, rains and river flows, why do you consider lightning and thunder to be part of natural physical phenomena?

Conversely, why do you consider consciousness to be outside natural physical phenomena?

There is a difference between mythology and metaphysics.

I believe like advaita philosophy and some of the fathers of quantum mechanics that consciousness is fundamental and the material is a derivative of consciousness.

Why do I believe that? From my study of the paranormal that I believe has made the physicalist view of consciousness untenable. The most reasonable by far understanding of consciousness after much personal consideration is found in advaitic philosophy. I have come to believe the seers and sages of this tradition have delved the deepest into the nature of reality.

 

[gnostic]

Do I claim my beliefs are verifiable?

I am giving my personal opinions just as I am interested in hearing others opinions on the subject.

Why is this question restricted to physical science? What is wrong with considering other wisdom traditions say in the question too?

If you are only interested in physical science then you can ignore my additional thoughts. What's your problem with ignoring them?

I also draw on wisdom traditions (Vedic) in addition to mainstream science in forming my views.

Why can only mainstream science address this question?

Regarding your points in bold & red highlights.

In a number of arguments I have had with you about the cosmic “consciousness” (with Brahman and psychics for examples), “intent”, “supernatural” and “paranormal” phenomena, not necessarily in this thread, but in other threads on these matters, and a number of times, you have stated they are more than just personal belief, that you have stated controlled experiments have been done, therefore according to you, there are empirical evidences to these phenomena.

And you keep telling us (claims, your claims) that the number of evidences supporting your belief are “overwhelming” or “beyond doubts”, and so on.

Of course, when you were backed into a corner, that you don’t have scientific/empirical evidences, you go backwards, jumping from scientific/empirical evidences to anecdotal evidences.

Anecdotes are not evidences at all. But you don’t seem to understand that.

You have also jump from science backing your claims, to metaphysics backing your claims. In term of objective knowledge gathering, metaphysics is not superior to empirical science.

I agreed that these are your personal belief, but from my past experiences with you in the debate threads, you have in the past persisted that you have “scientific evidences” to back you up on these phenomena.

I have no trouble you expressing your opinions or belief, but do you now agree now that you don’t have scientific evidences to support your belief in this cosmic consciousness?

 

[George-ananda]

Regarding your points in bold & red highlights.

In a number of arguments I have had with you about the cosmic “consciousness” (with Brahman and psychics for examples), “intent”, “supernatural” and “paranormal” phenomena, not necessarily in this thread, but in other threads on these matters, and a number of times, you have stated they are more than just personal belief, that you have stated controlled experiments have been done, therefore according to you, there are empirical evidences to these phenomena.

And you keep telling us (claims, your claims) that the number of evidences supporting your belief are “overwhelming” or “beyond doubts”, and so on.

Of course, when you were backed into a corner, that you don’t have scientific/empirical evidences, you go backwards, jumping from scientific/empirical evidences to anecdotal evidences.

Anecdotes are not evidences at all. But you don’t seem to understand that.

I agreed that these are your personal belief, but from my past experiences with you in the debate threads, you have in the past persisted that you have “scientific evidences” to back you up on these phenomena.

I have no trouble you expressing your opinions or belief, but do you now agree now that you don’t have scientific evidences to support your belief in this cosmic consciousness?

You are going to have to be more specific. Some things (like telepathy) can be studied in controlled experiments. Something like complex life from the big bang is not so testable.

I consider 'evidence' to be any information relevant to forming a judgment on an issue. I consider (meaning neither blindly accepting nor blindly ignoring) anecdotal evidence and consider things like quantity, quality and consistency of the anecdotal evidence. Such analysis can effect my worldview.

 

[gnostic]

On that question, I would consider all four and conclude that science’ has the satisfactory answer.

I find mainstream science to be my go-to wisdom tradition for understanding natural physical phenomena. On issues involving consciousness such as my claim here of ‘conscious intent’ the Adaita Vedantic wisdom tradition is my go-to source.

Sorry, but science isn’t a “wisdom tradition”...well, not since the separation of science from religion and philosophies.

From the 2nd half of 19th century, the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, and the person who coined agnosticism, was champion of separation of science and religion.

Separating science from philosophies, is even harder to do, and some people still mix philosophy with science, but they are not the same things.

Science is actually methodology-based, not tradition-based.

The scientific method require any explanation, whether they be hypotheses or (scientific) theories, required to be both falsifiable and testable. Meaning only empirical evidences can determine any explanation to be true.

If new and substantial amount of empirical evidences support a better theory than our current theory on evolution, then the theory of evolution will be replaced.

That’s how science work, any better alternative scientific theory will replace older existing theories, BUT ONLY IF THERE ARE NEWER VERIFIABLE EVIDENCES to back up this theory.

Hence, science isn’t a wisdom tradition.

Wisdom traditions do not get “replaced” by better traditions. Philosophers are always biased, because they think their philosophies are better than everyone else’s philosophies. And philosophies are like religions in this way.

Wisdom traditions or philosophies compete against each other, like different religions or different religious sects, not of them are actually objective.

 

[Valjean]

Who said our personal views on the thread discussion topic are out of bounds. Who says we are restricted to just mainstream science in our thinking on this topic?

There are personal views like "Green is my favorite color," or "I prefer pears to apples," but these aren't interesting. There's nothing there to discuss. They don't teach or explain anything, they don't help you understand anything, they're not part of the Big Picture.
'Discussible' personal views involve factual assertions, claims of relatedness, &c -- claims that call for evidence or explanation. Asking for these when personal views come up is legitimate.

 

[gnostic]

You are going to have to be more specific. Some things (like telepathy) can be studied in controlled experiments. Something like complex life from the big bang is not so testable.

You are doing it again.

You are making assumptions on two different events.

The Big Bang is only concern with how matters, stars and galaxies are formed. The Big Bang have nothing to do with biology, and all to do with astronomy and astrophysics.

The study of complex life is only half-a-billion years ago (eg Cambrian Explosion), and more primitive life about 3 billion years ago.

The only existence of life that we can actually study, is what occurred on Earth. If there are life on other planets outside of our Solar System, we are not able to study and investigate them.

And life on Earth have no impacts on anything else outside of our Solar System; in fact it has no impact on the Milky Way.

It have no impact on what happen to other stars and galaxies.

Our study on life, whether it be simple or complex, only concern with what happened on Earth.

And the Big Bang is only concern with the whole universe, and not just Earth.

Yes, Earth is part of the universe, but the Big Bang is not a biology subject.

Why do you continue to mix astrophysics and biology?

 

[gnostic]

You are going to have to be more specific. Some things (like telepathy) can be studied in controlled experiments.

Yes, they have performed experiments from 1950s to 1990s, but none of these experiments produced any verifiable evidence, and it is one of the reasons why parapsychology are deemed to be “pseudoscience”.

Parapsychology is like astrology.

For millennia, astronomy and astrology were entwined.

Astronomy is now separated from astrology. The only people who believe in the powers of planets and constellations, are con-artists, novelists and the people who believe in their deluded superstitions.

Sorry, but telepathic psychics and other psychics are filled with con-artists, novelists and deluded believers.

We have dance this circle before.

 

[gnostic]

I consider 'evidence' to be any information relevant to forming a judgment on an issue. I consider (meaning neither blindly accepting nor blindly ignoring) anecdotal evidence and consider things like quantity, quality and consistency of the anecdotal evidence. Such analysis can effect my worldview.

But anecdotes are not objective evidences, and certainly not scientific.

Anecdotal evidences are not scientific or empirical.

Science required evidences to be testable. If you cannot observe/detect it, measure it, quantify it, then it isn’t evidence.

You don’t seem to understand that evidences - and I am talking about real scientific evidences, not your anecdotes - is not about what a person personally “like” or “dislike”.

As Valjean pointed out to you, what you “like” and “don’t like” have no bearing to reality.

I am an agnostic and a secular humanist, but none of my worldview in relations to agnosticism and humanism, have any bearing on scientific evidences.

As Valjean pointed out to you, he know how to separate his religious, spiritual and philosophical views from his intellectual and scientific views.

You are trying to mix two views, and all you get contradictions and warped religion and warped science, which are unrealistic.

If hypothetically you were a carpenter or plumber or electrician:

1. Would your worldview on psychics or Brahman make you better carpenter, plumber or electrician?
2. Can your belief in this cosmic consciousness (or Brahman) teach you woodwork, plumbing or electrical devices?

If not, then why mix science with your religious or personal belief?

 

[tayla]

Start with a thing, then let it copy itself.

Yes, but the "thing" you start with is an incredibly complex self-replicating biochemical organism inhabiting a rich biosphere. Once you have that, your scheme can work.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, but the "thing" you start with is an incredibly complex self-replicating biochemical organism inhabiting a rich biosphere. Once you have that, your scheme can work.

Not following your point, but it sounds intriguing. Expand?

 

[Looncall]

Yes, but the "thing" you start with is an incredibly complex self-replicating biochemical organism inhabiting a rich biosphere. Once you have that, your scheme can work.

Why "incredibly complex"? I don't think that anyone claims that the first evolving entities were full-blown cells. Self replicating molecules are more likely.

 

[ecco]

There is a difference between mythology and metaphysics.

I believe like advaita philosophy and some of the fathers of quantum mechanics that consciousness is fundamental and the material is a derivative of consciousness.

Why do I believe that? From my study of the paranormal that I believe has made the physicalist view of consciousness untenable. The most reasonable by far understanding of consciousness after much personal consideration is found in advaitic philosophy. I have come to believe the seers and sages of this tradition have delved the deepest into the nature of reality.

In other words, you believe science only up to the point that it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

In that regard you are no different from Creationists. You just draw the line at a slightly different place.

 

[ecco]

Some things (like telepathy) can be studied in controlled experiments.

Telepathy has been studied in controlled experiments. These controlled experiments have shown, repeatedly, that telepathy is fiction.

You brought up telepathy but didn't comment on your views.

 

[George-ananda]

In other words, you believe science only up to the point that it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

In that regard you are no different from Creationists. You just draw the line at a slightly different place.

There are no conflicts between science and my beliefs.

My spiritual beliefs are on issues science can not address.

 

[George-ananda]

Telepathy has been studied in controlled experiments. These controlled experiments have shown, repeatedly, that telepathy is fiction.

You brought up telepathy but didn't comment on your views.

Telepathy is proven by odds against chance experiments. Either you are underinformed or stubbornly trying to hold the materialist line from breaking.

Are you aware of the claims of parapsychologists like Dean Radin and others that show psychic abilities can be considered scientifically proven.

 

[George-ananda]

There are personal views like "Green is my favorite color," or "I prefer pears to apples," but these aren't interesting. There's nothing there to discuss. They don't teach or explain anything, they don't help you understand anything, they're not part of the Big Picture.
'Discussible' personal views involve factual assertions, claims of relatedness, &c -- claims that call for evidence or explanation. Asking for these when personal views come up is legitimate.

Valjean, I guess I (we) lost track of what exactly I am supposed to be addressing in this thread. If I am supposed to present some scientific evidence not heard before then good luck to me.

I think I am going to bow out of this thread and catch you in the next one where I feel the discussion is more focused.