EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Magic Man]

There is no desperation . . . and I make no claim to neutrality . . . but science does (and should). I am not attacking science. I am a staunch supporter and user. I am decrying the insidious use of a "No God" default (argumentum ad ignorantiam) . . . FOR ANY PURPOSE.

Yes, we know. It's only a conversation when you listen to the other side. You've said this many times now. Science doesn't say there's no God. It's that simple.

 

[Magic Man]

The use of the word polluted reveals the very insidious nature of the anti-theist bias that exists . . . apparently even among avowed agnostics (neutrals). Very frustrating. I am not neutral. I am a theist. But even if I wanted to be . . . I cannot be neutral in arguing for neutrality when the ubiquitous default is not neutral.

You're really good at playig the victim, aren't you? I think you'll fit in nicely around here.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Science doesn't say there's no God. It's that simple.

I'll go further.

Science doesn't care if there is a God. It concerns itself (exclusively) with the natural world.

 

[Tristesse]

There is no desperation . . . and I make no claim to neutrality . . . but science does (and should). I am not attacking science. I am a staunch supporter and user. I am decrying the insidious use of a "No God" default (argumentum ad ignorantiam) . . . FOR ANY PURPOSE.

Your right a "no god" default is wrong, but a non admonishment of a god, is the correct position. Because for the assumption of a god it has to be proven that there is a god, the default position is disbelief until proven correct. And not a moment before. Because if it were the other way around we would be believing in everything.

 

[themadhair]

The use of the word polluted reveals the very insidious nature of the anti-theist bias that exists . . . apparently even among avowed agnostics (neutrals). Very frustrating. I am not neutral. I am a theist. But even if I wanted to be . . . I cannot be neutral in arguing for neutrality when the ubiquitous default is not neutral.

Agnostic doesn’t mean neutral…

I think it was clear from the context that the word pollute wasn’t inferred in the manner you interpreted it. By permitting theism you are permitting the supernatural which science cannot take a position on. In this context the word polluted was quite apt. If you want to take it a derogatory remark then feel free, it’s your right to do so.

But, as has been repeated umpteen times in numerous guises now, science is neutral because it doesn’t take a position one way or the other. The problem isn’t that science isn’t neutral, it is that you don’t see this.

 

[MysticPhD]

I agree - completely - with both points. The difference is that, the design and purpose of the theory of evolution is a product of mankind - we know that, and have evidence of it.
The design and purpose of the universe is unsubstantiated. It is possible that it is correct, but until evidence is gathered that can support the claim (in this instance), it will remain nothing more than a child demanding that the rest of the world give him what he wants to be true.

In my view, Mystic is doing exactly the same thing that the Catholic church did, when it insisted that Galileo adhere to the idea that the sun revolved around the earth. Mystic has nothing - absolutely nothing - to support his position, yet he insists that science has some grand scheme to ignore his irrational, unfounded claims.

You seem bent on epitomizing the very effect you accuse me of exemplifying by your self-contradictory remarks. If what I claim is possible (just unknown and therefore we should be neutral about it) . . . how can it be "irrational and unfounded" without you being certain of its impossibility?

 

[themadhair]

You seem bent on epitomizing the very effect you accuse me of exemplifying by your self-contradictory remarks. If what I claim is possible (just unknown and therefore we should be neutral about it) . . . how can it be "irrational and unfounded" without you being certain of its impossibility?

I have highlighted the part that YOU strawmanned another on.

Also, did anyone else notice that four people simultaneously independently posted the same point?

 

[MysticPhD]

Your right a "no god" default is wrong, but a non admonishment of a god, is the correct position. Because for the assumption of a god it has to be proven that there is a god, the default position is disbelief until proven correct. And not a moment before. Because if it were the other way around we would be believing in everything.

Disbelief is NOT neutral.

 

[fantome profane]

You still don't get that random doesn't exist . . . it is our ignorance, period.

You still don't understand that probabilities and random processes do not EXPLAIN anything . . . they represent compensations for our ignorance.

No, this is just not true. And it doesn’t matter how many times you say it you cannot make it true. Randomness and probabilities are not just expressions of ignorance. Randomness and probabilities are real fundamental components of the universe we live in.

I know this is the common view of things, when you flip a coin the outcome is determined by the various forces applied to it. We cannot make those calculations so we call the outcome random and say there is a 50% probability of each outcome. But when we look at quantum physics the concepts of random and probability are very different. They are not just expressions of ignorance, they are real. We cannot predict the location of a particle until the measurement is made, not just because we don’t know, but because it cannot be predicted. Only the probabilities can be determined. The probabilities are real, not just expressions of ignorance.

 

[Tristesse]

Disbelief is NOT neutral.

No one is talking about an exact neutral position. You have a pet fire breathing dragon, I say prove it, and if you fall short, than disbelief in a pet fire breathing dragon becomes justified.

 

[MysticPhD]

I have highlighted the part that YOU strawmanned another on.

Defend the straw man charge. How can something "irrational and unfounded" be possible.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You seem bent on epitomizing the very effect you accuse me of exemplifying by your self-contradictory remarks. If what I claim is possible (just unknown and therefore we should be neutral about it) . . . how can it be "irrational and unfounded" without you being certain of its impossibility?

My God man - are you daft?

Stay with me, Mystic, because this is where it gets complex. I'll even type slowly, so that you can keep up:
Is it possible that God exists? Yes.
Is it rational to attack science because it doesn't account for the supernatural? No. Mankind has established science to deal only with the natural world we live in.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Also, did anyone else notice that four people simultaneously independently posted the same point?

LOL - I'd say everyone noticed except the one person that should have.

 

[Jose Fly]

Obviously this thread is far too active for me to keep up with, given my schedule. But I will point out that MysticPhD still has not defined his idea of "god" in any useful, tangible way, and he is still arguing via bald assertion.

Again MysticPhD, if you are of a scientific bent (as you claim to be), you should appreciate the fact that many here are unwilling to accept your bald assertions as unquestioned gospel. You would be well served to actually back up your arguments with some substance. Failing that, you're going to continue to go 'round in circles.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Defend the straw man charge. How can something "irrational and unfounded" be possible.

Last time, and then you have to go to write on the blackboard 200 times - "Obstinance is not a virtue".

You are (probably deliberately) confusing two points.

The first point is that It is possible that God exists and has designed the universe that we live in.

The second (and wholly unrelated point) is that your accusation that science has some insidious plot to slant its findings against the possibility of God's design of the universe is unfounded and irrational.

Notice the difference between the two points?

I thought not.

 

[Autodidact]

In my view so is God . . . since it is God's consciousness that provides the universal field that establishes the parameters within which our inverse operates.

Well, science doesn't address this possibility at all.

The scientists are not the primary problem (except for the Dawkins, et al.) . . .the general public is.

Well why didn't you say so ten pages ago? I think you're wrong, but at least we would know what we're arguing about.

They believe science has proven that the probability of God existing is miniscule.

That's odd, since most people do believe in God, and most people rely on science all the time. Do you have some surveys to substantiate this assertion?

If this reduces the deleterious impact of some religions on society . . . that would not be bad . . . but the elimination of belief in God would be, IMO.

Why? Isn't it more important to determine what's true than what belief would be beneficial? That's a bit speculative, don't you think?

 

[themadhair]

Defend the straw man charge. How can something "irrational and unfounded" be possible.

What?? Are you asking me to disprove the converse of the straw-man you attributed to The Voice of Reason ?? Seriously??

 

[MysticPhD]

Agnostic doesn’t mean neutral…

When yopu don't know or can't know . . . you have to be neutral. There is no basis for taking one side or the other.

I think it was clear from the context that the word pollute wasn’t inferred in the manner you interpreted it. By permitting theism you are permitting the supernatural which science cannot take a position on. In this context the word polluted was quite apt. If you want to take it a derogatory remark then feel free, it’s your right to do so.

Clearly it is just a misunderstanding . . . since I assert no such thing as supernatural anything. There is no such thing. EVERYTHING is natural (God).

But, as has been repeated umpteen times in numerous guises now, science is neutral because it doesn’t take a position one way or the other. The problem isn’t that science isn’t neutral, it is that you don’t see this.

You can say the Emperor has no clothes umpteen times . . . that doesn't negate his nakedness. Disbelief is NOT neutral . . . It is the antithesis of belief.

 

[doppelganger]

In my view, Mystic is doing exactly the same thing that the Catholic church did, when it insisted that Galileo adhere to the idea that the sun revolved around the earth. Mystic has nothing - absolutely nothing - to support his position, yet he insists that science has some grand scheme to ignore his irrational, unfounded claims.

Yes, I agree. That's where he's polluting his epistemology with theism.

 

[Tristesse]

When yopu don't know or can't know . . . you have to be neutral. There is no basis for taking one side or the other. Clearly it is just a misunderstanding . . . since I assert no such thing as supernatural anything. There is no such thing. EVERYTHING is natural (God).You can say the Emperor has no clothes umpteen times . . . that doesn't negate his nakedness. Disbelief is NOT neutral . . . It is the antithesis of belief.

I'm confused, you say everything is neutral, then you horseshoe in the assertion of a god, by using parenthesis. Lets get something straight here, when your completely and totally neutral, you don't make admonishments of something either way, you don't say god does or doesn't exist. You steer clear of the whole thing.