EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[themadhair]

I am sure your are correct . . . but it would seem that they must all have better things to do than respond in this thread . . . witness the response above by themadhair . . . clearly a phenomenological explanation is something he has no clue about.

Because arguing that certain phenomena are defined in terms of current observation/evidence/experiment is a great Trojan horse to insert your philosophical bias.

 

[Magic Man]

I am also tired of the ignorant carping about my understanding and capabilities. I usually don't provide background information because it is always perceived as boasting . . and I am too old and retired to have to play such juvenile games. But this harassment about my background and understanding is just as bad (6 of one half a dozen . . .). I am a Mensan with a tested IQ of 165 and a Professor Emeritus who taught Graduate Quantitative Methods and Psychometrics for 30 years. I used my skills for proprietary Social Psychological research for businesses as a consultant . . . much of which is reflected in the advertising and marketing practices of companies like P&G. It is clear to me that implication impairment is definitely a problem on this forum.

Your background doesn't matter a bit. That's what you're not seeing. Whether or not it's boasting, it's irrelevant. You sound like someone saying "I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black". I don't care what your IQ is, and I don't care that you've taught college courses. The fact is you have an apparent willful ignorance about science that's clouding your judgement. As they say, actions speak louder than words, and your actions are saying you don't understand the basics of science.

 

[MysticPhD]

As they say, actions speak louder than words, and your actions are saying you don't understand the basics of science.

Then just answer the question instead of making unsubstantiatable assertions about me . . . it just makes you appear without sufficient intellect to do anything but make absurd accusations.

 

[Magic Man]

Then just answer the question instead of making unsubstantiatable assertions about me . . . it just makes you appear without sufficient intellect to do anything but make absurd accusations.

Well, maybe you should state the question you want answered.

I'm not making any unsubstatiatable assertions about you. I can give you plenty of evidence from this very thread. You think science wants there not to be a god, and that it goes to great lengths to deny the existence of a god and intelligent design. That is what shows that you have a fundamental lack of understanding about the subject.

 

[Autodidact]

I am a Mensan with a tested IQ of 165

lol. Tell me, fellow denizens, when someone on the internet starts telling you their I.Q., what goes through your head?

 

[Autodidact]

I give up. Just answer this and see if any lights come on. What IS Nature and what IS a natural process . . . phenomenologically not pragmatically? eg., try to avoid using the following: Nature is something (entity, phenomenon) we experience, observe and measure that sustains life and establishes the laws of the universe and a natural process is a process we observe that abides by Nature's laws. This is equivalent to: God is something (entity, phenomenon) we experience, observe and measure that sustains life and establishes the laws of the universe and a God process is a process we observe that abides by God's laws.

In other words . . . what I am seeking is a scientific justification for pretending you haven't taken a position on it and have really adopted a neutral position by clearly enunciating that neutral position in scientific terms.

Sorry, the question is outside the scope of science. What you're doing now, or attempting to do, is philosophy, which is not what you've been attacking here.

 

[MysticPhD]

Well, maybe you should state the question you want answered.

Sorry. I assumed you had been reading my posts. Here it is:

I give up. Just answer this and see if any lights come on. What IS Nature and what IS a natural process . . . phenomenologically not pragmatically? eg., try to avoid using the following: Nature is something (entity, phenomenon) we experience, observe and measure that sustains life and establishes the laws of the universe and a natural process is a process we observe that abides by Nature's laws. This is equivalent to: God is something (entity, phenomenon) we experience, observe and measure that sustains life and establishes the laws of the universe and a God process is a process we observe that abides by God's laws.

In other words . . . what I am seeking is a scientific justification for pretending you haven't taken a position on it and have really adopted a neutral position by clearly enunciating that neutral position in scientific terms.

 

[Magic Man]

OK, now can you translate the question into a form that makes sense, please?

 

[MysticPhD]

Sorry, the question is outside the scope of science. What you're doing now, or attempting to do, is philosophy, which is not what you've been attacking here.

Then simply justify the ridiculous assertions you have been making that there is NOT an IMPLICIT denial and rejection of God by science. The reality of those two versions is not debatable. Explain the inability to see the implications of it.

 

[themadhair]

At first Mystic was like:

And now mystic is like:

Then simply justify the ridiculous assertions you have been making that there is NOT an IMPLICIT denial and rejection of God by science. The reality of those two versions is not debatable. Explain the inability to see the implications of it.

 

[MysticPhD]

OK, now can you translate the question into a form that makes sense, please?

Well for those in Rio Linda . . . just read the two versions and explain why they are not the same.

 

[themadhair]

Well for those in Rio Linda . . . just read the two versions and explain why they are not the same.

Already addressed:

Simple. Those natural laws are subject to revision should evidence/observation dictate. That they are not fixed, and based upon the current evidence/observation, is the foundation for science’s neutrality. This is simply another misinterpretation/misrepresentation on your part.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Mystic -
I am as guilty as anyone in this thread of openly ridiculing your position - but if you are honest with yourself, you would admit that your assertions about science having an inherent bias against the existence of God is without foundation.

If you wish to cite scientists (individually) that are biased against the existence of God, you would have a point. Instead, you insist on trying to redefine God to support your claim, and you have posited a diatribe that is without value as the premise for your argument.

Would it be possible for you to reconsider your assertion?

 

[Autodidact]

Then simply justify the ridiculous assertions you have been making that there is NOT an IMPLICIT denial and rejection of God by science. The reality of those two versions is not debatable. Explain the inability to see the implications of it.

Maybe a few more verbs would help. Your sentences don't parse. Explain whose inability? The implications of what? What are you talking about?

Explain how you can type the above sentence and maintain with a straight face that you are not attacking science.

 

[Autodidact]

Ha ha, color me naive, I didn't even know Mystic had sworn at me. Well, obscene insults are the refuge of the inarticulate.

 

[Autodidact]

Mystic: Is the problem just that you don't understand the distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism?

 

[themadhair]

Explain how you can type the above sentence and maintain with a straight face that you are not attacking science.

That two people got taken in by his original pretence of defending science’s neutrality made me think that maybe the development of ID is a better strategy than I would have initially given credit for.

'...If you want to suggest that someone is perhaps not the ideal choice, the first stage is to express absolute support.' The reason,...is that you must never be on the record saying that somebody is no good. You must be seen as their friend. After all,...it is necessary to get behind someone before you can stab them in the back.

 

[Magic Man]

Then simply justify the ridiculous assertions you have been making that there is NOT an IMPLICIT denial and rejection of God by science.

Wait...who's making the ridiculous assertions? You're the one saying that there is an implicit denial and rejection of God by science. That's the ridiculous claim that many here are trying to get you to understand for what it is.

You would be the one who needs to justify your ridiculous assertions that science DOES deny and reject God. Then, you need to explain why there are theistic scientists if that's the case.

Well for those in Rio Linda . . . just read the two versions and explain why they are not the same.

The problem there is the equivocation. I have no problem with pantheism. You can equate God with nature all you want, and I won't disagree. That's hardly relevant, though.

 

[MysticPhD]

Mystic -
I am as guilty as anyone in this thread of openly ridiculing your position - but if you are honest with yourself, you would admit that your assertions about science having an inherent bias against the existence of God is without foundation.

If you wish to cite scientists (individually) that are biased against the existence of God, you would have a point. Instead, you insist on trying to redefine God to support your claim, and you have posited a diatribe that is without value as the premise for your argument.

Would it be possible for you to reconsider your assertion?

Of course . . . when my adrenal glands stop over producing in response to my aggravation.The real point of the exercise (which became a quest for Dulcinea) was to try and break the "given in the inner consciousness" and "taken for granted" belief that science actually took the philosophically neutral position . . . when it hasn't. (Unless you actually see a difference in the two statements.) My version of God is the one that was at the heart of all the first scientific efforts because there was no such distinction between God and Nature . . . until all the inappropriate and autocratic interference by religious nutjobs. Just saying.

 

[MysticPhD]

Mystic: Is the problem just that you don't understand the distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism?

I understand just fine, Autodidact . . . but the general public (and the average college student) does not even know what the hell you are referring to. THAT is the sociological issue that causes so much dissension and extreme abreaction . . . like trying to get Creationism into science curricula. It accounts for the lengths to which the Discovery Institute has gone to fraudulently try to conceal their Creationist ties for the same purpose. It is what accounts for the inappropriate campaign by such as Dawkins, et al. to make war on God. It is all so unnecessary. But as seen here . . . apparently unavoidable.