Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Copernicus]

That sounds somewhat like primitive scientific reasoning. It is almost like saying..."It does appear likely that the Earth is flat, insofar as I can travel for a thousand miles and it still looks flat." Is it truly a lack of consciousness, whereas that consciousness is destroyed if the brain is damaged, or is it rather an altered state of that same consciousness. Is anything ever truly destroyed, or does it just change form?

You make it sound much more mysterious than it really is, Runewolf. Consciousness is something we experience directly. We lose consciousness and regain it all the time. We know that trauma to the brain can cause one to lose consciousness. We can correlate states of consciousness with brain activity. Does that mean that we lose consciousness permanently when the brain is destroyed? I don't think that I'm jumping to a wild conclusion when I say that the trend definitely points in that direction.

If our own consciousness is a direct result of some chemical or electrical stimulation in the brain (an energy transfer), then whatever that consciousness is must also be some form of energy, whether we accept it as that or not. Energy that can change form, perhaps has the ability to change frequency or it's state, but it is not destroyed, therefore does not necessarily cease to exist after physical death.

And you accuse me of "primitive scientific reasoning"? I hate to tell you this, my friend, but when ice cream melts, it is no longer ice cream. It is true that the atoms that used to be configured as ice cream may still exist, but the ice cream is gone. When a brain dies, the consciousness that it sustained ceases to exist. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in physics to figure that out. Minds depend on physical brains for every aspect of their functioning. Consciousness is awareness of oneself and one's surroundings. Unconsciousness is the absence of awareness. That is why a conk on your noggin can cause you to lose consciousness.

I can see these as two possibilities...

1. Consciousness is something that is formed in the brain. In that case it is formed out of the energy already existing in the brain and therefore is in itself yet another form of energy that can neither be created, nor destroyed, only changes form.

It sounds to me as if you are making a kind of fallacy of composition. Just because molecules have no flavor, that does not mean that things composed of molecules have no flavor. Consciousness is clearly an effect of brain activity. There is no reason to believe that it can exist independently of brain activity.

2. Consciousness is that force which causes all energy and matter to be "animate", vibrational, and to change form. It is that force by which "all matter originates and exists". Therefore, so long as there is energy or matter in any form, consciousness will not cease to exist.

Consciousness exists in animals for a reason--to guide their bodies away from pain and danger and towards pleasure and safety. Animals need to be aware of their condition and their surroundings in order to survive in a dynamic environment. There is no good reason to impute it to absolutely everything. At least, you haven't given us any reason to take your statements seriously. Why would a plant or a rock need to be conscious?

Ughhhh....I think too much.:thud:

Perhaps you feel a need to believe that consciousness can survive brain death. That has been an obsession of the human race before recorded history, so you are in good company.

 

[PureX]

Your slang expression "works for" is too vague to make much sense out of this statement. Insofar as I can make sense of it, it sounds like a fallacious argument from consequences. That is, you seem to be saying that belief in God has good effects, so God exists. That does not follow.

In science, we have a theory of evolution. We don't know if the theory is true, but we know it "works" most of the time, in that it answers most of the questions of it reasonably and experientially. Because it works, we take it as "true" until it either ceases to work or we find that another theory works better.

It's in this same way that people find that the god-concept works for them. For example, most people these days include in their god-concept the idea that God has a divine desire or will for them. And they believe that will involves self-improvement of some kind. Because they believe this, they seek out a religious path that involves spiritual self-improvement, and they practice it, because this is what they believe God wants of them. Naturally, in time, such a course of action will likely bring them some positive benefits. And this is what I mean by their god-concept "working" for them.

What people choose to believe about "God", and how they choose to act on those beliefs, usually bring them the results they desired. The concept works for them, which is why so many people over the centuries have chosen to hold and practice some kind of god-concept.

This does not prove that God exists apart from the idea, but as with the theory of evolution, it is strong evidence of the idea's accuracy.

You can name the mystery anything you want, as long as you do not attribute consciousness, intelligent behavior, emotions, moods, infinite knowledge, infinite power, and other properties to it.

Why not? This mystery source has set the conditions out from which has sprung all of existence. This is not proof of intelligence, personality, or omnipotence, but it sure isn't proof of the lack of these, either. I see nothing at all unreasonable about someone attributing the properties that you mentioned to the mystery source and sustenance of all existence. Can you please explain why you think these cannot apply?

And also if you acknowledge that this "God" has nothing to do with the Hebrew and Christian scripture known as the "Bible". I see no point in worshiping the "mystery" either, but you are free to do whatever pleases you.

I wouldn't say that this "God as mystery source" has nothing to do with the God of Hebrew or Christian religious texts. Clearly their idea of God included his being the source and sustenance of all existence. Clearly they saw their God's mind as the genesis of all creation, so in this sense we are talking about the same god-concept. The ancients anthropomorphized their gods to a much greater degree than I would be comfortable with, but they didn't have the benefits of science to help them separate superstition and psychological projection from their reasoning process.

It does appear likely that our physical brains cause consciousness, insofar as damage to those brains causes its lack. It does not seem to me a necessary conclusion that consciousness in any way has a reciprocal effect on the physical world. Einstein has shown us how energy and matter are related, but no scientist has ever shown a similar reciprocity for mind and matter. And I have no idea why you think that the "ancients" were in a better position than us to understand reality. After all, they couldn't do half of what we can with it.

The repetition of a thought in the brain reinforces a complex set of neuro-pathways, while the lack of repetition of a thought lets those pathways disintegrate, and become parts of other, more used, pathway complexes. What we think structurally changes our brains. In this way, consciousness does effect reality, and the evidence of it can be felt by anyone who has tried to give of a "habit" or an addiction.

If a conscious thought can physically effect the machinery of it's own happening, how are we to claim that the material world is not a manifestation of idea or consciousness, even though the physical processes that have created the universe have also resulted in consciousness?

 

[Troublemane]

Beaudreaux writes: The "order" does not come from nature, but in how our minds understand the world around us. Consider the taxonomy of life:
Kingdom
Phyllum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
Variety
WE created that ordering mechanism. Order comes from our minds, not creation.
(And a special "thank you" to my High School Biology teach Mr. Edwards for the mnemonic that helped me keep that info in my head. )

But lets say that you do not agree with this (as I anticipate). Let's say that the order actually exists in the physical world itself. Why does that order necessitate a creator? That's just the way things are. Why would you think that an uncreated world would not have order? Do you have any examples of this to show?

It is interesting that the Order of Reality is pre-existing, and our minds have merely appended words to these classes of ideas which were there already. Trees are a form of vegetation, which is a kind of biological life, which is a form or matter.

Over the centuries our understanding of the world and our relationship to it has complexified, and thats what religion is really all about. How has our understanding changed? I mean, nobody would deny that the first humans were not christian. Nor were they jewish, or muslim or buddhist, etc. All evidence tells us they were shamanic and pagan, and had a very abstract understanding of Spirit--they saw it as everywhere, guiding the forces of nature and the very things which they depended for survival.

Its not a far stretch for the imagination to think maybe they can try to communicate with these "spirits" of nature, and try and persuade them to alter nature for the tribe's benefit. Grant them good fortune on the hunt, grant them victory over their enemies. Grant their loved ones to recover from illness....go to any church today, and people are STILL praying for exactly these things, 100k years later!!!!

...so, really, I believe, although our understanding of ourselves and our universe has changed over time, the primitive drives which underpin our supposedly lofty ideals about religion are still there---the magical urge to appeal to a supernatural agency for protection and guidance and victory.

we may be wearing suits and dresses but we are still just a bunch of apes, underneath it all

 

[Runewolf1973]

we may be wearing suits and dresses but we are still just a bunch of apes, underneath it all

That is true.:tribal:

 

[Runewolf1973]

You make it sound much more mysterious than it really is, Runewolf. Consciousness is something we experience directly. We lose consciousness and regain it all the time. We know that trauma to the brain can cause one to lose consciousness. We can correlate states of consciousness with brain activity. Does that mean that we lose consciousness permanently when the brain is destroyed? I don't think that I'm jumping to a wild conclusion when I say that the trend definitely points in that direction.



And you accuse me of "primitive scientific reasoning"? I hate to tell you this, my friend, but when ice cream melts, it is no longer ice cream. It is true that the atoms that used to be configured as ice cream may still exist, but the ice cream is gone. When a brain dies, the consciousness that it sustained ceases to exist. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in physics to figure that out. Minds depend on physical brains for every aspect of their functioning. Consciousness is awareness of oneself and one's surroundings. Unconsciousness is the absence of awareness. That is why a conk on your noggin can cause you to lose consciousness.



It sounds to me as if you are making a kind of fallacy of composition. Just because molecules have no flavor, that does not mean that things composed of molecules have no flavor. Consciousness is clearly an effect of brain activity. There is no reason to believe that it can exist independently of brain activity.



Consciousness exists in animals for a reason--to guide their bodies away from pain and danger and towards pleasure and safety. Animals need to be aware of their condition and their surroundings in order to survive in a dynamic environment. There is no good reason to impute it to absolutely everything. At least, you haven't given us any reason to take your statements seriously. Why would a plant or a rock need to be conscious?

Perhaps you feel a need to believe that consciousness can survive brain death. That has been an obsession of the human race before recorded history, so you are in good company.

Copernicus, you have good reason to believe what you do and I can accept that. It makes sense for you, for your life's experiences led you to come to that conclusion. However, do you not think it is possible for someone else to have different experiences? There are things that I have personally experienced with my own eyes and senses that defy all (scientific) logic and reasoning. All I can do is to try and make some sense of them as best I can. In fact, there are many hundreds upon thousands upon millions of people just like me who have had personal life-changing experiences that tell us this....the spirit world is real and exists. Sure, there are those out there that may be just crazy or hallucinating or whatever, probably some scientists too no doubt, but not all of them. It is my opinion that someday science will be open to a whole new realm of thought and reasoning, one that includes a much different realization of the world around us. By the way, I thought I had actually deleted that post. You are right, some of it did not even make sense to me. It must be admitted though, that science, as much as it does know about the universe and our brains, does not know everything. There are things that even science does not understand. Even Albert Einstein, Marx Planck, and others could attest to that fact.

 

[Troublemane]

Im gonna borrow a technique from UV for a second....can we say evidence is really Eve-Dance?

or...Eva-Dense??? :angel2:

 

[themadhair]

In science, we have a theory of evolution. We don't know if the theory is true, but we know it "works" most of the time, in that it answers most of the questions of it reasonably and experientially. Because it works, we take it as "true" until it either ceases to work or we find that another theory works better.

It's in this same way that people find that the god-concept works for them.

This is so wrong and inaccurate that it actually hurts. In science theories rise and fall on many things – one of those things being predictive power. The ability of a theory to predict discoveries before they are made is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that can be presented for any theory in the world of science.

To give a specific example from evolutionary theory – the prediction of what fossils we can find and where we can find them (the best example being Tiktaalik). Unless you can point out anything similar that you carry out with your god idea, then you have to concede what you wrote above as being total crap.

What is it with folks misrepresenting established scientific methodology solely to make such crap arguments to defend god concepts?

I see nothing at all unreasonable about someone attributing the properties that you mentioned to the mystery source and sustenance of all existence.

Because you have no grounds for doing so, and are essentially making stuff up at this point when you do so? This is pretty obvious to be fair. If I don’t know what the inside of a box is like is it reasonable to consider it red?

I wouldn't say that this "God as mystery source" has nothing to do with the God of Hebrew or Christian religious texts.

This is that semantic sleight of hand I mentioned earlier. Strange that you objected when I pointed out that you were doing this earlier, only for you to do pretty much what I called you out on later in the same thread.

If a conscious thought can physically effect the machinery of it's own happening, how are we to claim that the material world is not a manifestation of idea or consciousness, even though the physical processes that have created the universe have also resulted in consciousness?

Interesting idea, but pointless speculation without some corroborating evidence. You could be a brain in a vat for all you know, the reason you reject that idea is solely due to having no evidence to support it while having evidence against. Essentially this argument is a way to avoid applying this same criteria to your god concept.

There are things that I have personally experienced with my own eyes and senses that defy all logic and reasoning. All I can do is to try and make some sense of them as best I can.

How can you make sense of something that you believe defies logic and reasoning? Think about what you have said here as it appears to be inconsistent.

It must be admitted though, that science, as much as it does know about the universe and our brains, does not know everything.

Why do people think this line of reasoning is in any way sensible? Appears to be a sidestep from having to give a justification.

 

[PureX]

This is so wrong and inaccurate that it actually hurts. In science theories rise and fall on many things – one of those things being predictive power. The ability of a theory to predict discoveries before they are made is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that can be presented for any theory in the world of science.

Predictability is part of the scientific process. It can be part of that process because science does not deal with subjective theories. It only deals with objective theories. This is why science is science and theology is theology. No scientist has ever or will ever be able to test for the existence of "God". No scientist can predict the outcome of such an experiment, should they be able to devise one.

My point is that it's not reasonable to apply the exact same criteria to a theological theory that we would apply to a scientific theory. Certainly no scientists would do so. And I don't believe we should either.

On the other hand, I see no reason to accept the charge that the concept of "God" is not predictive. In the example I gave, it would seem reasonable to predict that were one to follow a religious/spiritual path toward becoming a better human being (however they choose to define that), and carry out the prescribed practice in earnest, they would achieve at last some improvement toward that goal. Therefor, when one follows the concept of a "God" that predicts that they will become better people as a result, they do in fact become better people as a result.

"God works" through religion, then, just as the theory of evolution "works" in predicting and achieving objective results through science.

To give a specific example from evolutionary theory – the prediction of what fossils we can find and where we can find them (the best example being Tiktaalik). Unless you can point out anything similar that you carry out with your god idea, then you have to concede what you wrote above as being total crap.

But I just did point out an example that was very similar. Not to mention that I also pointed out that you are applying the criteria of science to the practice of theology, which is not entirely fair or rational.

What is it with folks misrepresenting established scientific methodology solely to make such crap arguments to defend god concepts?

How dare they insult the god of science! *hehe*

Because you have no grounds ...

This is that semantic sleight of hand ...

I'm dismissing these paragraphs as they offer nothing in the way of a counter point.

Interesting idea, but pointless speculation without some corroborating evidence. You could be a brain in a vat for all you know, the reason you reject that idea is solely due to having no evidence to support it while having evidence against. Essentially this argument is a way to avoid applying this same criteria to your god concept.

I think you have a point, here. I was offering speculation without anything more.

As to the "living in a vat" retort, however, this is not ever going to be relevant to any debate, anywhere. You should drop it now and forever. All we will ever have to go on, or to discuss and debate, will be what we THINK is going on. If this is all an illusion, there will never be a way for us to recognize this, in which case it becomes forever moot. So we'll eliminate that once and for all.

Back to your charge; I admit that I am speculating, but it seems to me that the relationship between consciousness and matter is a lot like the chicken and the egg. A thought is the result of a specific neurological structure "firing up" electrochemically. When the neurological events stop, consciousness stops. They are one and the same phenomena. So why is it any more "right" to say that energy manifests itself as consciousness than it is to say that consciousness manifests itself as energy? For example, when we die, mightn't it be because consciousness left the material body? Rather than because the material body lost the energy and physical structure required to produce consciousness?

And you wanted some sort of substantiation for this alternative view, how about the fact that science tells us that energy can change, but it can't be destroyed. So when a brain "dies", where has that thought energy gone? According to science, it has to have gone somewhere. Yet there is no release of any form of energy that we can currently measure or detect.

I may be speculating, but I think it's legitimate speculation.

Anyway, thanks for a good post.

 

[Runewolf1973]

How can you make sense of something that you believe defies logic and reasoning? Think about what you have said here as it appears to be inconsistent.

Why do people think this line of reasoning is in any way sensible? Appears to be a sidestep from having to give a justification.

It defies the logic and reasoning that science alone offers us. There are other ways of reasoning things out and giving possible explanations. My personal experiences give me reason to find those other explanations. Why should I just stop at what science tells me? You pick your path and walk it, I will choose my own path and walk it. As I said in the post to Copernicus, there is good reason why I can see he believes what he does, I just happen to have had some different experiences that lead me to believe otherwise. I happen to have a great deal of respect for Copernicus and the way in which he rationalizes things. He may not agree with everything I have to say, but that is okay, just means I need to try a little harder. Besides, I don't think believing in the possibility of consciousness existing outside of the brain to be all that unscientific anyways, considering what quantum physics seem to be indicating.

 

[themadhair]

My point is that it's not reasonable to apply the exact same criteria to a theological theory that we would apply to a scientific theory. Certainly no scientists would do so. And I don't believe we should either.
….
But I just did point out an example that was very similar. Not to mention that I also pointed out that you are applying the criteria of science to the practice of theology, which is not entirely fair or rational.

I sense a contradiction here. You, in effect, already pointed out why your own example failed.

On the other hand, I see no reason to accept the charge that the concept of "God" is not predictive. In the example I gave, it would seem reasonable to predict that were one to follow a religious/spiritual path toward becoming a better human being (however they choose to define that), and carry out the prescribed practice in earnest, they would achieve at last some improvement toward that goal. Therefor, when one follows the concept of a "God" that predicts that they will become better people as a result, they do in fact become better people as a result.

Someone appears to misunderstand what predictive power is in science. If a theory in science makes a non-trivial falsifiable prediction that is verified it constitutes evidence. This type of predictive power does not apply, and is in no way applicable, to what you wrote.

How dare they insult the god of science! *hehe*

I don’t like crap reasoning in general. If you feel the need to misrepresent science in an attempt to glean a bit of its respectability for your ideas then maybe your ideas aren’t so good?

I'm dismissing these paragraphs as they offer nothing in the way of a counter point.

Cute way to avoid having to respond, but I’m not surprised.

As to the "living in a vat" retort, however, this is not ever going to be relevant to any debate, anywhere. You should drop it now and forever. All we will ever have to go on, or to discuss and debate, will be what we THINK is going on. If this is all an illusion, there will never be a way for us to recognize this, in which case it becomes forever moot. So we'll eliminate that once and for all.

I find it curious that you want to dismiss one idea (the vat) but not another idea (your god concept) when there is pretty much nothing to differentiate them in terms of logic, reason or evidence.

So why is it any more "right" to say that energy manifests itself as consciousness than it is to say that consciousness manifests itself as energy?

Please stop equivocating between these concepts. It doesn’t make sense to do so unless murkiness is what you are after.

For example, when we die, mightn't it be because consciousness left the material body?

I don’t understand what you mean by ‘left’ in this context. You appear to be trying to ascribe a quality to the idea of consciousness rather than recognising it as a state of the brain.

Rather than because the material body lost the energy and physical structure required to produce consciousness?

Energy is a well defined concept that is clearly different from what you are talking about here. The word spirit might be more appropriate since it would emphasise the speculation going on here.

And you wanted some sort of substantiation for this alternative view, how about the fact that science tells us that energy can change, but it can't be destroyed.

Pointless comment given that energy, as defined and understood in physics, is completely different from the concept you are trying to shoe-horn to it.

So when a brain "dies", where has that thought energy gone?

When a light bulb turns off where has the electrical energy gone?

According to science, it has to have gone somewhere.

Misusing science again I see.

Yet there is no release of any form of energy that we can currently measure or detect.

Really? You saying that the electrical impulses at the heart of neurological activity cannot be measure and/or detected?

Why should I just stop at what science tells me?

I’m confused as to why you suddenly felt the need to insert science here, or why you introduced science while failing to describe what you think science is telling you. This appears to be you, as I pointed out earlier, rationalising a lack of justification. Saying you have different experiences without explaining why those different experiences provide justification seems pretty pointless to me. You cannot even hope to make such a claim of having different experiences without knowing what the experiences of others even are – and I am raising the question of why you have jumped the gun here.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I’m confused as to why you suddenly felt the need to insert science here, or why you introduced science while failing to describe what you think science is telling you. This appears to be you, as I pointed out earlier, rationalising a lack of justification. Saying you have different experiences without explaining why those different experiences provide justification seems pretty pointless to me. You cannot even hope to make such a claim of having different experiences without knowing what the experiences of others even are – and I am raising the question of why you have jumped the gun here.

Believe what you want. I gave my rationalizations and justifications earlier, if you do not agree with them, that is fine.

 

[themadhair]

Believe what you want. I gave my rationalizations and justifications earlier, if you do not agree with them, that is fine.

I wasn’t aware that misunderstanding scientific concepts, like energy or evolution for example, while shoe-horning your ideas of consciousness of intent into those concepts constituted a justification. Ignorance of those concepts perhaps, but not a justification.

 

[themadhair]

There was no conscious force that drove the first creatures on earth to want to crawl out of the water onto land? I find that hard to believe.

Argument from incredulity. Real justification there.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Argument from incredulity. Real justification there.

Contemplate this. Not exactly sure where it originally came from, but it is still an interesting quote....

"The foolish man doth think himself wise...The wise-man knows himself to be the fool."

 

[Guitar's Cry]

1. The universe cannot exist without consciousness.
2. Consciousness cannot exist without the universe.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________

Therefore, either the universe is conscious, or there is an eternal consciousness.

...I'll be going now... (I'm gonna get in trouble with this one!)

:run:

 

[Runewolf1973]

1. The universe cannot exist without consciousness.
2. Consciousness cannot exist without the universe.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________

Therefore, either the universe is conscious, or there is an eternal consciousness.

...I'll be going now... (I'm gonna get in trouble with this one!)

:run:

Well, it makes sense to me anyways. But I'm tired of trying to explain why it makes sense to me.:thud:It is not for everyone I guess.

 

[themadhair]

Well, it makes sense to me anyways. But I'm tired of trying to explain why it makes sense to me.:thud:It is not for everyone I guess.

Personal incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Surely you can recognise that?

 

[PureX]

I sense a contradiction here. You, in effect, already pointed out why your own example failed.

Life is full of contradiction. Truth is often characterized by paradox. And lastly, you have not pointed out in any way, here, how my example "failed".

In the future, if you continue to make these kinds of blind pronouncements, I'm simply going to ignore your posts. This is a discussion/debate format. It's not a "themadhair pronounces from on high" format.

Someone appears to misunderstand what predictive power is in science. If a theory in science makes a non-trivial falsifiable prediction that is verified it constitutes evidence. This type of predictive power does not apply, and is in no way applicable, to what you wrote.

Once again, you are making insulting pronouncements, without backing them up. You have not shown in any way how my example "does not apply, and is in no way applicable", to a falsifiable prediction.

I don’t like crap reasoning in general. If you feel the need to misrepresent science in an attempt to glean a bit of its respectability for your ideas then maybe your ideas aren’t so good?

And I don't like insulting pronouncements that are based on ego rather than reason. Each time you make one of these insulting pronouncements, in the future, you'd damn well better back it up.

I am dismissing the rest of your post even though I think you have some reasonable arguments to make. In the future, make them without the insults, and without the blind pronouncements, and I will happily do my best to respond to them. But I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time writing to someone who's only out to insult me just so he can feel superior.

 

[themadhair]

And lastly, you have not pointed out in any way, here, how my example "failed".

You should try reading what I wrote. Even you yourself elucidated upon why your own comparison failed. But this is a cute way of avoiding response.

In the future, if you continue to make these kinds of blind pronouncements, I'm simply going to ignore your posts. This is a discussion/debate format. It's not a "themadhair pronounces from on high" format.

Then challenge what I wrote.

You have not shown in any way how my example "does not apply, and is in no way applicable", to a falsifiable prediction.

Why not read what I wrote? What about this for example: “To give a specific example from evolutionary theory – the prediction of what fossils we can find and where we can find them (the best example being Tiktaalik). Unless you can point out anything similar that you carry out with your god idea, then you have to concede what you wrote above as being total crap. ” where I illustrate you completely misrepresenting of predictive power as evidence in science.
What about when I wrote “Someone appears to misunderstand what predictive power is in science. If a theory in science makes a non-trivial falsifiable prediction that is verified it constitutes evidence. This type of predictive power does not apply, and is in no way applicable, to what you wrote. ”. Do you have examples of when you made non-trivial falsifiable predictions using your god concept that you subsequently verified? No? Isn’t that precisely why your example “does not apply, and is in no way applicable” to predictive power as it applies in science?
But again – cute way to avoid the issue.

And I don't like insulting pronouncements that are based on ego rather than reason. Each time you make one of these insulting pronouncements, in the future, you'd damn well better back it up.

Let me see now. You made a comparison between a branch of science and your god concept, which I challenged and gave a specific example (predictive power) of why the comparison was unfounded. And you completely ignore all that claim I never backed it up? Kind of avoiding uncomfortable content methinks.

In the future, make them without the insults, and without the blind pronouncements, and I will happily do my best to respond to them.

I did not insult you. You have a choice to feel insulted when confronted with frank commentary and criticism, but it is a convenient scapegoat for you to avoid the substantive issues.

But I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time writing to someone who's only out to insult me just so he can feel superior.

Cute way to avoid the content.

 

[PureX]

What about this for example: “To give a specific example from evolutionary theory – the prediction of what fossils we can find and where we can find them (the best example being Tiktaalik). Unless you can point out anything similar that you carry out with your god idea, then you have to concede what you wrote above as being total crap. ” where I illustrate you completely misrepresenting of predictive power as evidence in science.

In the example I gave, one can predict the result of following a religious prescription of positive change. A specific example of such a prescription might be;

1. To pray for humility.
2. To reflect upon one's "sins".
3. To confess these sins to a priest or minister.
4. To make some act of contrition or restitution for the damage these sins have done to others.
5. Repeat previous steps for all future "sins".

By following such a religious prescription, which is in turn based strongly on a specific god-concept, one can predict that specific changes will likely occur in the practitioner's personality. And in fact, we find that these positive changes do occur. There is a diminished occurance of "sin". There is an improved sense of self-worth and social image. There is a sense of positive purpose and some spiritual attainment. Therefor, to the practitioner, and to those who have witnessed his process, both his concept of "God" and the religious/spiritual path that follows from that concept has "worked" AS PREDICTED. In fact, many people have seen this work and have chosen to try it for themselves.

I fail to see how this differs greatly from the example of evolution in science, with the exception that science deals only with objective evidence, while theology deals more with subjective evidence.