Life From Dirt?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I’ve said falsifiability is a method which only really applies to the natural sciences. There is no clinical test for the existence of God. (As there is no formula that I’m aware of which can predict human behaviour nor define all the complexity of human experience). For that matter, the ideas of Freud, Jung, Marx etc are not falsifiable either, but that doesn’t mean they have no value and it doesn’t mean they can’t be tested through practice and observation.

I put the “God idea” to the test every day, in my daily life. Consciously turning my will and my life over to the care of a power greater than myself each day, has kept me clean and sober for 21 years, and enriched my life in innumerable ways. Such is the power of faith.

Attributing your behavior to an unsupportable, undefendable entity doesn't in any way mean that said entity actually exists.

It just means that you can find the required motivation in that idea to do what you think you should be doing.

Other people find that motivation in scientology or any of the many many religious ideas that you think are false.
So it's just like I said previously: this is not a "test". It works just the same regardless of the subject matter and, through confirmation bias, works just as well for mutually exclusive gods.

This means that your "test" is unreliable and not a pathway to truth.
Instead, it only serves in a circular way to self-enforce a priori held beliefs that are neither here nor there.
Textbook confirmation bias.

I'm sorry that you can't seem to comprehend this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's just a delusion. Lies work so often that people tell lies for a living. Lies work so well that people will even lie to themselves. What works has very little to do with what is true. Life proves that to us all the time ... if we're willing to see it.

GPS satellites would not work if physicists were lying about the theory of relativity.

We can't test for truth.

A GPS satellite is a test for the accuracy of relativity.

Also, to paraphrase Lawrence Krauss once again:

"Science isn't in the business of proving things. If anything, science is in the business of disproving things. It can't tell us what is absolutely right. But it CAN tell us what is absolutely wrong. As such, science is a methodology that allows us to zero-in on truth by eliminating false ideas. The ideas left standing are the most accurate ones."

We can only guess at relative truthfulness. It's why our prisons have innocent people in them. And why guilty people are still roaming the streets. Judicial function does not equal judicial truth.

Ironically, most innocent people in prison are there due to lack of evidence and too much reliance on human "testimony" and "eye witnesses".
If courts would raise its standards and not rely on human "testimony" so much while demanding more solid independently verifiable evidence, far less innocent people would be in prison.

The reason for that is simple: "testimony" and "eye witnesses" are very unreliable lines of evidence. Very bad evidence.
People lie. People make mistakes. People misremember. People misinterpret. People suffer from confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, prejudice, etc...

Actual independently verifiable evidence has none of these problems.

Then it is not a fountain of truth, is it.

None of those things have anything to do with "truth" to begin with.

"I like heavy metal". This is not a truth statement. It's just an expression of personal taste. It's neither right or wrong.
Right or wrong aren't words that are applicable to such statements.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Gotta laugh. Wonder what a scientist would say...hmm?

As if you care what scientists say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes about prisons. And juries can be convinced that the evidence proves it. Even though the accused is innocent.

99.99% of innocents who end up in jail, are put there because the "evidence" consists of "testimony" and "eye witnesses".

The very lines of evidence that religious beliefs rely on.
Notoriously extremely unreliable and a very good way to end up with false beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you think the Almighty God must be composed of atoms?

Point me to one entity, any entity, that isn't composed of atoms.

Much less to figure out about God except what He tells us...through creation and the Bible.

Correction: what humans claim he tells us. Humans wrote the bible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I know that's what you say. But since it's conjecture and application of smallpox vaccine proves that it works, again

No, it doesn't "prove" that at all.
Clinical trials support the claim that they work, because there is a clear correlation.
There is a model that makes predictions (if vaccine, then less desease) and when put to the test, we indeed see that "if vaccine, then less desease".
That does not PROVE that the vaccine is the cause. It SUPPORTS the model, it does not PROVE it.

This is a model that basically fits into germ theory of desease.
Theories in science are NEVER proven. Only supported.

And there is actually more evidential support for evolution then there is for germ theory.

-- everything you assert about the truth of evolution is pure hogwash. No proof.

Again, not theory in science has "proof".
Science doesn't deal in proof.
Science deals in supportive evidence (and disproof).

How many times has this been pointed out to you?

Nothing. Zilch. You can decide what you want, obviously. I have decided. No proof, the so-called evidence you and others claim "proves" the theory just isn't so. Have a nice one.

Nobody has ever claim that evidence "proves" a theory. Any theory.
I wonder how many more times it must be repeated.

My guess is a near infinity of times and it still won't be enough.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

your atomic theory is ridiculous.

Is it?

Show me one entity that isn't made up of atoms.
Just one.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Attributing your behavior to an unsupportable, undefendable entity doesn't in any way mean that said entity actually exists.

It just means that you can find the required motivation in that idea to do what you think you should be doing.

Other people find that motivation in scientology or any of the many many religious ideas that you think are false.
So it's just like I said previously: this is not a "test". It works just the same regardless of the subject matter and, through confirmation bias, works just as well for mutually exclusive gods.

This means that your "test" is unreliable and not a pathway to truth.
Instead, it only serves in a circular way to self-enforce a priori held beliefs that are neither here nor there.
Textbook confirmation bias.

I'm sorry that you can't seem to comprehend this.

I'm sorry for you too, my friend. You have allowed your head to make a prison for your heart; you comprehend but you do not apprehend, and so you see nothing, beyond the bars of your cave.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, genetics does not "evidence" evolution.

Since everything in genetics matches the predictions of the theory.... in fact, genetics ITSELF was predicted by the theory..
It most definitely serves as evidence for evolution.

That's what it means for something to evidence for something....
When data matches the predictions of a model, that data becomes evidence for said model.

The nested hierarchical nature of genomes and the very existence of DNA itself are both predicted by evolution theory.
There is nothing about genetics that contradicts evolution.

That makes genetics evidence for evolution.

You might comprehend this if you would actually understand what evidence is.
And what evolution theory actually says, instead of the strawman version you have in your head (and which has been corrected by countless people countless times).

What it "evidences" is that there is motion and cohesiveness and ability to combine.

Evolution predicts a system of inheritance.
Evolution predicts that that system is subject to changes / modifications
Evolution predicts that that system would by nature be organized in a nested hierarchy.

Genetics fits these predictions for 110%
This is why genetics alone is slam-dunk evidence for evolution.
Even ignoring all other evidence from paleontology, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, the fossil record, etc...
The genetics evidence alone makes evolution theory the most solidly supported theory in all of science.

But it does not evidence or prove (evidence as if it's true) evolution.

Except that it does, since it provides EVERYTHING evolution needs to actually work.
It matches ALL predictions and contradicts none.

It doesn't get any more solid then that in science.

Keep it up, guys and gals because what you have proven (yup, proven) to me beyond doubt is that evolution just isn't as you all claim it is.

If you are talking about the strawman version in your head, then I agree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you and others say.

No. The evidence shows that.
Science, unlike creationism and alike, isn't just a collection of bare claims and assertions. Nor does it work through people just "saying" things.
The evidence says that.

No, I'm not. Meantime, aside from me not being wrong at "each point," there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that some "Unknown Common Ancestor" burgeoned into gorillas, humans, chimpanzees, etc. None

Except off course all the evidence from paleontology, comparative anatomy, comparative genomics, geographic distribution of species, etc.

Genetically, the very same evidence that shows you and your siblings, cousins and nieces share ancestors also shows that humans, chimps and gorilla's share ancestors.
DNA allows us to determine ancestral ties.

Sticking your head firmly in the ground will not change that.

-- As far as fossil records, again -- while grass may be green and lizards also may be green, there is not one iota of evidence that gorillas, chimpanzees and humans evolved from some "Unknown Common Ancestor." You can't prove it, of course, NOT EVEN WITH EVIDENCE. Because there IS NONE. whatsoever.

We actually can prove that.
That humans and the other great apes share ancestors is a genetic fact.

Common ancestry of species is not a theory. It's a genetic fact.
Just like a DNA test of you and your siblings make it a genetic fact that you share the same parents.

Evolution theory deals with the mechanism of evolution. It's an explanatory model that explains the facts.
Common ancestry of species is one of the facts that evolution theory explains.

Again: sticking your head firmly in the ground will not change that.

If tomorrow you manage to disprove the theory of evolution, the genetic fact of humans and the other great apes sharing ancestors will remain a fact.
You will simply require another model to explain that fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Therein lies the issue; your predetermined attitude and position.

Ironic....
He's replying to a post where he is actually asked to have a "predetermined attitude and position" that there is even a god to be found in the first place.
Why don't you complain about that?

You have already made up your mind there is no God

False.
Instead, he refuses to start the investigation by assuming that there IS a god.
The whole point is to find out IF there is.

Why should God reveal anything to you? You have no desire to know the truth of His existence.

Why would the evidence for the existence of X be dependent on the whims of X?
Now who is making assumptions..............

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm sorry for you too, my friend. You have allowed your head to make a prison for your heart; you comprehend but you do not apprehend, and so you see nothing, beyond the bars of your cave.

More abstract mumbo jumbo that is neither here nor there, and which doesn't address the points raised AT ALL.

 

[Polymath257]

Therein lies the issue; your predetermined attitude and position. You have already made up your mind there is no God and any response or answer you may receive, if you bothered to search, would be nonsense.

No, I asked with an open mind and tried to figure out anything that would make sense. I also don't *start* with the assumption there is a God. I start with an open mind to determine *if* there is such a being (or beings).

So, for example, identifying God with the universe or with the natural laws doesn't seem to fit the usual meaning of the word 'God'. The Greek gods make no sense to me. They are clearly mythical and so not real. The concept of a supernatural seems to be self-contradictory, so any supernatural deities make no sense, so the Christian/Jewish/Moslem deity makes no sense. Many times, Hindu deities seem more like analogies or labels and so don't quite fit the concept of a God. The concept of a creator of the universe makes no sense because such a being would already have to exist and thereby be part of the universe.

I can go on. Don't think I don't search honestly simply because my conclusions differ from yours.

Now, maybe you have a new concept of God that *would* make sense to me. If you think you do, please let me know it.

Why should God reveal anything to you? You have no desire to know the truth of His existence.

Actually, I would very much like to know the truth of existence either way. I conclude non-existence because of lack of sufficient evidence. But I could easily be wrong about that conclusion. All I would need to change my mind is relevant evidence that is unambiguous.

And, if an all-knowing God exists, that entity would know this about me and know what sort of evidence would be convincing. So if such a deity exists, it isn't interested in whether I want to know (maybe it wants to be left alone, I don't know).

At this point, God believers come across like UFO enthusiasts: they believe because they want to believe and refuse to consider that they might be wrong. They accuse others of wanting to ignore the evidence when, in reality, if the evidence provided was even *close* to being relevant, skeptics would be excited and pursue it devotedly.

But those that want the truth are not going to see 'faith' as a positive value. It leads to confirmation bias and to bad reasoning. That is not the way to find truth.

 

[Polymath257]

No, Jesus was not deluded. He was in perfect control of His life and events leading to His crucifixion. Of course He knew He would die. His whole purpose in coming to earth, becoming human…was to go to the cross to pay for the sins of the world.

That is your claim. The evidence and reason say otherwise.

…Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. John 10:17-18

Sorry, but I don't take the Bible as authoritative in any way. It's an amusing set of myths, but not much more.

 

[Polymath257]

Point me to one entity, any entity, that isn't composed of atoms.

An electron. A proton. A muon. Light.

On the other hand, everything we have found that is *alive* is composed of atoms. That seems to be required for the complex structures required for life.

Correction: what humans claim he tells us. Humans wrote the bible.

Why can't people understand that the Bible was written by humans? It was collected by humans. And those humans had agendas and *political* reasons for their choices. We even know the debates they had on *which* books to put into the Bible. The Bible itself even tells about the reasons for writing the texts.

 

[RestlessSoul]

An electron. A proton. A muon. Light.

On the other hand, everything we have found that is *alive* is composed of atoms. That seems to be required for the complex structures required for life.


Why can't people understand that the Bible was written by humans? It was collected by humans. And those humans had agendas and *political* reasons for their choices. We even know the debates they had on *which* books to put into the Bible. The Bible itself even tells about the reasons for writing the texts.

You may find Adam Nicholson's historical account of the KJV interesting. Would definitely recommend.

God's Secretaries : The Making of the King James Bible​

Adam Nicolson​

3.78
1,867 ratings356 reviews
A network of complex currents flowed across Jacobean England. This was the England of Shakespeare, Jonson, and Bacon; the era of the Gunpowder Plot and the worst outbreak of the plague. Jacobean England was both more godly and less godly than the country had ever been, and the entire culture was drawn taut between these polarities. This was the world that created the King James Bible. It is the greatest work of English prose ever written, and it is no coincidence that the translation was made at the moment "Englishness," specifically the English language itself, had come into its first passionate maturity. The English of Jacobean England has a more encompassing idea of its own scope than any form of the language before or since. It drips with potency and sensitivity. The age, with all its conflicts, explains the book.

This P.S. edition features an extra 16 pages of insights into the book, including author interviews, recommended reading, and more.

 

[Polymath257]

I’ve said falsifiability is a method which only really applies to the natural sciences. There is no clinical test for the existence of God. (As there is no formula that I’m aware of which can predict human behaviour nor define all the complexity of human experience). For that matter, the ideas of Freud, Jung, Marx etc are not falsifiable either, but that doesn’t mean they have no value and it doesn’t mean they can’t be tested through practice and observation.

Having value is different than being true.

I put the “God idea” to the test every day, in my daily life. Consciously turning my will and my life over to the care of a power greater than myself each day, has kept me clean and sober for 21 years, and enriched my life in innumerable ways. Such is the power of faith.

Sorry, that isn't an honest test. An honest test would involve some way to determine if the idea is *false*. otherwise, you are simply encouraging confirmation bias.

 

[Polymath257]

You may find Adam Nicholson's account of the KJV interesting. Would definitely recommend.

God's Secretaries : The Making of the King James Bible​

Adam Nicolson​

3.78
1,867 ratings356 reviews
A network of complex currents flowed across Jacobean England. This was the England of Shakespeare, Jonson, and Bacon; the era of the Gunpowder Plot and the worst outbreak of the plague. Jacobean England was both more godly and less godly than the country had ever been, and the entire culture was drawn taut between these polarities. This was the world that created the King James Bible. It is the greatest work of English prose ever written, and it is no coincidence that the translation was made at the moment "Englishness," specifically the English language itself, had come into its first passionate maturity. The English of Jacobean England has a more encompassing idea of its own scope than any form of the language before or since. It drips with potency and sensitivity. The age, with all its conflicts, explains the book.

This P.S. edition features an extra 16 pages of insights into the book, including author interviews, recommended reading, and more.

And how does that change what I said? The books of the Bible were chosen long before this specific translation.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And how does that change what I said? The books of the Bible were chosen long before this specific translation.

Give your head a wobble, I'm not arguing with you. I recommended a book I thought you might find interesting, apropos of your own observations about the history of The Bible. No agenda, no point to make.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I know that's what you say. But since it's conjecture and application of smallpox vaccine proves that it works, again -- everything you assert about the truth of evolution is pure hogwash. No proof. Nothing. Zilch. You can decide what you want, obviously. I have decided. No proof, the so-called evidence you and others claim "proves" the theory just isn't so. Have a nice one.

The problem is this.
Science is build on the following assumptions:
That the universe is real, i.e. e.g. no cheating God and/or Boltzmann Brains.
That the universe is orderly, i.e. that the same experinces of past, prestent and furture holds for also the past even if we haven't experinced it. That is so say that there was a past even if you haven't experinced it, but also that the memory of yesterday holds.
That the universe is knowable as such, i.e. that we can make general models of the universe.

Now you claim in effect that none of these assumptions are correct, but then that applies to you too.
So in effect the universe could have started last Thursday and you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe for which God made it so, that you are a program running on a computer simulation with a power source and that is all the universe is.

So either you accept that the universe is real and God doesn't cheat for real, orderly or knowable; or you can't claim you in effect know anything about the universe.
In effect you trust that when it suits you, but deny it when it doesn't suit you.
Have a nice one.