SCIENCE: Death Anxiety Likely Cause of Belief in Intelligent Design

[Kenny]

So all you have is a bare assertion based on personal opinion? No evidence?

What I see is evidence.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What I see is evidence.

There is no such thing as personal evidence. If you have evidence then you should be able to present it in a verifiable and demonstrable fashion.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[Skwim]

There is no such thing as personal evidence. If you have evidence then you should be able to present it in a verifiable and demonstrable fashion.

Don't hold your breath.

.

 

[Kenny]

There is no such thing as personal evidence. If you have evidence then you should be able to present it in a verifiable and demonstrable fashion.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

it's not personal... it is viewable by all. Just open your eyes and look.

 

[DanishCrow]

So all you have is a bare assertion based on personal opinion? No evidence?

What is evidence? As a christian dude once said, "if you need a miracle to believe, you never will". Most people will contend that wave motion or gravity exists, but they haven't the faintest idea how.

I'm a religious person with a fervent belief in the natural sciences. I eat up everything from quantum mechanics to material chemistry with great appetite. However, the more science we learn, the more uncertain black/white interpretations like creator/no creator or spiritual/material actually becomes. Quantum duplicity theory of consciousness and other neuroquantologic research seems to point at life after death, and the massive potential inherent in the big bang could just as well be a conscious decision as a total coincidence (albeit a statistically unlikely one, if you ask me).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The research consisted of five studies with 1,674 U.S. and Canadian participants of different ages and educational, socioeconomic and religious backgrounds.

Given their sample involved some of the most religious, and didn't include European nations or other nations that are less religious, I have a hard time agreeing with it. Especially since evolution denial in America is very high compared to other nations.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

it's not personal... it is viewable by all. Just open your eyes and look.

Look at what? Please describe this evidence.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What is evidence?

Independent and verifiable observations that fit the predictions made by an explanation.

As a christian dude once said, "if you need a miracle to believe, you never will". Most people will contend that wave motion or gravity exists, but they haven't the faintest idea how.

We can independently and verifiably measure the force of gravity. We can also test our explanations for gravity by those same types of observations, such as the bending of starlight around massive objects. That's evidence.

Quantum duplicity theory of consciousness and other neuroquantologic research seems to point at life after death, and the massive potential inherent in the big bang could just as well be a conscious decision as a total coincidence (albeit a statistically unlikely one, if you ask me).

What is the evidence for these claims?

 

[DanishCrow]

In that case, you can't have evidence, because the omniscient and massive computing power required to test these claims at presents is not available. But, by the same metric you give me here, you cannot muster a scientific framework to prove there was not a conscious principle behind creation either.

Edit:

On the science of neuroquantilogy, the most coherent theory at present is orchestrated objective reduction: Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory - ScienceDirect

The read is a bit dry, but as a college student with grasp of theoretical physics and material science I can assure it's legit. Also, it has been put forward by the worlds leading minds in quantum physics and aneshesiology, and so we're not dealing with a bunch of religious dreamers by any stretch of the word.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Then again, the morality of the "god" I've read about in the Bible suggests that he thought it a pretty good idea to kill women and children, but save virgin girls for yourself -- for whatever purpose you might care to imagine. I do believe I have seen propositions that I would consider to be at least slightly more moral than that.

That's probably because you've made human life and human dignity the standard for your morality.

Certainly seems like the best choice for me.

Let me put it to you this way: law in the United States (and most other civilized places) recognize that even though a soldier is required to obey the orders given by superiors, this is true only if the orders are legal. If a 5 star general orders a lowly private to shoot a prisoner to death in his cell, that soldier -- were he to comply -- would be guilty of murder. When God ordered the slaughter of the Canaanites, and especially children except young virgin females who were to be retained for "other purposes," the fact that God out-ranks a 5 star general doesn't come one hair closer to making it right or moral.

If you think otherwise, then I dare say I do not think you are thinking clearly enough.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But, by the same metric you give me here, you cannot prove there was not a conscious principle behind the big band.

The burden of proof lies with those who are proposing a "conscious principle" behind the Big Bang.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

 

[DanishCrow]

Quite so. You assert that evidence is "Independent and verifiable observations that fit the predictions made by an explanation." - while we can agree that we can prove the big bang happened, you also claim that there was no act of creation by anything or anyone behind it. For that, you have no independent or verifiable observation. All you have is an explanation, and so do I.

Also, Hitchens was a deranged fascist who wouldn't recognize the scientific method if it pecked him in the ***, so maybe not the best skeptic to quote here!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Also, it has been put forward by the worlds leading minds in quantum physics and aneshesiology, and so we're not dealing with a bunch of religious dreamers by any stretch of the word.

Such as? Surely if they are prominent figures you can name at least a few.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Quite so. You assert that evidence is "Independent and verifiable observations that fit the predictions made by an explanation." - while we can agree that we can prove the big bang happened, you also claim that there was no act of creation by anything or anyone behind it.

Where did I claim that? I am asking for evidence that there was an act of creation. Until I see such evidence I will not accept the claim. At the same time, I am not taking the position that a lack of evidence demonstrates that there was no act of creation.

Also, Hitchens was a deranged fascist who wouldn't recognize the scientific method if it pecked him in the ***, so maybe not the best skeptic to quote here!

So you move from the burden of proof fallacy to an ad hominem fallacy. Not exactly the best strategy.

 

[DanishCrow]

We're done here, Thermos. You demand an act of observation our present technology and mental development cannot provide, but you do insinuate that we lack metaphysical evidence, evidence that you by shifting definitions refuse to consider.

An ad hominem fallacy would be attacking you, not Hitchens, who did an ample job himself of proving he was a bigot of no accord.

Such as? Surely if they are prominent figures you can name at least a few.

You could just have pressed my link, O lazy one Sir Roger Penrose is one of the finest physical minds of all time, developing (and getting awarded for) the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems, along with Stephen Hawking whom I will just assume you've heard of. Stuart Hameroff is professor in the Department of Anesthesiology and Psychology and director for the Center for Consciousness Studies, both until 1999, and professor Emeritus for Anesthesiology and Psychology since 2003.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Such as? Surely if they are prominent figures you can name at least a few.

Roger Penrose was one author, though he is a bit into the "woo" when it comes to consciousnes:

Roger Penrose - Wikipedia

The article and others are discussed on that Wiki page.

 

[DanishCrow]

Trying to form new scientific theories = being into woo ?

I cannot approve of the comparison. Roger Penrose is one of the most brilliant scientists to ever live, and even if he's wrong about this it is going to get us closer to understanding the principle of consciousness.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Stephen Hawking whom I will just assume you've heard of.

Yes, I know who he was - a firm atheist who denied life after death.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trying to form new scientific theories = being into woo ?

I cannot approve of the comparison. Roger Penrose is one of the most brilliant scientists to ever live, and even if he's wrong about this it is going to get us closer to understanding the principle of consciousness.

When one abuses the supposed sources for his "new scientific theory" at least according to his critics, then yes:

'The Penrose–Lucas argument about the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem for computational theories of human intelligence has been widely criticised by mathematicians, computer scientists and philosophers, and the consensus among experts in these fields seems to be that the argument fails, though different authors may choose different aspects of the argument to attack.[18] Marvin Minsky, a leading proponent of artificial intelligence, was particularly critical, stating that Penrose "tries to show, in chapter after chapter, that human thought cannot be based on any known scientific principle." Minsky's position is exactly the opposite – he believed that humans are, in fact, machines, whose functioning, although complex, is fully explainable by current physics. Minsky maintained that "one can carry that quest [for scientific explanation] too far by only seeking new basic principles instead of attacking the real detail. This is what I see in Penrose's quest for a new basic principle of physics that will account for consciousness." '

 

[Axe Elf]

If you think otherwise, then I dare say I do not think you are thinking clearly enough.

Well, I do think otherwise, and like you, I dare say that I understand it better than you--so here we are.