207 replies to this topic

[RighteousReason]

it took supernatural experiences to make me a believer.

Supernatural phenomenon do not exist. The thing you thought you saw was either a very improbable coincidence, an extreme cognitive hallucination/experience, or just a trick of the circumstances.

[william]

maestro, if I'm indicted for delusional spamming will I be given a fair hearing with the opportunity to prepare and present a defense before I'm punished? Of course, I'll plead "necessity" as my defense. You think a psychaitric evaluation will be ordered?

hank, I realize I can't prove to you I had supernatural experiences. But, I'm sure you're aware, paranormal phenomena is a legitimate area of scientific investigation by psychologists, etc.

[Live Forever]

Also, what does "IMO" mean? My sister couldn't tell me.

IMO means "in my opinion". Alternatively some people use IMHO, meaning "in my humble opinion". LOL means "laugh out loud".

If you want to know what FUBAR means, as in, "Your religion is FUBAR", then you are going to have to look that up for yourself.

[william]

Thanks Live For Ever! I'll have to look up FUBAR somewhere. Must be obscene or something.

[Grail]

My sentiment remains William, how can you expect us to believe you. This seems to be a funny backwards way of working for an all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent deity.
Even if we were to give credence to supernatural experiences, what would lead us to believe that your one was invoked by the Christian God, and not some other random deity or being. Do you ever think you may be being decieved? God should surely know the best ways in which to reveal himself to his children. What we are seeing here, for whatever reason, is not effective. If I suddenly had an experience concerning Odin, or Osiris or Zeus, then suggested you change your beliefs or else, would you give me any thought? Would that in any way make you waver in your beliefs? There are many people, William, who claim many different things with the same amount of credibility as you are displaying.

[william]

qrail, I'm going to respond to your post later. Look what Live Forever did to you guys. http://www.imminst.o...0&t=11069&st=0. Rabbit got the gun now. Look out!

[maestro949]

maestro, if I'm indicted for delusional spamming will I be given a fair hearing with the opportunity to prepare and present a defense before I'm punished?

Wow. paranoid too. Have you ever been abducted by aliens?

Of course, I'll plead "necessity" as my defense. You think a psychaitric evaluation will be ordered?

No. You have no game thus are harmless. Your ministry needs work as does your gameplan. Nobody is ever going to take you or what you say seriously with your approach to prosylitzing. I suggest you brush up on your rhetoric, message and approach. It's clear you have nothing additional to add to this thread other than links to propaganda thus I will not be watching this thread anymore. If you have anything personal to say to me PM me. [/airquote]

[william]

You're running maestro. Where can you hide? The truth will always find you.

[RighteousReason]

paranormal phenomena is a legitimate area of scientific investigation

No, it's not.

Show me one formal proof. Just one. If you think you find it, don't post it here. Instead, go back on Google and try to find an argument against that proof. If you spend a week analysing it and any other related data, and still think the proof holds, then post it here.

Good Luck[lol]

[DJS]

William

Even DonSpanton in frame 5 of this thread had to cry uncle - although grudgingly - and admit to this when I wrestled him down on this point.

Silly child, do you think this type of transparent rhetoric will win you points on these boards?

Similar to the common house pet, there is no tragedy in your predicament - being that you are unaware of your own absurdity.

[william]

hank, it's called "parapsychology." See http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Paranormal. I only said it's a legitimate area scientific investigation. Like anything, there's disagreement with some calling it pseudoscience.

[DJS]

If there was even a shred of definitive evidence for parapsychology, the news would spread like wild fire across the globe.

Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable. You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman.

[william]

So Don you now deny you ever admitted to a Superior Intelligence being behind creation? That would be in frame 5. What's your story now?
And, I never said that those engaged in parapsychology were producing results consistent with the scientific method. Just that it was a legitimate area of investigation. I'm sure some of the investigators were sloppy and some fraudulent.

[DJS]

So Don you now deny you ever admitted to a Superior Intelligence being behind creation? That would be in frame 5. What's your story now?

You need to read my writing more carefully, William.

Don
My current perspective has a moderate level of confidence that this universe was created by an intelligent process.  However, this intelligence/creative force would not meet the necessary criteria to be defined as *GOD*.  *It* arose from a universe which was also created by an intelligent process, which arose from a universe which was created by an intelligent process, which arose from a universe which was created by an intelligent process, ad infinitum.

You and I are also intelligent processes, albeit small and puny ones, with the capability of developing into powerful creative forces.  This is as far as I can see at this point, although I am fairly confident that there is much more to this picture than I presently comprehend.

God, as a concept, is completely nonsensical.  But even if it weren't, it would be of very little practical value to me.

Of course, none of this addresses your belief in the Christian religion -- which is completely and utterly irrational on so many levels that it boggles my mind.  It is in everyway comparable to a belief in Zeus or the easter bunny for that matter.

[DJS]

a Superior Intelligence being behind creation

Define "creation".

[RighteousReason]

Don...

What evidence do you have that this Universe was created by an intelligence process? (or what's your model of this)

[william]

So this intelligent/creative force you're talking about is sometype of new idea you have? I would like to hear this one too. Is this force more intelligent than an average human being attending Harvard or what?

[Live Forever]

William, have you read the story of Hank? (not the Hank from this thread)

[DJS]

Hank

what's your model of this

Here's a good intro: The Physical Constants as Biosignature

william

Is this force more intelligent than an average human being attending Harvard or what?

I'm more intelligent than the average wet-behind-the-ears ivy leaguer. (How's that for arrogant?)

But to answer your question William, yes, such a hypothetical entity would definitely have capabilities that vastly exceeded our current biological parameters.

[RighteousReason]

As Susskind puts it, the picture of the universe that is emerging from the deep mathematical recesses of M-theory is not an "elegant universe" but rather a Rube Goldberg device, cobbled together by some unknown process in a supremely improbable manner that just happens to render the whole ensemble fit for life.

Of course, every possible Universe is just as equally "supremenly improbable". That doesn't imply that it was created by an intelligent process. They actually specifically say the process is "unknown".

So right now the evidence for any intelligence external to humans is at 0, and for Don, a vague speculation regarding the unknown process by which our Universe was created.

[DJS]

Hank

Of course, every possible Universe is just as equally "supremenly improbable". That doesn't imply that it was created by an intelligent process. They actually specifically say the process is "unknown".

So right now the evidence for any intelligence external to humans is at 0, and for Don, a vague speculation regarding the unknown process by which our Universe was created.

Oh Hankypants, what ever will I do with you? At the level of abstraction we are operating from all speculations are, as a result of our currently disadvantaged position, necessarily vague. But at least my speculations present an elegant cosmological framework that also makes some headway in addressing the ontology of intelligence.

Part of your problem is that you insist on addressing speculative issues as a scientist rather than as a philosopher. Asking me for evidence! [lol] There are only interpretations of phenomena that manifest themselves as various perspectives in a constant state of flux.

[DJS]

Hank
Of course, every possible Universe is just as equally "supremenly improbable". That doesn't imply that it was created by an intelligent process. They actually specifically say the process is "unknown".

From 2004:

Don
Taken from Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea (big surprise coming from me... ) and paraphrased to the best of my ability.

Imagine that in a rather large office complex there are 1,024 individuals each in their own isolated room.  Now imagine that I go up to each and every individual in the complex and say, "Hello mortal, I am Mephistopheles and I will prove this to you by flipping a coin and having it land on heads ten times in a row."  The odds of flipping a coin and getting it to come up heads ten times in a row is 1 in 1,024.  Therefore, with 1,023 of the individuals my ploy will fail.  However, for that one "lucky" individual my ploy will be successful, and (from his perspective) there would be a powerful imperative to infer that a coin coming up heads ten times in a row was too much of a coincidence not to have been directed by some preternatural force, and that therefore I actually was Mephistopheles!  Little does the individual know that he just happened to be the lucky 1 out of 1,024.

Of course, the precise nomological values present in our universe which allow it to function in such a dynamic and complex manner would require odds far exceeding 1 in 1,024, but are they not within the realm of possibility when considering a multiverse of infinite scope?

The above line of reasoning would tend to favor an atheistic explanation of existence, where even the rules of the universe are set by chance occurrences stretched across the vastness of eternity.  And indeed, I agree that this is a plausible explanation, but I am not convinced.  What bothers me about this perspective is that is relegates “intelligence” or “consciousness” to an entirely passive role as a spectator within the grand scheme of things...Are nomological values directed or undirected?  Beats the hell out of me...  [glasses]

Nate
This is a very good point, Don, and i’d say this is what it all comes down to. Is the nature of nomological conditions such that they would have required a deliberative designer? Or is their nature such that given eternity, they are bound to simply just be? Currently, my mind, in particular, can’t comprehend the appropriate truth values here and nor can it assign a probability in favor of one truth value over the other.

Religion, What is your opinion

[zoolander]

Look what GOD did to this poor little jewish boy. Explain that Nacho libre

[RighteousReason]

even the rules of the universe are set by chance occurrences stretched across the vastness of eternity

That's not the assertion being made

The point is that we don't know the mechanisms that created the Universe.

We can imagine that these mechanisms involve intelligence, or chance, or evolution, or whatever- but we don't know.

Not only that, but we don't even know whether it is even possible to figure that out.

[RighteousReason]

Religion, What is your opinion

Haha... I like that 'th3hegem0n' guy.. he's funny.

[DJS]

Hank

We can imagine that these mechanisms involve intelligence, or chance, or evolution, or whatever- but we don't know.

That sums things up nicely. We don't know but we can imagine.

[brandonreinhart]

William - The only thing that is obvious to me are the dehumanizing aspects of religion and religious teaching. From the Christian projection of human achievement onto god (the stripping of humanity's greatest traits such as love and forgiveness), to the Zen desire for holistic mindlessness, I have seen religion offer nothing that appeals to me. I do believe and have faith. My faith is in functionalism, epistemology founded in reason, the axioms of mathematics and physical law, and the inviolability of physical reality.

I have examined the philosophical questions to their roots and I recognize the existential truth that ultimately one must make an Epistemic Determination: the choice between belief in the apparent physical or solipsism. The choice between a world that defies logic or a world grounded in it. If we are to acknowledge Incompleteness, we must also acknowledge that even rational philosophies are based on a kind of faith. My answers to these questions leave no room for the teachings of religion and at the same time leave me morally grounded, ethically certain, humanistically inspired, optimistic, and forward-looking.

[RighteousReason]

That sums things up nicely. We don't know but we can imagine.

Why is an imagined process involving an intelligent volition more likely than an imagined unintelligent process?

the cosmic equivalent of DNA, guiding a cosmologically extended evolutionary process and providing a blueprint for the replication of new life-friendly progeny universes.

Even if this hypothesis is proven to be true, evolution is not intelligent.

I haven't seen any testable models or hypotheses of intelligence creating a Universe. Well there is one that is testable. Singularity.

[william]

Live Forever, I read that story about Hank you provided a link to. I read it kinda fast due to time constraints. Either there's a moral in the story for me to catch, like may be I'm committing sometype of logical fallacy I need to be made aware of, or, you want me to kiss Hanks butt too. I'm for abolishing money and private property and living communally as I mentioned previously. A million dollars is useless to me. Where I come from we just bum-rush tyrants like Hank from all four corners until we bring them down.

Now you take this guy zoolander, I'm for taking a long pole with a hook on the end and snatching his young, soft butt right off the stage. What's a Nacho libre anyway? Is he trying to pull me off my square or what? Just wait till I get a couple of years (the Lord permitting) under my belt on this computer so I can compete with you guys.

You really disappointed me Live Forever. I thought when you put a link to that Einstein stuff you were going to give me a helping hand. If these guys would've put you on trial for treason, I would've represented you "pro bono."

[william]

Gee Don, that was a brillant piece of sophistry there. Great work! Now, young Einstein, can you tell me how we're going to progress or elevate ourselves socially and morally on the basis of this nebulous conception of an intelligent/creative force you're advocating? What's the next step hotshot?