Biblical Miracles

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

How do you know that materialism cannot provide an answer for this.
You said that you could not conclude this, yet here you are contradicting yourself.

You contradict yourself because your position hollow sophistry.

Where did I say it couldn't? It hasn't, nor has it provided an answer to a whole range of other questions that have been around long before science as we know it began.

and there you go again with another derogatory comment, unless of course you mean the original meaning of the word which is "wise" in which case I would agree wholeheartedly

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

Where did I say it couldn't? It hasn't, nor has it provided an answer to a whole range of other questions that have been around long before science as we know it began.

You siad it couldn't right here:

H As long as the question remains "why is there something rather than nothing" science simply cannot provide all the answers.

Then we run back into the loop you've worked yourself into that you cannot address.

nagirrac wrote: »

and there you go again with another derogatory comment, unless of course you mean the original meaning of the word which is "wise" in which case I would agree wholeheartedly

No I mean it in the actual meaning of the word in that your position is all bluster and no substance. It's meaningless technobabble and empty spiritual mumbo jumbo.
I believed that was exceedingly clear.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

No I mean it in the actual meaning of the word in that your position is all bluster and no substance. It's meaningless technobabble and empty spiritual mumbo jumbo.
I believed that was exceedingly clear.

sigh.. cannot at this point, language again, such an obstacle sometimes. Sorry for not being 100% specific in everything I say so there is absolutely no room at all for interpretation. Just to be specific, science at this point cannot answer why there is something instead of nothing, how that something emerged, why it emerged with the very specific laws it did, why dead matter turned into live matter, why consciousness emerged, what consciousness is?.. you know, all those questions that have been asked since humans started to wonder about the reality they live in.

Speaking of bluster, you are very good at attacks on other opinions, what about your own opinions? We just had a lively discussion on quantum mechanics and its many interpretations, yet you choose to not participate although it is your academic background. What is your own view, do you have a preferred interpretation and why? What about the multiverse interpretation and what that might suggest for our view of reality? Any opinion, or do you confine yourself to trite insults aimed at those that actually have an opinion?

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

sigh.. cannot at this point, language again, such an obstacle sometimes. Sorry for not being 100% specific in everything I say so there is absolutely no room at all for interpretation. Just to be specific, science at this point cannot answer why there is something instead of nothing, how that something emerged, why it emerged with the very specific laws it did, why dead matter turned into live matter, why consciousness emerged, what consciousness is?.. you know, all those questions that have been asked since humans started to wonder about the reality they live in.

So then is materialistic science can possibly explain it, just has not yet, why should we jump to your explanation?
How can you say that god/magic is the more likely explanation when you yourself say we could not possibly make that judgement yet?

What about the fact that you ignore this and assume a god in violation of occams razor?

nagirrac wrote: »

Speaking of bluster, you are very good at attacks on other opinions, what about your own opinions? We just had a lively discussion on quantum mechanics and its many interpretations, yet you choose to not participate although it is your academic background. What is your own view, do you have a preferred interpretation and why? What about the multiverse interpretation and what that might suggest for our view of reality? Any opinion, or do you confine yourself to trite insults aimed at those that actually have an opinion?

Why would I want to discuss my opinions when you are not willing to address the points I have made directly?

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

How can you say that god/magic is the more likely explanation when you yourself say we could not possibly make that judgement yet?

First of all I am not postulating some kind of theist God or magic as the source of our reality. I am postulating and have done consistently on this forum that the universe is a simulation. There are very sound reasons for this reasoning, it is a very simple hypothesis and very clearly not a violation of Occam's razor. It is very testable, you have to consider whether the universe can be modelled as a simulation running on a quantum computer. It is falsifiable in that you can find aspects of the simulation that do not seem to work as they should.

Contrast it with the multiverse hypothesis, an area in science that keeps hoardes of theoretical physicists in careers. This is a hypothesis that is untestable and thus unfalsifiable, and yet it is curently the hypothesis that is the most favored in theoretical physics. Could you explain to me how the multiverse hypothesis does not violate Occam's razor?

gbee

nagirrac wrote: »

Where did I say it couldn't? It hasn't, nor has it provided an answer to a whole range of other questions that have been around long before science as we know it began.

Either you or he wants one to admit that the missing bits, MUST be God. Out da gap there biy!

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

First of all I am not postulating some kind of theist God or magic as the source of our reality. I am postulating and have done consistently on this forum that the universe is a simulation.

Again this is contrary to what you've been claiming.
You are continually changing your claims now to avoid points now. It's impossible to have a discussion like that.

Contrast it with the multiverse hypothesis, an area in science that keeps hoardes of theoretical physicists in careers. This is a hypothesis that is untestable and thus unfalsifiable so far, and yet it is curently the hypothesis that is the most favored in theoretical physics.

How do you that it cannot ever produce these things?
It is most favoured by people who know what they are talking about because it is the most consistent. Your claims are neither testable no coherent and make vast and silly assumptions which you then ignore for fear of shaking your belief.

nagirrac wrote: »

Could you explain to me how the multiverse hypothesis does not violate Occam's razor?

Because it does not require an intelligence.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Let me put it another way, what other than human pondering, suggests even a little bit that the human mind is independent to the human brain?

I think its time for closing statements, on this thread at least.

I have never said nor suggested that the human mind is independent to the human brain. I am a monist not a dualist. I believe there are two aspects to all matter in the universe, a physical aspect (energy) and a non-physical mental aspect (information). In a philosophical sense I derive a lot of my thinking from panexperientialism.

As for what our reality is and how it came about I believe we are most likely in a simulation running on a quantum computer. The physical and mental aspects inherent in everything in our universe are most likely programmed. I have said this consistently and yet posters continue to label me as a theist.

I did not bring up quantum mechanics to try and prove a God hypothesis. I brought it up to demonstrate that 90 years after it was described in beautiful mathematical terms we still have no idea how to interpret it, other than speculation like the current favored multiverse hypothesis that cannot be tested or falsified.

As an aside I absolutely love science, as do thousands of scientists who are deists and theists. There is no justification whatsoever for atheists to try and argue science is on their side, science has no interest and should have no interest in the God hypothesis. Science should just do science and leave belief / spitrituality / religion where it belongs, with each individual being.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Because it does not require an intelligence.

..and therein is the key difference between you and I.
I believe the universe as we observe it requires intelligence to give it meaning and you believe it does not. You choose to believe energy comes from nothing, natural laws define themselves, energy organizes itself into atoms, atoms organize themselves into bacteria, and bacteria eventually become human and we get to invent multiverses and discuss it on an internet forum.
Sorry, don't buy it.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

..and therein is the key difference between you and I.
I believe the universe as we observe it requires intelligence to give it meaning and you believe it does not. You choose to believe energy comes from nothing, natural laws define themselves, energy organizes itself into atoms, atoms organize themselves into bacteria, and bacteria eventually become human and we get to invent multiverses and discuss it on an internet forum.
Sorry, don't buy it.

And again you fall back onto dishonest arguments that you know aren't honest, ascribing positions to be that that you know I don't hold and completely contradictory claims to the ones you've made not 3 posts ago....

And again, god does not answer any of those questions :rolleyes:

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

I would argue though that it is not plagiarism but free use. [...] In addition, plagiarism involves personal gain, what personal gain could possibly be involved here?

Plagiarism is copying somebody else's work and pretending it's your own -- what you did above.

nagirrac wrote: »

I did not content scrape or paraphrase anything else in the article, the definition of quantum mechanics given in the sentence I used is pretty generic and literally the same description can be found in hundreds of sources, to me that's fair use (although admittedly lazy).

It's not "pretty generic" -- it's an almost direct word-for-word copy of somebody else's work. That's plagiarism. If you want to claim "fair use", then put it in quotation marks and make some indication of who wrote them, or at least, that they're not your words.

nagirrac wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, what is the position of A&A in general on content scraping and paraphrasing other's work?

It's up to the poster, but do bear in mind that instances of plagiarism will probably be discovered pretty quickly on this forum, so a conservative policy would be wisest, lest posters be discovered with their plagiaristic trousers down around their ankles.

Putting my finger in the air and not having had to think about a policy before, I suggest the following broad guidelines:

• Anything which is a direct use of somebody else's words should appear in quotation marks.
• Anything more than about ten words or so should at least have the original author's name.
• Anything more than about twenty words should probably include a reference to the original context or article.
• Anything more than about thirty words should probably appear as a "quote" block.

swampgas

nagirrac wrote: »

I believe the universe as we observe it requires intelligence to give it meaning and you believe it does not. You choose to believe energy comes from nothing, natural laws define themselves, energy organizes itself into atoms, atoms organize themselves into bacteria, and bacteria eventually become human and we get to invent multiverses and discuss it on an internet forum.
Sorry, don't buy it.

You seem to be using the word "believe" in an odd way there. I could accept that you could suspect, or have a hunch that the Universe requires intelligence, but I cannot see how you can say you believe it to be true in the same way you believe (say) that putting your hand into boiling water is going to hurt you.

I don't think many people "believe" that there are multiverses, I think they are more likely to think it an interesting hypothesis. At least I don't, and I don't know anyone who really thinks of it as anything beyond a theoretical abstraction. Maybe I don't know the right people though :-)

And of the two explanations you give above for the origins of the Universe, the second one, which involves evolution, seems to be the one you find least credible, despite being the only one with any hard evidence for it.

nagirrac

swampgas wrote: »

You seem to be using the word "believe" in an odd way there. I could accept that you could suspect, or have a hunch that the Universe requires intelligence, but I cannot see how you can say you believe it to be true in the same way you believe (say) that putting your hand into boiling water is going to hurt you.

And of the two explanations you give above for the origins of the Universe, the second one, which involves evolution, seems to be the one you find least credible, despite being the only one with any hard evidence for it.

Fair point, the word "believe" has a range of meanings and interpretations. I am using it in the context of it being an "opinion". I am not using the word to imply knowledge as you seem to be implying above. Belief and knowledge are very different things.

As for the theory of evolution, I find it completely credible. However, "how" something is and "why" it is are very different philosophical questions. I have explained my philosophy previously on the thread so no point repeating it, but to summarize I believe the universe to be informational and thus based on intelligence.

swampgas

nagirrac wrote: »

[ ... ]
However, "how" something is and "why" it is are very different philosophical questions. I have explained my philosophy previously on the thread so no point repeating it,

Fair enough. I am of the opinion that there doesn't necessarily have to be a "why" for everything, and that there are some things for which "why?" isn't a valid question.

"Why is the sky blue?" is a valid question. We have an intellectual framework where this question can fit, and where answers can be constructed.


IMO "What is the purpose of the Universe?" is not a valid question. I cannot conceive of what terms could be used to answer it. How can the universe even have a purpose?

[...] I believe the universe to be informational and thus based on intelligence.

Suppose the universe is informational and based on intelligence, what form would this intelligence take? Surely, as far as we can tell, intelligence requires some sort of substrate - a brain, a computer system, a mechanism of some sort - where is this intelligence located? How does it work? Is it limited by the laws of physics as we know them?

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

However, "how" something is and "why" it is are very different philosophical questions.

Unfortunately, "how" something is and "why" it is are the exact same scientific questions. "How it rains" and "why it rains" are the same question.

nagirrac

It is man's incessant search for "why" that drives him on to find the
"how". The day we start accepting that there is no point asking why is the day we stop evolving.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
Albert Einstein

Ellis Dee

In a way, everything remarkable that happens is a miracle to anyone who doesn't know exactly what it is that has happened and how.

It would be great to have a time machine and go back a few thousand years in time to the Middle East and show some of the illiterate, primitive, savage tribespeople you'd find there a few of our modern gadgets. Then go back to our own time and see how they'd been reported in the Bible.;)



And the same thing happens in modern times when people are gullible enough to accept an irrational explanation and too lazy to seek a rational one.:cool:

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

It is man's incessant search for "why" that drives him on to find the
"how". The day we start accepting that there is no point asking why is the day we stop evolving.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
Albert Einstein

How and why are the same thing, unless you are dealing with human mistakes.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

It is man's incessant search for "why" that drives him on to find the "how".

Yes, because they are the same question.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

It is man's incessant search for "why" that drives him on to find the
"how". The day we start accepting that there is no point asking why is the day we stop evolving.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
Albert Einstein

Um, so why are you declaring that this search is over?
You believe that you have an explanation for why (though you know it doesn't actually explain anything at all). And further you believe that your explanations for how and why are unknowable.
You are the one claiming that there is no point asking why.

Again, you are arguing against your own confused and nonsensical position.

Kiwi in IE

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Skip to the sequence from 8:25 to 8:45.

Seriously, it's the funniest argument I have ever seen.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is just brilliant!

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Um, so why are you declaring that this search is over?
You believe that you have an explanation for why (though you know it doesn't actually explain anything at all). And further you believe that your explanations for how and why are unknowable.
You are the one claiming that there is no point asking why.

Again, you are arguing against your own confused and nonsensical position.

I am afraid it is you who are confused. You continue to misrepresent my position which indicates to me that you either 1. don't understand it, or 2. do not want to understand it. Let me state my position for now probably the 10th time on the A&A forum and perhaps you will finally get it, but I frankly don't hold out much hope.

1. I am an agnostic deist, open to my opinion or beliefs being wrong. I am very open minded and have been since my mid teens. You appear not to understand the term agnostic and somehow confuse it with a fixed belief.

2. By no means do I suggest that our scientific search for knowledge is over, such a position would be nonsensical. Our search will likely continue as it has, long periods of slow progress interupted by explosions of creativity that completely change our paradigm e.g. Copernicus, Einstein.

3. Stating anything is "truth" or "settled" based on science is questionable given so many theories have been overturned later. Science continues to evolve and will continue to evolve. I fully expect to continue to be surprised by scientific discovery, in fact that is what makes science so fascinating.

4. You are confusing science with personal philosophy. As correctly pointed out in previous posts, science can only answer questions that can be explored by the scientific method. However, science cannot answer many questions relating to personal philosophy. For example the debate going on in Ireland regarding abortion, a position of being pro-abortion or anti-abortion is not guided by science, it is guided by personal philosophy.

5. One aspect of my personal philosphy is that our universe was designed by a benevolent creator. I don't have to justify my personal philosophy to you or anyone else. The only thing I have to do is live my life in keeping with my personal philosophy, and I can do this due to something called free will.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

5. One aspect of my personal philosphy is that our universe was designed by a benevolent creator. I don't have to justify my personal philosophy to you or anyone else. The only thing I have to do is live my life in keeping with my personal philosophy, and I can do this due to something called free will.

And again, your personal philosophy is flawed and self contradictory.

Your personal belief in a benevolent creator is in conflict with all of your other positions you've claimed.

You claimed:

It is man's incessant search for "why" that drives him on to find the
"how". The day we start accepting that there is no point asking why is the day we stop evolving.

You have also said (and correct me if I am wrong):
1) that god is an answer for why and how
2) that why and how are unknowable.

So if the reasons how and why are impossible to know, as you claim, what's the point?

Stop with the bumper sticker philosophy and flowery nonsense. Actually critically examine what you believe.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

And again, your personal philosophy is flawed and self contradictory.
Your personal belief in a benevolent creator is in conflict with all of your other positions you've claimed.

and yet again you are confusing science with personal philosophy.

In terms of science I believe that man's imagination and creativity pose many questions which can be pursued using the scientific method. In this sense the "why" and "how" as others have pointed out are the same in the context of science. There needs to be no consideration of a creator at all in the scientific method.

A personal philosophy is an entirely different issue. It is subjective based on reflection as opposed to an objective pursuit of knowledge based on the well established scientific method. I see absolutely no contradiction between science and my personal philosophy. That conflict is in your mind because of your beliefs.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

and yet again you are confusing science with personal philosophy.

In terms of science I believe that man's imagination and creativity pose many questions which can be pursued using the scientific method. In this sense the "why" and "how" as others have pointed out are the same in the context of science. There needs to be no consideration of a creator at all in the scientific method.

A personal philosophy is an entirely different issue. It is subjective based on reflection as opposed to an objective pursuit of knowledge based on the well established scientific method. I see absolutely no contradiction between science and my personal philosophy. That conflict is in your mind because of your beliefs.

No the conflict is in your mind as you've outlined. You personal philosophy, the vapid mess that it is, contradicts what you say about science.
And when it suits you, you have no issue mixing the two

If we go by your definition of "personal philosophy" then it has no baring at all on reality and is no different than fiction.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

No the conflict is in your mind as you've outlined. You personal philosophy, the vapid mess that it is, contradicts what you say about science.
And when it suits you, you have no issue mixing the two

If we go by your definition of "personal philosophy" then it has no baring at all on reality and is no different than fiction.

Please outline specifically what aspects of my personal philosophy (which you know very little about) contradicts what I say about science. Try and be specific and focus on what I have actually said as opposed to what you would like to think I have said.

Your last few posts by the way highlight why reasonable people find dogmatic atheists just as insufferable as fundamentalists.

Sarky

I think it highlights how reasonable people pointing out that belief is messy and hugely flawed gets other people who haven't really thought about it really upset because they don't like challenging their own positions.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

Please outline specifically what aspects of my personal philosophy (which you know very little about) contradicts what I say about science. Try and be specific and focus on what I have actually said as opposed to what you would like to think I have said.

Your last few posts by the way highlight why reasonable people find dogmatic atheists just as insufferable as fundamentalists.

I have been repeatedly doing so for the last few pages.

Feel free to read my posts.

gbee

Sarky wrote: »

I think it highlights how reasonable people pointing out that belief is messy and hugely flawed gets other people who haven't really thought about it really upset because they don't like challenging their own positions.

Which is why I maintain that no child under 12 years of age should be brought up in any religion at all, anywhere in the world.

If you take a religion as an adult, you're not going to give a rats what the other fellow thinks, or if he make a good enough argument you'd as likely join him.

When you're innocent is taken away from you by your own parents, teachers and closest friends ~ yes, it's totally unacceptable that they would have lied to you, most people won't accept this at all, and I can't blame them, but we have to stop this senescence, it's decisive and blocking mans' evolution.