Now, hopefully, history will proceed as it usually does, and other countries won't in response take the unprecedented step of developing their own improved ways to destroy our stuff.
It is clear that you reject untestable and/or vaguely-specified supposed causal factors in assertions about human origins.
To that end, please enumerate the full set of testable scientific causal factors that lead deterministically to the particular values of random in "random mutation and natural selection". In the absence of that, please state whether you consider "random" to be a term providing a scientific causal explanation, or rather a place-holder word indicating a lack of specific causal explanation.
Could the postulated cyclic evolution of the Universe be seen as a manifestation of spontaneous symmetry breaking akin to that of a time crystal? If so, who is the observer inducing--by a measurement--the breaking of the symmetry of time?
Salome?
Jesus said, "Two will rest on a bed: the one will die, and the other will live."
Salome said, "Who are you, man, that you... have come up on my couch and eaten from my table?"
Jesus said to her, "I am he who exists from the undivided. I was given some of the things of my Father."
"I am your disciple."
"Therefore I say, if he is destroyed, he will be filled with light, but if he is divided, he will be filled with darkness."
--Thomas
Come on, you know a cat would be among the least-interesting things to have in the superposition box.
Since you're posting AC, I'll spend a minimal amount of time refuting your statement.
To be evidence, a given piece of evidence does -not- have to be evidence for one and only one explanation.
If a recently-fired gun is found at the home of a murdered person's ex-wife, matching the type of bullets used to kill him, it is evidence -both- that she may have killed him, -and- that her new boyfriend may have killed him. Stating that it could have been the other than the person charged, does -not- make it no longer evidence for each person's guilt individually.
Similarly, the entirety of physics is evidence for the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, -and- evidence for the Everett Interpretation. That the other one may ultimately be true does not alter that the rest of physics is evidence that that each, individually, is plausibly true.
This is always the case, for every context, regarding evidence, based on what "evidence" simply means, for everything. Naming another possibility does alter that evidence is indeed evidence for the thing evidenced. Such evidence was what was requested, and provided.
Either you pretty-much avoid introspection and thinking about the basic soundness of your ideas at all as a matter of habit, or you already knew this, and apply it that way with every topic other than religion, every single day. But, "intellectual hypocrisy" is a topic for another day.
"Evolution happens" (e.g. bacteria, -some of- more complex organism evolution) is a provable claim, and noncontroversial even going by what is described by, say, the bible itself regarding hybridization.
"There is evidence of human evolution" is a provable claim, and "evidence" is provably not "proof", and you yourself are denying "evolution" (as you erroneously use the term) is "proven" with your own sentence.
"The sole causal factor leading to human biology is evolution", is not provable, is not even testable, and as such is not science.
Just make up your mind as to what your claim is.
And no, there is a great deal of evidence for Judeo-Christian theism. That you aren't aware of evidence, does not mean there isn't any. To introduce a little philosophy into the discussion, you claiming that, is -impossible- to state validly as an epistemological claim (a claim of possible actual knowledge), always, for every topic. There may or may not be evidence for the Copehangen Interpretation of QM being better than the Everett Interpretation. There may or may not be someone who knows the evidence, indeed the facts, of what happened at 1 AM on the corner of Main and State street, when people heard gunshot fire. You know whether you know something. You can say whether somebody else knows or has evidence of something. You can -never- say that you know nobody has evidence of something, because that states that you have universal psychic powers to scan everyone's brain and note the absence of the evidence in everyone else on Earth's brain. It's Philosophy 101.
For the wider question of "evidence", here's something peer-reviewed to get you started.
Since I've done it a hundred times, and simply don't feel like doing it again tonight, I won't argue the endless goalpost-shifts on this as to whether it is "proof" or not. Virtually nothing in existence is "proven". You want evidence, you now have evidence. More is available for the price of a google search.
And it's had a perfectly usable, cross-platform social communication channel since 1986. We called it a "listserv".
Apparently the competitive disadvantage that caused it to fail relative to Facebook and Twitter in the marketplace, is that it was organized by topical content, rather than personal narcissism. At least, if nothing else, I've come to understand that it is narcissism that is the main driver of the internet since... somewhere around 1995.
I think the GOP just envious that the skill tree of their double life is recognized to be comparatively sparse. As I recall, it was basically like this...
Level 1: Oversized Lawn Mowing
Level 2: Summon Underpaid Lawn Mowing Minion
Level 3: Summon Cardboard Golems With -5 Intelligence and +5 Gold Detection For Dinner Party Disparaging Underpaid Lawn Mowing Minions
I pretty sure at that point they hit their level cap.
My first question on this concept would be, "Why would the hypothetical aliens expect to find a message from us to them in orbit, and look there amongst all the other orbital junk?"
Seems that the most natural thing to expect would be that one should look for informative objects where the culture lived, for which, off the top of my head, "encasement of pictures in a huge block of plexiglass, on Earth" seems more likely to actually be discovered. This seems akin to a historical human culture saying, "We want to make sure that future people know about us and what our ways were, so let's walk 500 miles away from where we live and all our buildings are, and put some paintings up in the mountains."
It doesn't mean that I'm calculating the vibration of every atom in every fleck of paint on every vehicle on the roads.
Yes, it does. That's what "entire" means.
I can code up a simulation of a "subset of the universe" in an hour, and run it on my desk PC. It would not be notable, and would not make it to a Slashdot headline. What we have in reality is something between the two cases, which I have suggested is overstated, for at minimum the reason given.
...astronomers are turning to supercomputers that can simulate the entire evolution of the universe.
I'm thinking the intent here is to mean this qualified "up to a certain point in time", as I'm pretty sure that to say this as a general, even theoretical, possibility is a Godelian-type logical impossibility. Since the supercomputers would be part of the universe you are simulating, you have to simulate the simulation of the supercomputer, which requires simulating the simulation of the computer simulating the computer... ad infinitum.
But then again, I may be wrong. Best simulate my thought processes to be sure.
... and de-evolve society into their way of thinking.
I wouldn't be so pedantic here if it wasn't the topical "partisan" thing to do here, prompted by the parenthetical list just before this in your sentence, but...
There is no such thing as "de-evolve" in evolution per se. Evolution in itself has no teleology, no "goal" or relative point toward that supposed goal. There is no "more evolved" or "less evolved"--for that, you'd need a supporting metaphysical context in which "de-evolve" could make sense, which could be found among the worldviews your parenthetical dismisses.
Though I've moved... not "up", really, but more "over" to Ubuntu, you're the source of many fond memories.
Here's to hopefully many more fine releases to come. And, to be clear, I switched to another distro about the same time Patrick announced his intended "retirement", so it wasn't due to a lack of well-earned loyalty...
When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images that came into existence before you, which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!
It would help more for the so-called "Religious Right" to read what Jesus actually said about money and one's neighbor, and stop letting the Military-Industrial Complex run amok under its own financial inertia.
Knowing the posting history of the general Digg (and for that matter Slashdot) community, I can't even visualize the scale of sheer horror that the top front-page story there (as of now)... is about Jesus.;)
Yes, this is indeed tedious. So I'll respond once more, and be done, and then wait and automatically win in every possible practical sense, whether this outcome is evaluated by your worldview or mine.
I didn't "wave my hand", I asked where they were specified, to which you waved your hand.
It was a totally-irrelevant red-herring on your part, and unnecessary for the point at hand. Even a single one of the ones "cherry picked" or of the 2500, is sufficient in itself to counter your claim. I have to assume you already understood enough about necessary and sufficient conditions to know this, before you suggested otherwise.
When we do experiments the particles follow a random distribution, which can be predicted in advance.
No, the very definition of randomness that the specific outcome cannot be predicted in advance. You can wrap this conceptually in a broad self-evident statement, equivalent to "we can predict as an outcome that 100% of the time there will be an outcome", but this does not address the question. That we observe by default a given distribution of that randomness, does not mean the causality is specifiable, nor that the effects are not manipulable--as we are beginning to do with the basic notion of quantum computation--certainly, even at our basic level of utilizing it, the quantum behavior has macro effects (e.g. all the results to the world of actions proceeding from the computation). You stipulate a further range of utilization is not possible because... you say so, and without any further basis. This does not enhance your refusal to agree random means random, and that things that are possible (indeed, -certain- given time) are, because they are directly possible, therefore impossible. Nor does it enhance your overall misdirection of the probability of a given event occurring to be representative of the likelihood a worldview is correct that states the improbable events occur. Purely referencing science alone, it may be highly improbable given event will occur, though it is -100% certain- it is true we live in a context of reality where highly improbable things occur. Just stop dodging here. You're only confusing yourself.
Except there is no reliable way to distinguish between "correct" dogma and incorrect dogma that gets relabeled as allegory or otherwise re-interpreted to fit the facts.
If my interpretation does not correspond to scientific understanding, you complain. If it does correspond to scientific understanding, you complain. What exactly do you want?
Which is a blatant lie. You just don't like the argument because you see the world through Bible-prism glasses.
I don't like the argument because it doesn't work. Okay, if you prefer, I assert you haven't made a good argument--you have indeed provided -an- argument per se.
Yet that's essentially what you are re-interpreting Genesis as. The plain facts of what God did and when are listed, then you claim what was explicitly described in a precise ordering was not intended to be described in a precise ordering. By referring to Animal Farm and allegories, how is this any different from mythology?
Wait, this is or is not what God did? Are you stipulating that your interpretation corresponds to reality, or does not correspond to reality? You are assuming that the information conveyance proposed by Genesis is -intended to be- the information of a specific ordering. This is your assertion, and it is highly-debatable within the context of theism itself, not for the least reason that this cannot be the expectation based on the content of the book--it would, on the face of it, be internally inconsistent on a basic level given the accounts of those seven days, taken on the literal, specific level you are taking it. For instance, we have animals being described as created on multiple days. It is, indeed, -possible- that the entire history of Judaism missed multiple contradictions, a few paragraphs apart, in one of
It's not a goalpost shift to refute what you stated. In comparing the believability of the Biblical god versus Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, you made a reference to a survey regarding "eyewitness reports". The survey says nothing about eyewitness reports for the Biblical god.
It gives specific numbers and percentages of those experiencing events specifically called for by a theistic metaphysics. It's Table 2. I thought you were arguing with the standard infinite-regress that those experiences "aren't specifically Christian enough", as if that were necessary to serve as evidence relative to Santa. If your claim is it isn't there at all, simply read Table 2. And yes, this is "eyewitness accounts", and the fact they are dead (or apparently so) at the time only adds to its value as relevant evidence. That they are eyewitnesses is a given by the fact they are reporting the experiences, personally.
The Biblical god is a specific creation myth. Having a near-death experience that hints at something beyond this mortal coil can be evidence for any supernatural explanation of our origins, like, for example, Buddhism.
What is this, refutation-by-asserted-category? Okay, all your stances are merely postmodern atheism, which has been extensively refuted and is merely a function of moral relativism. There, I categorized your stance--no need to actually provide substantiating argument, correct?
If you're going to link to "evidence", then I'm going to critique it, especially when it makes ridiculously strong claims.
Then do so, and critique it. Waving your hand at a sentence that says there are more, and your stance is likely even worse than explicitly addressed by the link, as if that addressed any point, does nothing. To critique it, you'd need to actually challenge a given claim--of which, we can toss out the majority listed a priori and it still destroys your notion of equivalence between theism and Santa, as previously stated.
If you want me to concede that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy is less likely to be true then the Biblical god, I will be happy to do so, as the lie is revealed and rational, grown adults don't believe in them.
Except, as a matter of basic fact, adults factually do believe in them. You have no better argument here than just stating directly, obviously-false characterizations? Again, refer to the list if you need evidence adults do, and indeed adult scientists far more knowledgable on the subject than you.
If that's what you say presents a scientific and rational justification for a belief in a Biblical god, then I will look at it. However, I don't want to spend time looking at it and then having you say he didn't address the issues, and there is another paper elsewhere that does.
Don't worry about it. This thread will be quite over, and judging your degree of motivation, you'll be well along toward the point of you getting naturally deselected by then--at which point you and this discussion will be irrelevant.
Quantum probability is centered around Planck's constant, an incredibly tiny value. The more mass and energy you put into equations, the more improbable that something that violates classical physics occurs.
This does not address the question. Once again, if I wish to say a given event -can- or -cannot- happen, tell me the specific causal steps that determine that for the proposed event and context. I'm not contending the event isn't improbable. I'm contending you cannot specify the all the causal factors involved--which is true by definition, because if you could, QM would be fully deterministic by reference to those causal factors, which it is not.
I'm not going to pretend I know much beyond those generalities, but then again I highly doubt you do either, and I doubt you even know that much. You're just appealing to it as a magic box to lend credibility to the incredulous, where anything can happen. The New Age mystics have la
You cite a survey of near-death experiences that in no way whatsoever quantifies eyewitness reports of the Biblical god or Jesus.
Ah, nice goalpost shift, but I'm under no illusions you will not reduce the scope of what would correspond to theistic metaphysics to whatever degree is necessary to exclude it. Referring to your original statement, though, note the degree to which the experiences described in the second table correspond better or worse to the test results (i.e. effects of death) predicted by proposing Santa or the Tooth girl.
Ok, so where is this list of approximately 2000/2500?
Somewhere entirely unnecessary for it to be to refute your statement. What is given is sufficient to do so, and many, many other examples are available for the cost of googling. Goalpost shift #2.
Also, there's a Wikipedia page on prophecies, and you can see plenty of questionable accuracy with the usual variation of apologists who take different tacks to explain them.
Goalpost shift #3. Are you acknowledging that theism is considerably more plausible than Santa, or not?
It's no different than if I said rational and scientific people don't believe in Zeus or any number of primitive mythologies.
Correct that it is no different--and your argument would be fallacious in that case as well. Zeus is in fact not true, but that has nothing to do with its origins as a belief or its age, or your characterization as (untrue) "mythology". Additionally, it would be literally factually wrong as a statement, though not as easily-refutable as I did earlier for Christianity's case. I assure you there is at least one scientist in existence that believes in Roman polytheism.
It's not a fallacy to note that many primitive beliefs have been dispelled with our advancements in science and reason.
True, it's just fallacious to say that this is relevant or determinative. Look, I'm not failing to credit you with not taking the time to obscure your fallacies with carefully-constructed language. I only questioned where this language comes from, as it seems a direct parroting of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. How old does a given position need to be before I can determine from that it is not true? Can you give me an expiration date on true concepts? That'd be very handy to have.
Try naming the paper that critically looks at the issue as I asked. It's not my responsibility to uphold your side of the argument.
Again, under no illusions you'll conclude anything suggested insufficient or otherwise unsuitable without even reading it. Though, any of the references would be suitable as a point of dicussion, say, Freeman Dyson's Infinite In All Directions, as a work of a theoretical physicist encompassing his presentations given as part of the Gifford Lectures, which have as their subject matter specifically what you are asking for.
You seem to be having difficulty with the basic fact that there is no problem with events described by theism in hard physics. On this, I see no reason to make all these digressions. You are simply wrong on the science per the science.
So, okay, since we're talking about quantum probability, please give me the specific causal factors leading to the particular values of random we observe. Preferably, weight the different causal factors in a scientific sense, such that we know the steps leading deterministically to the particular values of random.
Yes, I know what I'm asking for there, and feel free to conclude the question is not something resolvable or even addressable within the context of "random". Then we can move on to the notion that "random" isn't a causal explanation, it is, in fact, a placeholder-word for a lack of causal explanation. Lacking causal explanation, you believe that this cannot be a hard physics-based mechanism for miracles, -for no reason whatsoever-, as neither you nor science in general can say anything about the causality at tha
Slashdot Mirror
New-and-improved ways to destroy stuff!
Now, hopefully, history will proceed as it usually does, and other countries won't in response take the unprecedented step of developing their own improved ways to destroy our stuff.
Live by the sword... well, you know the rest.
And its almost as far back as when the first variant of this joke was told on Slashdot.
It is clear that you reject untestable and/or vaguely-specified supposed causal factors in assertions about human origins.
To that end, please enumerate the full set of testable scientific causal factors that lead deterministically to the particular values of random in "random mutation and natural selection". In the absence of that, please state whether you consider "random" to be a term providing a scientific causal explanation, or rather a place-holder word indicating a lack of specific causal explanation.
Could the postulated cyclic evolution of the Universe be seen as a manifestation of spontaneous symmetry breaking akin to that of a time crystal? If so, who is the observer inducing--by a measurement--the breaking of the symmetry of time?
... have come up on my couch and eaten from my table?"
Salome?
Jesus said, "Two will rest on a bed: the one will die, and the other will live."
Salome said, "Who are you, man, that you
Jesus said to her, "I am he who exists from the undivided. I was given some of the things of my Father."
"I am your disciple."
"Therefore I say, if he is destroyed, he will be filled with light, but if he is divided, he will be filled with darkness."
--Thomas
Come on, you know a cat would be among the least-interesting things to have in the superposition box.
Since you're posting AC, I'll spend a minimal amount of time refuting your statement.
To be evidence, a given piece of evidence does -not- have to be evidence for one and only one explanation.
If a recently-fired gun is found at the home of a murdered person's ex-wife, matching the type of bullets used to kill him, it is evidence -both- that she may have killed him, -and- that her new boyfriend may have killed him. Stating that it could have been the other than the person charged, does -not- make it no longer evidence for each person's guilt individually.
Similarly, the entirety of physics is evidence for the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, -and- evidence for the Everett Interpretation. That the other one may ultimately be true does not alter that the rest of physics is evidence that that each, individually, is plausibly true.
This is always the case, for every context, regarding evidence, based on what "evidence" simply means, for everything. Naming another possibility does alter that evidence is indeed evidence for the thing evidenced. Such evidence was what was requested, and provided.
Either you pretty-much avoid introspection and thinking about the basic soundness of your ideas at all as a matter of habit, or you already knew this, and apply it that way with every topic other than religion, every single day. But, "intellectual hypocrisy" is a topic for another day.
"Evolution happens" (e.g. bacteria, -some of- more complex organism evolution) is a provable claim, and noncontroversial even going by what is described by, say, the bible itself regarding hybridization.
"There is evidence of human evolution" is a provable claim, and "evidence" is provably not "proof", and you yourself are denying "evolution" (as you erroneously use the term) is "proven" with your own sentence.
"The sole causal factor leading to human biology is evolution", is not provable, is not even testable, and as such is not science.
Just make up your mind as to what your claim is.
And no, there is a great deal of evidence for Judeo-Christian theism. That you aren't aware of evidence, does not mean there isn't any. To introduce a little philosophy into the discussion, you claiming that, is -impossible- to state validly as an epistemological claim (a claim of possible actual knowledge), always, for every topic. There may or may not be evidence for the Copehangen Interpretation of QM being better than the Everett Interpretation. There may or may not be someone who knows the evidence, indeed the facts, of what happened at 1 AM on the corner of Main and State street, when people heard gunshot fire. You know whether you know something. You can say whether somebody else knows or has evidence of something. You can -never- say that you know nobody has evidence of something, because that states that you have universal psychic powers to scan everyone's brain and note the absence of the evidence in everyone else on Earth's brain. It's Philosophy 101.
For the wider question of "evidence", here's something peer-reviewed to get you started.
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
Since I've done it a hundred times, and simply don't feel like doing it again tonight, I won't argue the endless goalpost-shifts on this as to whether it is "proof" or not. Virtually nothing in existence is "proven". You want evidence, you now have evidence. More is available for the price of a google search.
I think, "evolution happens", does not logically lead to the conclusions you wish it did.
And it's had a perfectly usable, cross-platform social communication channel since 1986. We called it a "listserv".
Apparently the competitive disadvantage that caused it to fail relative to Facebook and Twitter in the marketplace, is that it was organized by topical content, rather than personal narcissism. At least, if nothing else, I've come to understand that it is narcissism that is the main driver of the internet since... somewhere around 1995.
I think the GOP just envious that the skill tree of their double life is recognized to be comparatively sparse. As I recall, it was basically like this...
Level 1: Oversized Lawn Mowing
Level 2: Summon Underpaid Lawn Mowing Minion
Level 3: Summon Cardboard Golems With -5 Intelligence and +5 Gold Detection For Dinner Party Disparaging Underpaid Lawn Mowing Minions
I pretty sure at that point they hit their level cap.
My first question on this concept would be, "Why would the hypothetical aliens expect to find a message from us to them in orbit, and look there amongst all the other orbital junk?"
Seems that the most natural thing to expect would be that one should look for informative objects where the culture lived, for which, off the top of my head, "encasement of pictures in a huge block of plexiglass, on Earth" seems more likely to actually be discovered. This seems akin to a historical human culture saying, "We want to make sure that future people know about us and what our ways were, so let's walk 500 miles away from where we live and all our buildings are, and put some paintings up in the mountains."
I'm betting I could find some Spyglass code still in there somewhere. ;)
It was news to me. ;)
If you managed to find a browser to post that complaint, that doesn't contain code he was involved with in one way or another, consider me impressed.
It doesn't mean that I'm calculating the vibration of every atom in every fleck of paint on every vehicle on the roads.
Yes, it does. That's what "entire" means.
I can code up a simulation of a "subset of the universe" in an hour, and run it on my desk PC. It would not be notable, and would not make it to a Slashdot headline. What we have in reality is something between the two cases, which I have suggested is overstated, for at minimum the reason given.
Indeed. And without the qualifier "entire", I wouldn't have commented. That suggests complete algorithmic, rather than heuristic, simulation.
Good question. What part of the relative timestamps of that post and mine don't you understand?
...astronomers are turning to supercomputers that can simulate the entire evolution of the universe.
I'm thinking the intent here is to mean this qualified "up to a certain point in time", as I'm pretty sure that to say this as a general, even theoretical, possibility is a Godelian-type logical impossibility. Since the supercomputers would be part of the universe you are simulating, you have to simulate the simulation of the supercomputer, which requires simulating the simulation of the computer simulating the computer... ad infinitum.
But then again, I may be wrong. Best simulate my thought processes to be sure.
... and de-evolve society into their way of thinking.
I wouldn't be so pedantic here if it wasn't the topical "partisan" thing to do here, prompted by the parenthetical list just before this in your sentence, but...
There is no such thing as "de-evolve" in evolution per se. Evolution in itself has no teleology, no "goal" or relative point toward that supposed goal. There is no "more evolved" or "less evolved"--for that, you'd need a supporting metaphysical context in which "de-evolve" could make sense, which could be found among the worldviews your parenthetical dismisses.
Can I still use my "boot" and "root" floppies...?
Though I've moved... not "up", really, but more "over" to Ubuntu, you're the source of many fond memories.
Here's to hopefully many more fine releases to come. And, to be clear, I switched to another distro about the same time Patrick announced his intended "retirement", so it wasn't due to a lack of well-earned loyalty...
When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images that came into existence before you, which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!
--Darwin
Oh wait...
You just need to know who to ask...
Though, if you were actually going for a +5 Funny... well played, sir.
It would help more for the so-called "Religious Right" to read what Jesus actually said about money and one's neighbor, and stop letting the Military-Industrial Complex run amok under its own financial inertia.
Knowing the posting history of the general Digg (and for that matter Slashdot) community, I can't even visualize the scale of sheer horror that the top front-page story there (as of now)... is about Jesus. ;)
Yes, this is indeed tedious. So I'll respond once more, and be done, and then wait and automatically win in every possible practical sense, whether this outcome is evaluated by your worldview or mine.
I didn't "wave my hand", I asked where they were specified, to which you waved your hand.
It was a totally-irrelevant red-herring on your part, and unnecessary for the point at hand. Even a single one of the ones "cherry picked" or of the 2500, is sufficient in itself to counter your claim. I have to assume you already understood enough about necessary and sufficient conditions to know this, before you suggested otherwise.
When we do experiments the particles follow a random distribution, which can be predicted in advance.
No, the very definition of randomness that the specific outcome cannot be predicted in advance. You can wrap this conceptually in a broad self-evident statement, equivalent to "we can predict as an outcome that 100% of the time there will be an outcome", but this does not address the question. That we observe by default a given distribution of that randomness, does not mean the causality is specifiable, nor that the effects are not manipulable--as we are beginning to do with the basic notion of quantum computation--certainly, even at our basic level of utilizing it, the quantum behavior has macro effects (e.g. all the results to the world of actions proceeding from the computation). You stipulate a further range of utilization is not possible because... you say so, and without any further basis. This does not enhance your refusal to agree random means random, and that things that are possible (indeed, -certain- given time) are, because they are directly possible, therefore impossible. Nor does it enhance your overall misdirection of the probability of a given event occurring to be representative of the likelihood a worldview is correct that states the improbable events occur. Purely referencing science alone, it may be highly improbable given event will occur, though it is -100% certain- it is true we live in a context of reality where highly improbable things occur. Just stop dodging here. You're only confusing yourself.
Except there is no reliable way to distinguish between "correct" dogma and incorrect dogma that gets relabeled as allegory or otherwise re-interpreted to fit the facts.
If my interpretation does not correspond to scientific understanding, you complain. If it does correspond to scientific understanding, you complain. What exactly do you want?
Which is a blatant lie. You just don't like the argument because you see the world through Bible-prism glasses.
I don't like the argument because it doesn't work. Okay, if you prefer, I assert you haven't made a good argument--you have indeed provided -an- argument per se.
Yet that's essentially what you are re-interpreting Genesis as. The plain facts of what God did and when are listed, then you claim what was explicitly described in a precise ordering was not intended to be described in a precise ordering. By referring to Animal Farm and allegories, how is this any different from mythology?
Wait, this is or is not what God did? Are you stipulating that your interpretation corresponds to reality, or does not correspond to reality? You are assuming that the information conveyance proposed by Genesis is -intended to be- the information of a specific ordering. This is your assertion, and it is highly-debatable within the context of theism itself, not for the least reason that this cannot be the expectation based on the content of the book--it would, on the face of it, be internally inconsistent on a basic level given the accounts of those seven days, taken on the literal, specific level you are taking it. For instance, we have animals being described as created on multiple days. It is, indeed, -possible- that the entire history of Judaism missed multiple contradictions, a few paragraphs apart, in one of
It's not a goalpost shift to refute what you stated. In comparing the believability of the Biblical god versus Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, you made a reference to a survey regarding "eyewitness reports". The survey says nothing about eyewitness reports for the Biblical god.
It gives specific numbers and percentages of those experiencing events specifically called for by a theistic metaphysics. It's Table 2. I thought you were arguing with the standard infinite-regress that those experiences "aren't specifically Christian enough", as if that were necessary to serve as evidence relative to Santa. If your claim is it isn't there at all, simply read Table 2. And yes, this is "eyewitness accounts", and the fact they are dead (or apparently so) at the time only adds to its value as relevant evidence. That they are eyewitnesses is a given by the fact they are reporting the experiences, personally.
The Biblical god is a specific creation myth. Having a near-death experience that hints at something beyond this mortal coil can be evidence for any supernatural explanation of our origins, like, for example, Buddhism.
What is this, refutation-by-asserted-category? Okay, all your stances are merely postmodern atheism, which has been extensively refuted and is merely a function of moral relativism. There, I categorized your stance--no need to actually provide substantiating argument, correct?
If you're going to link to "evidence", then I'm going to critique it, especially when it makes ridiculously strong claims.
Then do so, and critique it. Waving your hand at a sentence that says there are more, and your stance is likely even worse than explicitly addressed by the link, as if that addressed any point, does nothing. To critique it, you'd need to actually challenge a given claim--of which, we can toss out the majority listed a priori and it still destroys your notion of equivalence between theism and Santa, as previously stated.
If you want me to concede that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy is less likely to be true then the Biblical god, I will be happy to do so, as the lie is revealed and rational, grown adults don't believe in them.
Except, as a matter of basic fact, adults factually do believe in them. You have no better argument here than just stating directly, obviously-false characterizations? Again, refer to the list if you need evidence adults do, and indeed adult scientists far more knowledgable on the subject than you.
If that's what you say presents a scientific and rational justification for a belief in a Biblical god, then I will look at it. However, I don't want to spend time looking at it and then having you say he didn't address the issues, and there is another paper elsewhere that does.
Don't worry about it. This thread will be quite over, and judging your degree of motivation, you'll be well along toward the point of you getting naturally deselected by then--at which point you and this discussion will be irrelevant.
Quantum probability is centered around Planck's constant, an incredibly tiny value. The more mass and energy you put into equations, the more improbable that something that violates classical physics occurs.
This does not address the question. Once again, if I wish to say a given event -can- or -cannot- happen, tell me the specific causal steps that determine that for the proposed event and context. I'm not contending the event isn't improbable. I'm contending you cannot specify the all the causal factors involved--which is true by definition, because if you could, QM would be fully deterministic by reference to those causal factors, which it is not.
I'm not going to pretend I know much beyond those generalities, but then again I highly doubt you do either, and I doubt you even know that much. You're just appealing to it as a magic box to lend credibility to the incredulous, where anything can happen. The New Age mystics have la
You cite a survey of near-death experiences that in no way whatsoever quantifies eyewitness reports of the Biblical god or Jesus.
Ah, nice goalpost shift, but I'm under no illusions you will not reduce the scope of what would correspond to theistic metaphysics to whatever degree is necessary to exclude it. Referring to your original statement, though, note the degree to which the experiences described in the second table correspond better or worse to the test results (i.e. effects of death) predicted by proposing Santa or the Tooth girl.
Ok, so where is this list of approximately 2000/2500?
Somewhere entirely unnecessary for it to be to refute your statement. What is given is sufficient to do so, and many, many other examples are available for the cost of googling. Goalpost shift #2.
Also, there's a Wikipedia page on prophecies, and you can see plenty of questionable accuracy with the usual variation of apologists who take different tacks to explain them.
Goalpost shift #3. Are you acknowledging that theism is considerably more plausible than Santa, or not?
It's no different than if I said rational and scientific people don't believe in Zeus or any number of primitive mythologies.
Correct that it is no different--and your argument would be fallacious in that case as well. Zeus is in fact not true, but that has nothing to do with its origins as a belief or its age, or your characterization as (untrue) "mythology". Additionally, it would be literally factually wrong as a statement, though not as easily-refutable as I did earlier for Christianity's case. I assure you there is at least one scientist in existence that believes in Roman polytheism.
It's not a fallacy to note that many primitive beliefs have been dispelled with our advancements in science and reason.
True, it's just fallacious to say that this is relevant or determinative. Look, I'm not failing to credit you with not taking the time to obscure your fallacies with carefully-constructed language. I only questioned where this language comes from, as it seems a direct parroting of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. How old does a given position need to be before I can determine from that it is not true? Can you give me an expiration date on true concepts? That'd be very handy to have.
Try naming the paper that critically looks at the issue as I asked. It's not my responsibility to uphold your side of the argument.
Again, under no illusions you'll conclude anything suggested insufficient or otherwise unsuitable without even reading it. Though, any of the references would be suitable as a point of dicussion, say, Freeman Dyson's Infinite In All Directions, as a work of a theoretical physicist encompassing his presentations given as part of the Gifford Lectures, which have as their subject matter specifically what you are asking for.
You seem to be having difficulty with the basic fact that there is no problem with events described by theism in hard physics. On this, I see no reason to make all these digressions. You are simply wrong on the science per the science.
So, okay, since we're talking about quantum probability, please give me the specific causal factors leading to the particular values of random we observe. Preferably, weight the different causal factors in a scientific sense, such that we know the steps leading deterministically to the particular values of random.
Yes, I know what I'm asking for there, and feel free to conclude the question is not something resolvable or even addressable within the context of "random". Then we can move on to the notion that "random" isn't a causal explanation, it is, in fact, a placeholder-word for a lack of causal explanation. Lacking causal explanation, you believe that this cannot be a hard physics-based mechanism for miracles, -for no reason whatsoever-, as neither you nor science in general can say anything about the causality at tha