Is God's existence necessary?

[Thief]

You are just arguing for arguments sake.
Rather difficult to take you seriously at this point.

So I am using you to relieve boredom.
you have been most cooperative.
Thank you.

look who's arguing for argument's sake....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are just arguing for arguments sake.
Rather difficult to take you seriously at this point.

So I am using you to relieve boredom.
you have been most cooperative.
Thank you.

It has hardly been an argument...rather a matter of revealing to you the error of your thinking regards the state of play of dark energy reality...

 

[prometheus11]

So do you now agree that dark energy can't be measured because it is not detectable directly....the only measurements done are those of things we can measure that serve as evidence that dark energy exists?

I have always said that gravity and dark energy are measured by their effects on matter. That's how we know they are there, and that's why we named them.

As far as your inability to understand the difference between a circle and a line.... I have no idea.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have always said that gravity and dark energy are measured by their effects on matter. That's how we know they are there, and that's why we named them.

As far as your inability to understand the difference between a circle and a line.... I have no idea.

Haha....now you know I am a humble, gracious, and sensitive soul...I would not rub it in if you were to admit to me that you were at first believing that dark energy itself was being measured....trust me...I promise, after all....to err is human...

 

[prometheus11]

Haha....now you know I am a humble, gracious, and sensitive soul...I would not rub it in if you were to admit to me that you were at first believing that dark energy itself was being measured....trust me...I promise, after all....to err is human...

You're going to "rub it in" that I have been honest, consistent, and right for fifty pages?

Go for it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You're going to "rub it in" that I have been honest, consistent, and right for fifty pages?

Go for it.

Well if that is right......how come you didn't agree with me from the beginning that dark energy can not be measured directly....I don't remember you telling me that?...lol

 

[prometheus11]

Well if that is right......how come you didn't agree with me from the beginning that dark energy can not be measured directly....I don't remember you telling me that?...lol

I explained that gravity and dark energy are both directly observed by measurements in reality...the way matter moves.

We're back at the start.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I explained that gravity and dark energy are both directly observed by measurements in reality...the way matter moves.

We're back at the start.

That's because you are not able to bring yourself to admit you were wrong......if I am ever wrong, I show you how it's done...

 

[prometheus11]

You just did.

 

[KBC1963]

Science infers that the instinct for survival evolved for the same reason that science infers that Pluto orbits the sun although science has not directly observed the repetition of either event. Because we don't know of any factors affecting biological development other than the evolutionary process, and we observe evolution hourly in thousands of labs across the globe each day, and because survivability is at the core of evolution, there is no other "place" for the survival instinct to come from.
My guess is that there are many many more data points indicating that survival instinct evolved than data points indicating that Pluto orbits the sun. I happen to know an evolutionary biologist, so I will try to confirm that suspicion, but the holidays might stand in our way. Shall I attempt to contact her on this matter?

Lol.
So you "believe" that science is able to mathematically confirm that survival evolved based on the same type of mathematical observations of Pluto. Ok could you show me the math and the observational evidence it is derived from?

Scientists may have a desire to tie all things to the evolutionary concept but if a scientist wants to retain a contiguous methodology to provide backing for a concept then it must follow all the steps defined by the scientific method otherwise they will leave the scientific realm and enter the twilight zone. A funny point about your reference to evolution being observed hourly is evident here. Evolution as redefined hourly by its proponents is asserted to simply be change over time right? tell me then how has any animals instinct been observed to have changed at any time? One of the most observable points about instinct is its adherence to remaining static and virtually unchanging for as long as observations have been recorded. If as you "believe" that instinct evolved then why don't we see evidence of this ongoing process of change during our recorded observations?
Now as for data points indicating something can you provide 'any' data points (any at all) derived from a scientifically repeatable experiment that backs the concept of instinct evolving?
Here is one more thing you should be able to answer if science is the foundation of your world view... What are the mechanics for the gaining and retaining of an instinct? You see one of the many things endearing to me about scientific inquiry is that it is used to define how things work. So, if instinct evolved then it should be a simple thing to define the mechanics of the process.

 

[KBC1963]

That's because you are not able to bring yourself to admit you were wrong......if I am ever wrong, I show you how it's done...

Its amazing how many try to use science as a shield for their world view but when called upon to provide the science based evidence that should be repeatable by anyone it just seems to evaporate into nothingness.

 

[prometheus11]

Its amazing how many try to use science as a shield for their world view but when called upon to provide the science based evidence that should be repeatable by anyone it just seems to evaporate into nothingness.

I'm not using science as a shield; I'm simply explaining what science states. Just because some people think it says something doesn't mean that it does.

 

[KBC1963]

I explained that gravity and dark energy are both directly observed by measurements in reality...the way matter moves.

Gravity is not and cannot be directly observed. Gravity is inferred indirectly based on the effects of an unseen cause being observed. Dark matter is a term used to describe an unknown cause that appears to have an effect not explainable by any naturally defined force known. However, the act of simply giving a name to a currently unknown cause does not make it scientific unless you can perform repeatable experiments to back the observations. We can currently test gravity and mathematically define how the effect works on matter but so far we have no defined repeatable test for dark matter thus, you have essentially zero scientific backing.

 

[KBC1963]

I'm not using science as a shield; I'm simply explaining what science states. Just because some people think it says something doesn't mean that it does.

then provide the scientifically repeatable test to back your assertions or stop making assertions that have not been backed by the scientific method. pretty simple don't ya think?

 

[ArtieE]

then provide the scientifically repeatable test to back your assertions or stop making assertions that have not been backed by the scientific method. pretty simple don't ya think?

Is it the theory of evolution in general you have a problem with or is it just instincts? Suppose we say that everything evolved including the wiring in the brain except for instincts which were put there by some god? Would that sound logical to you?

 

[prometheus11]

Lol.
So you "believe" that science is able to mathematically confirm that survival evolved based on the same type of mathematical observations of Pluto. Ok could you show me the math and the observational evidence it is derived from?

No, science doesn't "mathematically confirm" anything. So, I can show you what science doesn't go. I might be able to show you what science does do, depending on what you are asking about.

Scientists may have a desire to tie all things to the evolutionary concept but if a scientist wants to retain a contiguous methodology to provide backing for a concept then it must follow all the steps defined by the scientific method otherwise they will leave the scientific realm and enter the twilight zone. A funny point about your reference to evolution being observed hourly is evident here. Evolution as redefined hourly by its proponents is asserted to simply be change over time right?

No, evolution is not "redefined hourly". Evolution is better defined and understood when new data/processes are observed. An orbit around the sun is INFERRED by Pluto s motion and the motions of other planets orbiting the sun. Likewise, propositions in evolution are inferred by processes that are observed in other areas of evolution.

tell me then how has any animals instinct been observed to have changed at any time? One of the most observable points about instinct is its adherence to remaining static and virtually unchanging for as long as observations have been recorded. If as you "believe" that instinct evolved then why don't we see evidence of this ongoing process of change during our recorded observations?

Species show changes at different rates. Survival instinct is different and "stronger" or "weaker" in different species. We do see changes in survival instincts of evolving organisms. For example, a subsequent generation develops a faster response to pain, and moves away from harm faster than the previous generation. The individuals with the faster response to pain survive at a greater rate and pas on their genes at a greater rate.

Now as for data points indicating something can you provide 'any' data points (any at all) derived from a scientifically repeatable experiment that backs the concept of instinct evolving?

That's not even a question. Try again?

Data points are measurements that either align to the hypothesis or don't. There are a few gazillion for survival instinct and a few hundred for Pluto orbiting the sun.

Here is one more thing you should be able to answer if science is the foundation of your world view...

Science is not "the foundation for my worldview." I don't know why anyone would use science for a worldview.

What are the mechanics for the gaining and retaining of an instinct? You see one of the many things endearing to me about scientific inquiry is that it is used to define how things work. So, if instinct evolved then it should be a simple thing to define the mechanics of the process.

The "mechanics" for gaining and retaining instinct are the exact same "mechanics" for any other evolutionary trait: survivability. Genes and properties that allow a better chance of passing on genes and properties are retained due to the animal surviving instead of dying.

You don't seem to understand much about evolution. You sound like someone saying that they don't believe in math because they don't see four-foot-long numerals flying down the highways and colliding when you add numbers together on a piece of paper.

Why disagree with something you don't understand?

 

[prometheus11]

then provide the scientifically repeatable test to back your assertions or stop making assertions that have not been backed by the scientific method. pretty simple don't ya think?

No. I don't think it's simple. If you do, then you don't understand much about evolution at all. Evolutionary processes are very complex.

Do you also walk up to mathematicians and demand that they explain the Poincaré conjecture. Then when they do, you complain that because it's taking too long and you don't understand it that it's ridiculous?

 

[KBC1963]

No. I don't think it's simple. If you do, then you don't understand much about evolution at all. Evolutionary processes are very complex. Do you also walk up to mathematicians and demand that they explain the Poincaré conjecture. Then when they do, you complain that because it's taking too long and you don't understand it that it's ridiculous?

So what you are saying here is that you don't have scientific backing that I asked for to back your assertion but you would like to infer that I should not require such a reference because such assumed "evolutionary processes are very complex" The truth here is that if someone asks you for the evidence to back your conjecture it shouldn't matter whether they complain about how its delivered as long as you are capable of actually making the delivery.
So for this conversation you obviously have no evidence to provide but still wish for people to believe what you believe because you think that by playing the complexity card for your rationale there is no longer a need for scientific backing.

Welcome to religion.

Show me God!

I don't need to show him to you because he is too complex for you to comprehend. Just believe me when I tell you that that he exists

lol

 

[prometheus11]

So what you are saying here is that you don't have scientific backing that I asked for to back your assertion but you would like to infer that I should not require such a reference because such assumed "evolutionary processes are very complex" The truth here is that if someone asks you for the evidence to back your conjecture it shouldn't matter whether they complain about how its delivered as long as you are capable of actually making the delivery.

No. I'm not saying any of that. I am saying that you are welcome to become an evolutionary biologist and follow the rules of science and prove that survival instinct came from somewhere outside evolution. I don't think there's a method to accomplish that since evolution has been proven in so many other surrounding aspects, but I do hope you will accept your own challenge.

So for this conversation you obviously have no evidence to provide but still wish for people to believe what you believe because you think that by playing the complexity card for your rationale there is no longer a need for scientific backing.

No, I don't care if people believe me. I am answering the questions accurately and explaining what science currently states. Complexity only speaks to the ability to transfer information to another person. I cannot explain many of the details of evolution to you for the same reason that I cannot teach calculus to someone who doesn't understand basic algebra and geometry.

Welcome to religion.

No. I don't have any spiritual beliefs.

Show me God.

How? I don't know how to show something that hasn't been detected.

I don't need to show him to you because he is too complex for you to comprehend. Just believe me when I tell you that that he exists

I have no idea if God is simple or complex. I'd have to have something detect to make that determination.

 

[CATSISS]

You are in no position to lecture about conceit. Go and burn some witches.

Or maybe you would rather tie Saint Dawkins to a stake and make him a martyr?!

Oh cmon that guy is just rambling about something he doesnt even have a clue about,god? Meh another man made figure to comfort themselves or sometimes to control people like isis.