Science IS religion

[Dan From Smithville]

This is massive projection and a bit of a personal attack.

Tell me, why are you afraid to even discuss the topic of evidence? The guilty run when no one is chasing them.

And guilty creationists run in circles.

 

[dad]

I can explain...

But you do not. We wait.

 

[dad]

This sounds like the magical stories you would tell children before bed. What makes your claims more relevant than any scientific claim? Why do you feel MORE confident in the truth of your mystical claims, because science can't explain them? Why do you think that the convergence of objective, verifiable evidence, facts and data, from all related multidisciplinary fields of study, all support the principles of the Theory of Evolution. Do you think that the thousands of scientists working in these disciplines, are all wrong, and you are right? Or is this just an example of blind, and close-minded ignorance? We have more evidence of certainty for Evolution, than we do for Gravity. Do you think the study of Gravity is pseudoscience? Do you really believe this nonsense literally, or are you speaking metaphorically?

Unless you are a God, you don't have a clue about the nature of God. You don't have a clue if heaven or hell exists. You don't have a clue if anything written in scripture is true, or false. You also can't provide any examples of the difference between a "God thing", and a natural thing. Just one nonsense claim after another.

As much as you seem truly confused, this is not really a thread to air general gripes with God. This is a place you are supposed to prove the fables psuedo science offers are actually fact and real science.

Fishbowl gravity is well known. Now if you want to say that it was identical back in Noah's day, well we might ask what proof you may have that it was identical then.

 

[dad]

That's your best argument? A random assertion that biology worked in an entirely different (in fact, contradictory) way in the past for NO reason whatsoever?

Looking at the long life spans recorded in history and Scripture it occurs to me that something worked differently at the time. Now if you claim it was always the same you need proof, obviously. Otherwise your claim is not science, but pseudo science.

Back in reality, the answer is reproduction.

Of course here in the present nature reproduction remains the only way for genetic material to be passed down. Irrelevant to the past. Rather than making a statement of faith nature was the same, let's see the proof?

. The only other possible explanation is that life arose multiple times and for no reason whatsoever and defying all known laws of chemistry and all mathematical improbability these individually arising populations happened to have precisely identical genetic material.

False. Another explanation is simply that a different nature would cause genetics to function differently!

All life shares genetic material because we share common ancestry through reproduction.

OR

Populations of organisms spontaneously form out of nowhere that, entirely by coincidence, happen to have almost the exact same genetic code as previous or existing populations despite sharing no commonality whatsoever and this process happened millions of times except it stopped happening at an arbitrary point and nobody has ever observed it occurring or found any evidence of it ever happening ever.

Or...it was created.

Guess my pick in beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you do not. We wait.

dad you keep running away.. I offer, you run. I won't lecture to the air.

When you run away from a reasonable offer you look guilty.

 

[dad]

Most rational thinkers realize that the natural laws in nature, were here long before humans or any other lifeform existed on this planet.

That is a belief you cannot support. Admit it rather than kid yourself...you sure are not kidding me.

Do you really think that all the natural phenomena that we see today, did not occur in the past, simply because we could not explain them?

How things happen is determined by the forces of nature.

Since science could not have changed these natural phenomena, it is only logical that these same phenomena would still exist today.

It is not logical to toss out Scripture and history for no apparent reason.

Or, do you think Gravity, Electromagnetism, Laws of Thermodynamics, The Chaos Theory, Laws of Motion, and Quantum Mechanics, only exist in modern times?

If nature was different there may have been other forces also, that are no longer present now. Gravity for example may have been somewhat affected or mitigated or balanced by another force for all we know. (look at the great stones in early history that were moved, who knows, but that this was a result of some such facet of the nature then?)

As for the basic forces like the strong and weak nuclear forces and electric force etc, have you any proof they existed the same!?

That is the point. There is only experiences, there is no proof. There is no objective certainty. There is no objective evidence. Nothing. If millions die in wars, there is objective evidence that death exists in wars. If millions of people experience ghost sightings, then where is the objective evidence that ghost exist? Nothing. Science requires objective evidence, linking both cause and effect.

This seems to be a tacit admission that if anything spiritual was involved in nature modern science would be ignorant of it. Part of the different I see in ancient history and Scripture in the reality of life in ancient times is that there WAS a spiritual component! Spirits are recorded to have existed directly in nature here with us. That is not the case now. That is not the case now! There are spirits here but they are invisible to us and not part of the natural world any more. Something changed.

Every time science does test for claims of the supernatural, the paranormal experiences, NDE's. miracles, power of prayer, psychic's prophecies, or spirits, the conclusions are no evidence, false, or inconclusive.

That is like having a bat test for colors of the rainbow!

Wow. Having your own personal evidence, is not the same evidence that science uses

Nothing personal involved. Either you have real evidence for a same nature in the past on earth or not.

You hide behind the fact that since no one was an eyewitness to the beginning of the Universe, or the beginning of life, that your explanation that "God did it", can't be falsified

.

Scripture is a first hand account of creation. In Prov 8 we also see a witness. Man is a witness also right from week one of this universe! When your religion offers a claim in the name of science, that nothing was created and that what we now see is responsible for everything we see, such as evolving being responsible for life on earth...that can't be falsified.

You make the claim that science is religion, yet your life depends on science everyday, and not on religion.

No one's life depends on origin 'sciences'. Really. No plane flies because of it, no phone works because of it...nada. Zip. You are trying to hide origin pseudo sciences under the skirt of actual science.

You can't even understand what the default position is for any extraordinary claims, or the burden of proof.

Tour belief set simply calls anything it can't touch or see extraordinary, and waves history and the spiritual away in a gleeful display of insanity.

If todays science were back there then, there might not be a Bible today. Except in children's bookstores.

The magicians and wise men and astrologers of that day in many ways knew more than modern cultish, closed minded, narrow thinking so called science today.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe you should ask someone else to read my post to you, and explain to you my central issues. This might avoid a lot of unnecessary cut, copying, and pasting irrelevant materials. If I need the definition of religion, I can look it up. Let's cut to the chase again.

What is the behavior of Chemistry? What is the behavior of Physics? Not the expressions, the practices, or the rituals. But, the behavior itself? We can clearly see the behavior in narcissists, psychopaths, autism, or manic-depressants. All behaviors are genetically based. What is the gene or behavioral psychopathy for Chemistry, Physics, Science, or Religion? How does describing these scientific disciplines, also describe their behavior?

You need to help me. Human behavior and the processes in brains come from genes. Science as done by scientists is a behavior. It follows rules, these rules originates in brains and we are a back to genes. These disciplines originates from rules, which originate from brains and we are back to genes. Are you saying Chemistry, Physics, Science, or Religion are not connected back to genes and they are not human behavior. If a scientist follows the rules for science, isn't that scientist doing a certain behavior for, which she could do something else and then it would be a different behaviors.

Now water as a H2O is not behavior, but to describe water is a behavior, And to do science on it, is a behavior.
So what about culture? Well, it is a set of behaviors. Where do they come from, if not genes. What about language and writing? They require brains, which function in certain manner and we are back to genes.

Google: Behavior (American English) or behaviour (Commonwealth English) is the range of actions and mannerisms made by individuals, organisms, systems, or artificial entities in conjunction with themselves or their environment, which includes the other systems or organisms around as well as the (inanimate) physical environment.

So science is a type of action in conjunction with the (inanimate) physical environment and thus a behavior.

I'm confused. Are you saying that you believe that God created everything, because science can't explain everything?

No, I am not saying God created everything, because science can't explain everything. It has nothing so do with science as such. More later.

Are you also saying that you do not worship or obey God? Why not?

Because I don't have to. Are you saying I go to Hell if I don't obey God. How do you know that? I don't believe in souls, Heaven and Hell.

How do you know that the "unmoved mover" is fair and not evil?

Oh, you really believe in knowledge, don't you?
Here is the problem. Read up on Boltzmann Brains. Since I am not allowed to post quotes from links, you must do it yourself and don't just read one. Read enough and you will notice this.
It is unknown if you are a Boltzmann Brain or not. Further the probabilities are unknown, so here is the universe you could be a part of. You are a computer program running on a simulation of the universe, so you believe you are in a real universe. The computer doesn't simulate the universe, it simulates enough of it so you are convinced that you are in a real universe. So how can you know, that you are not just a computer program? You can't.
Here is the problem for the large scale:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.. p. 2.

You use the following strong philosophical principle. The universe is fair(no Boltzmann Brain and what not) and you trust in that and you trust your reasoning and senses. How do I know that? You talk in such away, that you show that you trust it is so. You don't doubt that it can be otherwise.

So what is the problem? The problem is that the universe is fair and that you can trust it. But the universe can't be fair and you can't trust it, unless it is supernatural and not natural. That is the God, I believe in. I believe that the universe is fair and I can trust it. I don't believe it is evil and that I am a Boltzmann Brain.

Science is not a religion, so no one expects you to worship science. But, if you don't obey the natural laws of science, your life expectancy will be very short indeed. Of course you obey the laws of science, unless you are really a God in disguise.

I do obey the universe. The universe is made in such way that I can believe in God and get away. Wait, you were right. I am dead now and write this as a soul/ghost. Oh, you are good, right?!! I don't fall for that one anymore. See below for your use of subjectivity, Subjectivity is a part of the world of reality and you used it. You believe I don't understand how reality works. Wait, now I am dead again...

Regardless of the world in which your mind lives in, your body still lives in the same physical reality as mine does. Since you don't care that your arguments are fallacious, I won't point them out anymore. I also do not judge anyone who needs to find shelter in a world of fantasy, than in a world of reality. Obviously, there are reasons that are totally subjective, and none of my business.

That world of fantasy is a part of reality otherwise you couldn't know about it and talk about it. You live in a fantasy world yourself, because you believe that other humans' way of coping is not a part of the world. Don't play fantasy with me. You have your own fantasy world and you are not even aware of it. So what you do, is in part of my business, because you subjectively judge my part of the world to be fantasy and yours to be real. That is subjective, because we are both in part subjective. If something is totally subjective it is still a part of reality, otherwise how could you talk about it and communicate with it? Well, you can, so subjectivity is a part of reality. So you don't understand how reality works, so now you are dead, right?

I accept that you have a part of reality, which is your fantasy world. I know I have mine and I just point out that so do you. So now we are equally and equally unique. I cope and you cope. You just can't see your own subjectivity. I can see that we both are in part subjective. That is the difference.
So never play fantasy with me. I see both yours and mine. I believe in God. You believe in a knowledge, you don't have.

For the rest of the posts, you have answered, I will leave those left unanswered. The meat is in this exchange.
You believe in knowledge you don't have.
Read here:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3
Here is the core problem:
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia¨

Don't play knowledge with a global skeptic. You can't win and neither can I. I just force a draw, we are both subjective and you don't hold knowledge over me and I don't hold knowledge over you, when it comes to making sense of reality.

 

[Bear Wild]

The observed adaptations are a drop in the ocean compared to the unending plethora of evolution they claim was responsible fr life on earth. Just because we do get some slow evolving today, does not mean that it was evolution that was responsible for all creatures! Evolving was a gift from God, built into life on earth, and from the evidences it actually happened at a very great speed in the former nature! That does not mean that it was not created kinds that evolved! Your fable is baseless.

More meaningless statements. You accept the concepts of adaptations which is the outward presentation of the genetic changes which is the way that evolution works. You state you know organisms are evolving. You describe evolving as a gift from god. But you do not accept the that evolution was responsible for all creatures. This is a strange contradiction and shows confusion about evolution. We all share the same genetics, we all evolved, we are the creation of nature. No magical thinking needed and you have no evidence that this did not occur or if you do you can provide it but mixing thing up just shows confusion.

 

[Bear Wild]

That is a belief you cannot support. Admit it rather than kid yourself...you sure are not kidding me.



How things happen is determined by the forces of nature.



It is not logical to toss out Scripture and history for no apparent reason.


If nature was different there may have been other forces also, that are no longer present now. Gravity for example may have been somewhat affected or mitigated or balanced by another force for all we know. (look at the great stones in early history that were moved, who knows, but that this was a result of some such facet of the nature then?)

As for the basic forces like the strong and weak nuclear forces and electric force etc, have you any proof they existed the same!?

This seems to be a tacit admission that if anything spiritual was involved in nature modern science would be ignorant of it. Part of the different I see in ancient history and Scripture in the reality of life in ancient times is that there WAS a spiritual component! Spirits are recorded to have existed directly in nature here with us. That is not the case now. That is not the case now! There are spirits here but they are invisible to us and not part of the natural world any more. Something changed.

That is like having a bat test for colors of the rainbow!
Nothing personal involved. Either you have real evidence for a same nature in the past on earth or not.

.

Scripture is a first hand account of creation. In Prov 8 we also see a witness. Man is a witness also right from week one of this universe! When your religion offers a claim in the name of science, that nothing was created and that what we now see is responsible for everything we see, such as evolving being responsible for life on earth...that can't be falsified.



No one's life depends on origin 'sciences'. Really. No plane flies because of it, no phone works because of it...nada. Zip. You are trying to hide origin pseudo sciences under the skirt of actual science.
Tour belief set simply calls anything it can't touch or see extraordinary, and waves history and the spiritual away in a gleeful display of insanity.

The magicians and wise men and astrologers of that day in many ways knew more than modern cultish, closed minded, narrow thinking so called science today.

Scripture is moral teaching never meant to provide an accurate explanation of the origin of things. Scripture was designed to guide those following that faith not as absolute translation. It is like a student asking about the moon and a teacher pointing to the moon. The student that takes the finger to be the moon has missed the meaning. Literal interpretation of the bible misses the true meaning.

 

[dad]

You accept the concepts of adaptations which is the outward presentation of the genetic changes which is the way that evolution works.

Correct, the operative word being 'works'. Our nature works a certain way, and thus the genetics here also work a certain way, all determined by the forces and laws of nature.

But just because man grows teeth does not mean the first teeth came to exist that way. Just because woman now gives birth does not mean Eve came to exist that way. Just because man can think pretty good does not mean man came about by that process of thinking...etc etc etc. You need to prove that life started that way rather than being created that way if you claim evolutiondunit!

You state you know organisms are evolving. You describe evolving as a gift from god. But you do not accept the that evolution was responsible for all creatures.

Not sure what you are missing here? Adam was given the ability to adapt as needed, that does not mean Adam came to exist BY evolving!

We all share the same genetics, we all evolved, we are the creation of nature

Only in the present nature does sharing genes relate exclusively to the reproduction cycle. In the former nature we do not know how things like ervs may have transferred! Nor do we know how evolving worked, for all I know the living creature may have evolved on it's feet, rather than changes only coming via offspring!? Who knows? Nor can we say a process of evolving created man, rather than God! Etc.

The bottom line is that if you claim as fact and knowledge and actual science that this nature was the same, you MUST prove it. Otherwise piling up on that assumption is religion, not science.

For a fish, perhaps anything outside their little fishbowl is magical. Not my problem.

 

[dad]

Scripture is moral teaching never meant to provide an accurate explanation of the origin of things.

Says you. The bible does not indicate that in any way!

Scripture was designed to guide those following that faith not as absolute translation.

Nonsense. Part of faith in God is knowing Him and that He is creator and not a liar.

It is like a student asking about the moon and a teacher pointing to the moon. The student that takes the finger to be the moon has missed the meaning. Literal interpretation of the bible misses the true meaning.

The bible and Jesus pointed clearly to a real creation. Not sure where your mental finger points you, seems to be somewhere lost in space.

 

[Bear Wild]

Correct, the operative word being 'works'. Our nature works a certain way, and thus the genetics here also work a certain way, all determined by the forces and laws of nature.

But just because man grows teeth does not mean the first teeth came to exist that way. Just because woman now gives birth does not mean Eve came to exist that way. Just because man can think pretty good does not mean man came about by that process of thinking...etc etc etc. You need to prove that life started that way rather than being created that way if you claim evolutiondunit!

Not sure what you are missing here? Adam was given the ability to adapt as needed, that does not mean Adam came to exist BY evolving!
Only in the present nature does sharing genes relate exclusively to the reproduction cycle. In the former nature we do not know how things like ervs may have transferred! Nor do we know how evolving worked, for all I know the living creature may have evolved on it's feet, rather than changes only coming via offspring!? Who knows? Nor can we say a process of evolving created man, rather than God! Etc.

The bottom line is that if you claim as fact and knowledge and actual science that this nature was the same, you MUST prove it. Otherwise piling up on that assumption is religion, not science.

For a fish, perhaps anything outside their little fishbowl is magical. Not my problem.

Since Adam from genesis never existed so I do not understand your argument. Eve certainly did not come from the rib of Adam - that would make Eve a male. Much better to accept reality that humans evolved the same way all life evolved. As for teeth long line of evidence for the development of teeth and how the genetics changed allowing animals and humans to adapt to their environment so that a good example.

No one proves thing in science you should know that by now - the is evidence from observation and experimentation that is reproducible. Evidence for evolution extensive. Evidence for creation story zero.
Oh well you tried. There are more interesting creation stories than genesis which have just as much evidence to back them up. Man evolves. Man creates God. Man then thinks God created man just to feel special. Man explores nature and discovers evolution. Man then understands man's true origin.

 

[Bear Wild]

Says you. The bible does not indicate that in any way!

Nonsense. Part of faith in God is knowing Him and that He is creator and not a liar.

The bible and Jesus pointed clearly to a real creation. Not sure where your mental finger points you, seems to be somewhere lost in space.

First of all you have no idea if god is a him, her or it. Humans created the bible so that does not make the god you believe in a liar. Jesus was a man who was Jewish who wanted to reform what was happening in his time. Paul has a hallucination then created a new religion.

 

[dad]

Since Adam from genesis never existed so I do not understand your argument.

You don't get to say who lived or not. Jesus talked about Adam, why would I believe you?

Eve certainly did not come from the rib of Adam - that would make Eve a male.

Not at all, how foolish.

Much better to accept reality that humans evolved the same way all life evolved.

Religion.

As for teeth long line of evidence for the development of teeth and how the genetics changed allowing animals and humans to adapt to their environment so that a good example.

The hapless misreading of a hopelessly partial fossil record doesn't help your fables.

No one proves thing in science you should know that by now - the is evidence from observation and experimentation that is reproducible.

Reproduce Adam? Eve? Creation week? Reproduce whatever nature existed in the past?! Ha, you don't so much as know what it was!

Evidence for evolution extensive. Evidence for creation story zero.

The cult like denial of history and Scripture records and the utter inability of science to go back and see what happened is not a lack of evidence, it is the lack of science to find evidence. As for 'evolution' when we talk of man or life in general coming about as a result of evolving, that is NOT evidenced, and denies evidence! If all you mean is the created ability to be able to adapt and evolve, that is known. Nothing to do with origins!

Man creates God.

Heck, you ca't even create a little demon or leprechaun!

Man explores nature and discovers evolution. Man then understands man's true origin.

Man worships as part of what he is. Some worship nature, some worship their own wisdom, some worship false fables and lies. Seeing bacteria adapt does not then tell anyone man's true origin! In some cases it might tell us how stoned someone is.

 

[dad]

First of all you have no idea if god is a him, her or it.

Jesus is God. Need we say more?

Humans created the bible so that does not make the god you believe in a liar. Jesus was a man who was Jewish who wanted to reform what was happening in his time. Paul has a hallucination then created a new religion.

Speaking of hallucinations, your view of history fits the bill.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Looking at the long life spans recorded in history and Scripture it occurs to me that something worked differently at the time. Now if you claim it was always the same you need proof, obviously. Otherwise your claim is not science, but pseudo science.

Literally every piece of evidence we have ever uncovered has shown the biology always worked like... biology.

You're the one who has to demonstrate that it didn't.

Of course here in the present nature reproduction remains the only way for genetic material to be passed down. Irrelevant to the past.

Now you're just being silly.

Rather than making a statement of faith nature was the same, let's see the proof?

You have to prove biology worked differently. Can you do that?

False. Another explanation is simply that a different nature would cause genetics to function differently!

Again, you're alleging something that A) is contradicted by everything that we currently know and B) has no evidence to support it whatsoever.

Please demonstrate that genetics functioned differently in the past.

Or...it was created.

That can fit either option.

Guess my pick in beliefs?

You haven't picked. Which displays your insecurity.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You need to help me. Human behavior and the processes in brains come from genes. Science as done by scientists is a behavior. It follows rules, these rules originates in brains and we are a back to genes. These disciplines originates from rules, which originate from brains and we are back to genes. Are you saying Chemistry, Physics, Science, or Religion are not connected back to genes and they are not human behavior. If a scientist follows the rules for science, isn't that scientist doing a certain behavior for, which she could do something else and then it would be a different behaviors.

Now water as a H2O is not behavior, but to describe water is a behavior, And to do science on it, is a behavior.
So what about culture? Well, it is a set of behaviors. Where do they come from, if not genes. What about language and writing? They require brains, which function in certain manner and we are back to genes.

Google: Behavior (American English) or behaviour (Commonwealth English) is the range of actions and mannerisms made by individuals, organisms, systems, or artificial entities in conjunction with themselves or their environment, which includes the other systems or organisms around as well as the (inanimate) physical environment.

So science is a type of action in conjunction with the (inanimate) physical environment and thus a behavior.



No, I am not saying God created everything, because science can't explain everything. It has nothing so do with science as such. More later.



Because I don't have to. Are you saying I go to Hell if I don't obey God. How do you know that? I don't believe in souls, Heaven and Hell.



Oh, you really believe in knowledge, don't you?
Here is the problem. Read up on Boltzmann Brains. Since I am not allowed to post quotes from links, you must do it yourself and don't just read one. Read enough and you will notice this.
It is unknown if you are a Boltzmann Brain or not. Further the probabilities are unknown, so here is the universe you could be a part of. You are a computer program running on a simulation of the universe, so you believe you are in a real universe. The computer doesn't simulate the universe, it simulates enough of it so you are convinced that you are in a real universe. So how can you know, that you are not just a computer program? You can't.
Here is the problem for the large scale:


You use the following strong philosophical principle. The universe is fair(no Boltzmann Brain and what not) and you trust in that and you trust your reasoning and senses. How do I know that? You talk in such away, that you show that you trust it is so. You don't doubt that it can be otherwise.

So what is the problem? The problem is that the universe is fair and that you can trust it. But the universe can't be fair and you can't trust it, unless it is supernatural and not natural. That is the God, I believe in. I believe that the universe is fair and I can trust it. I don't believe it is evil and that I am a Boltzmann Brain.



I do obey the universe. The universe is made in such way that I can believe in God and get away. Wait, you were right. I am dead now and write this as a soul/ghost. Oh, you are good, right?!! I don't fall for that one anymore. See below for your use of subjectivity, Subjectivity is a part of the world of reality and you used it. You believe I don't understand how reality works. Wait, now I am dead again...



That world of fantasy is a part of reality otherwise you couldn't know about it and talk about it. You live in a fantasy world yourself, because you believe that other humans' way of coping is not a part of the world. Don't play fantasy with me. You have your own fantasy world and you are not even aware of it. So what you do, is in part of my business, because you subjectively judge my part of the world to be fantasy and yours to be real. That is subjective, because we are both in part subjective. If something is totally subjective it is still a part of reality, otherwise how could you talk about it and communicate with it? Well, you can, so subjectivity is a part of reality. So you don't understand how reality works, so now you are dead, right?

I accept that you have a part of reality, which is your fantasy world. I know I have mine and I just point out that so do you. So now we are equally and equally unique. I cope and you cope. You just can't see your own subjectivity. I can see that we both are in part subjective. That is the difference.
So never play fantasy with me. I see both yours and mine. I believe in God. You believe in a knowledge, you don't have.

For the rest of the posts, you have answered, I will leave those left unanswered. The meat is in this exchange.
You believe in knowledge you don't have.
Read here:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3
Here is the core problem:
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia¨

Don't play knowledge with a global skeptic. You can't win and neither can I. I just force a draw, we are both subjective and you don't hold knowledge over me and I don't hold knowledge over you, when it comes to making sense of reality.

For the rest of us that don't conflate the meaning of "behavior" to mean anything we want, behavior is simply the way in which one acts, in response to a stimulus. If you want to misconstrue and extend every concept/precepts in the Universe to become just another behavior, I don't really care. Is the "practice" of science, physics, religion, or chemistry, just another behavior? Is the act of "speaking" just a behavior. I don't care how you choose to define them. I simply asked you, what is the specific behavior of Chemistry itself? What is the behavior of Physics itself? What is the specific behavior of Science itself? What is the specific behavior of Religion itself? Not their practices, their nature, their rituals, or in speaking their language. In other words, if I observed a person exhibiting a certain pattern of actions, how would I know if that person is exclusively a Chemist, Physicist, or a Scientist? Based only on their actions. I can certainly distinguish the behavioral patterns of autism, psychopathy, sociopathy, narcissism, delusions, dementia, depression, joy, anger, or mania. What is it that determines their distinctions? Our Genes and alleles provide us with only the foundation for our behavioral traits. But, there are other factors that determine how these genes are expressed.

Not sure what the relevance of Boltzmann's Brain is. Any more than a "brain in a vat", or eternal inflation postulates. Clearly, you don't understand quantum fluctuations, de Sitter space, or quantum thermal states. Sean Carrol might help you. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/05/05/squelching- boltzmann-brains-and-maybe-eternal-inflation/ Why do all people making extraordinary claims, always depend on the un-falsifiability of the claims, or use absolutes as things and not concepts? "Since we don't know what we know absolutely, prove what we don't know absolutely?". "Since no one existed during the Big Bang, and the Origin of Life, God must have done it, now prove me wrong.". Or, "I know I'm right just because it is impossible to prove me wrong.". Again, my question was, "How do you know that the "unmoved mover" is fair and not evil? What does this simple question have to do with an entropic Universe-created brain/consciousness, or a brain in a vat? I will make it even simpler. How do you know if God is good or evil? Or, that it is your God that is the right God, and all the other Deities are not? You don't know, do you?

No, I am not saying God created everything, because science can't explain everything. It has nothing so do with science as such. More later.

Then what exactly are you saying? What exactly is this "it" that has nothing to do with science? Much later, what? Again, do you worship and obey God, or not? Since I don't know where that Cosmological quote came from, I'll just let you answer the straw man you created.

Of course you obey, or adapt to the laws of nature. All lifeforms are a direct result of its laws. Since religion has nothing to do with the laws of nature, trying to imply that nature and religion are both essential to life, is just silly and incorrect. You don't go out into a blizzard wrapped in religion, do you? You don't maintain your metabolism using religion, do you?. We don't navigate through our physical reality using religion. You do not eat, drink, or breathe religion, do you? We do not perceive anything about our environment using religion. Our basic survival has nothing to do with religion. Clearly, you don't distinguish the importance or value, between what is conceptual and what is perceptual. Our perception of reality is totally subjective. Without this basic understanding, you are just a child still believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy. Anything you can conceptualize, can become physically real. The objective reality that exists outside of our subjective perspective is certainly real. It doesn't require our presence to exist. This fact can easily be tested and proved. It is only our physical senses that provide us with a direct connection with our external environment. Please look up the difference between what is perceptual, and what is conceptual.

If we both look at an apple on a table, we will both see the same apple on the table from a slightly different perspective(we can't have the exact same perspective, since we can't occupy the exact same space/time). If I close my eyes, only my observation of the apple changes, not yours. This means that the apple is part of my objective reality when my eyes are closed, but become part of my subjective reality when my eyes are open. Without this basic understanding, how do you discern between what is fantasy, and what is reality? Are you saying that fantasy and reality are both literally real? Just two sides of the same coin? I do not live, or function in a world of fantasy reality. I live in a world that is shaped by my physical senses, and a physical brain. The difference between us is evidence, certainty, facts, logic, and falsifiability. I KNOW that no matter how much I want something to exist in my mind, it will never exist in reality by just wishing it so. I don't require logical gymnastics to defend my level of certainty about reality. I don't gladly commit intellectual dishonesties to defend my world of fantasy. Humans represent only 0.01% of all lifeforms on this planet. This means that 99.99% of all lifeforms on this planet, are surviving without any religion. But, hey maybe a bug or a fly does have religion, since I can't absolutely prove that they don't. Unless I use pseudoscience.

As primates, we share many common traits and behavior. But, we are certainly not equal.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For the rest of us that don't conflate the meaning of "behavior" to mean anything we want, behavior is simply the way in which one acts, in response to a stimulus. If you want to misconstrue and extend every concept/precepts in the Universe to become just another behavior, I don't really care. Is the "practice" of science, physics, religion, or chemistry, just another behavior? Is the act of "speaking" just a behavior. I don't care how you choose to define them. I simply asked you, what is the specific behavior of Chemistry itself? What is the behavior of Physics itself? What is the specific behavior of Science itself? What is the specific behavior of Religion itself? ...

...

There are nothing in itself. If there was, it wouldn't be a part of the world.
So here it is for science by a scientist:

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

So here is what you do. You are a rational reductionist. You believe you can reduce the world down to parts separate from each other. You can't. You are embedded as a part of the word and you are nothing in yourself, because you can't be in yourself.

As for the rest, you do the following. You reduce everything down to either conceptual or perpetual in themselves, but there are several problems with that:
You rely on concepts in your brain, rules, to state these absurd claims:

Clearly, you don't distinguish the importance or value, between what is conceptual and what is perceptual.

The problem is that importance and value are conceptual and not perceptual.

The objective reality that exists outside of our subjective perspective is certainly real.

The word "real" is conceptual as it has no objective referent.
You reduce reality down to what is really real and I just answer that is only real to you, because real is an idea in your brain, that you can't turn physical. It is mental and it is only in your brain as a concept; an abstract idea.

You think that you can turn everything in to being expressed in physical terms, but the problem is that it is an idea in your brain. You can't do it, because some words don't have a perceptual, tangible, observable, objective, independent of the mind referent and the word "real" is one of them. "Importance", "value", "unique", "in itself" and so on are other words, which are conceptual.

So don't do that. It is years ago, I learned to spot what you do. That is not unique to you. I have come across it many times before. It has a rich history in philosophy and the problem is always the same: "All concepts can be reduced to percepts." The problem is that it is an abstract idea itself and I all have to do, is answer: No!

You are not that unique, neither am I. You haven't solved anything for an uniform, universal methodology of how to be human. Neither have I, I just know that neither you nor I are that unique.

I am a skeptic and you are a rationalist, who believes, he can make a rule, that everything is real only as objective and what not. The problem is that the rule is subjective and I use another set of rules than you. You then declare yours objective for all humans and then you arrive at the result that mine are "wrong". They are not. Both set of rules are subjective and can't be compared because there is no objective standard.

What you do and you are not the first to have tried to do that: You try to do reductive physicalism and it fails everything, because reality is interconnected and you can't reduce something down to being physical in itself, because I just answer: No!
And then I live in a fantasy world be myself, yet you know it, because you point it out and thus I can't live in a fantasy world by myself.
So the absurd part is that you do a duality of really unreal, a fantasy world, yet you speak of it as real, otherwise I couldn't be in it.

I can separate concept and percept and you do it differently. I accept that. I just point out that is an idea in your head. A fantasy, which works for you, but not me, because I can in fact do it differently. So I use a different fantasy and it works for me.

So you can do philosophy all you like and I just answer: No! I can do it differently.

BTW From your link:

...
This paper is pretty conceptual, which a skeptic might take as a euphemism for “hand-waving”; we’re planning on digging into some of the mathematical details in future work, but for the time being our paper should be mostly understandable to anyone who knows undergraduate quantum mechanics. Here’s the abstract:

...

We argue that, under certain plausible assumptions, de Sitter space settles into a quiescent vacuum in which there are no quantum fluctuations. ...

And off we go with ideas in brains. You are not that good at spotting the problematic parts, if it agrees with your bias, right?!!

 

[Truly Enlightened]

As much as you seem truly confused, this is not really a thread to air general gripes with God. This is a place you are supposed to prove the fables psuedo science offers are actually fact and real science.

Fishbowl gravity is well known. Now if you want to say that it was identical back in Noah's day, well we might ask what proof you may have that it was identical then.

I do not have any gripes with things that don't exist. This is also a place that you should support your comments with evidence. Or, at least preference your comments with, "this is just my opinion". Can you point to anything that I've said that could possibly mean, that I want to prove that fables and pseudoscience are actual facts and real science? What I am confused about, is how any rational person could believe that the 4 fundamental forces, could have somehow been different in the past, than they are now. A rational person would know that these forces are interconnected, and any changes to one, will effect changes in the others. What do you think would happen if light traveled at a different speed in the past, then it does now? What do you think would happen if Gravity was slightly different in the past, then it is now? We would certainly see clear evidence of this change. So what evidence can you present to support this claim? Never mind, if any of these forces were changed in the past, there would be no Universe left for us to be having this discussion.

You clearly have a gripe with science. Is it because you just can't understand it? Or, is it just an easier alternative to accept and understand? I certainly can say that Gravity was the same now as it was in the time of your fantasy character(Noah). Here is the reality. The Gravity of the earth is determined by the total mass of the earth. You would need to add the mass of the moon, to increase the earth's gravity, even slightly. Therefore since there is no evidence of a large comet or planet crashing into the earth, I'd say that the earth's gravity is the same today as it was thousands(or millions) of years ago. Let me summarize, every particle obeys the same rules, experiences the same forces, and sees the same fundamental constants, no matter where or when they exist. Gravitationally, every single entity in the Universe experiences the same gravitational acceleration or the same curvature of spacetime, no matter what properties it possesses. Since I am not making such an extraordinary claim, surely you can provide some evidence to support your claim? Right?

 

[Darkstorn]

Dad has convinced me. The universe was created around 6000 years ago, on a Thursday. The appearance of old age and suspect evidence are not due to a deceiver god planting lies, but satan blinding us to the truth.

Evolutionists are merely being deceived by satan and his fairy tales. It's ALL wrong!

The only real truth is that Adam was created out of dust fully formed and we're definitely not related to monkeys.

You can't prove the laws of the universe aren't different from the past, therefore Last Thursdayism.

Resistance is futile.