The creator did it.

[ecco]

I see you are intentionally creating confusion about my clear simple question with irrelevant excerpts from earlier comments, this is disingenuous and unless you provide a relevant in context reply to the question, there is nothing more to say to you except that I'm not impressed with your character.

I'm not creating confusion. I'm not being disingenuous.

The following is your poorly worded comment that caused confusion. You later referred to as a question creating even more confusion.

So the question arises...to what...the answer is.. the source of our being.

You can argue all you want about what you think constitutes the source, but human knowledge is not the source of creation, but a creation in itself, by the Cosmos, and is therefore an integral of it...hence such terms as religion and yoga....reunion, union.

In the above comment, you alleged that the cosmos created human knowledge. That was an allegation I referred to as woo. In later posts, you tried ducking and dodging by not using the word "creation". Who is being disingenuous?


I really don't care what you think about my character. But I will continue to point out male bovine excrement whenever I come across it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not creating confusion. I'm not being disingenuous.

The following is your poorly worded comment that caused confusion. You later referred to as a question creating even more confusion.

In the above comment, you alleged that the cosmos created human knowledge. That was an allegation I referred to as woo. In later posts, you tried ducking and dodging by not using the word "creation". Who is being disingenuous?

I really don't care what you think about my character. But I will continue to point out male bovine excrement whenever I come across it.

Ok. first things first, this is the quote..."You can argue all you want about what you think constitutes the source, but human knowledge is not the source of creation, but a creation in itself, by the Cosmos, and is therefore an integral of it...hence such terms as religion and yoga....reunion, union"

So what I am saying that knowledge is not the source, not the creator, not the first cause, knowledge is an effect, a manifestation of creation. A manifestation of creation means it is a result of creation, an effect of creation, a human being is a creature, it is a creation.

What precisely is it you do not agree with?

Are you now prepared to answer my question, do you think the Cosmos is the ultimate source of these entities...you?..our planet? ..our star?..our galaxy?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I simply have no interests in philosophies, other than any role they may play in history development and historical backgrounds, especially in natural philosophy, which was the precursor to modern science.

Other than that, most philosophies are just talk...yada, yada, yada. There are so many of them, so they can’t be all right.

Some have some merits, but others don’t.

I do follow some philosophical positions, but I don’t follow just one, devoting all my times and energies on reading 400 or over 1000 pages on a single philosophy.

I am agnostic, but I don’t need to read Huxley or any agnostic philosopher’s books to be one. I am secular humanist, but again, I don’t need listen to days of lectures on that philosophy.

I am a realist, but only on certain matters that I faced in my life, but I don’t want to read book after book on the different types of realism out there.

All I need is a core summary of whatever philosophy that I might be interested in, because otherwise it is so damn boring to trudge through everything they say.

I got better thing thing to listen to or read some egotistical, long-winded philosophers who think how intellectual superior their philosophies or their own minds are.

Well, the joke is that mine, my philosophical position, isn't mine at all and it is not superior.
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.

I am not superior to you and neither are you to me. I am an agnostic and disbeliever in objectively superior.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Something from nothing" is a false isuue-
and would eliminate your "god". So you might want to
steer clear of them shoals.

They never do seem to realize such original cause arguments have to explain what created their creator.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If anything is a 'religion!!' these days, it is the belief in universal common descent.. aka evolution.

1.No science to support it. It cannot be observed or repeated.

Lie / misinformed

2. The devoted followers defend their faith with jihadist zeal.

Lie / misinformed

3. Any questioning of the facts or theories behind it are attacked with demeaning buzzwords. 'Denier!' 'Hater!' 'Superstitious fundie nutter!!'

Only when it concerns bs radical religiously induced nonsense, like you just demonstrated with the lies/misinformation above.

4. Devoted proselytizers gain positions of authority in all human institutions, ban any competitive view, and mandate exclusive indoctrination of their religious beliefs.

Much like how embryologists gain positions of authority in maternal institutions while Stork Theorists aren't welcome in such facilities.

5. Bobbleheaded indoctrinees can recite all the memorized talking points, but don't have a clue what the science is.

+200.000 peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject.

Now THAT is a shining example of promoting a religious belief, and smearing the competition..

Yes, yes, there's a 2 century old, world-wide, global conspiracy among MILLIONS of biologists, geneticists, evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, ......all dedicated to the destruction of the bible. When you enroll in a university to get a biology course, they make you swear a blood oath first!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I celebrate knowledge, the scientific method, and scrutiny.

Except when it conflicts your a priori religious beliefs, apparantly.

The options are NOT:
Either believe in universal common descent, or the bible!

So what do you believe are the origins of species?

That is a false dichotomy. Why not use science?

Using science is what resulted in evolutionary biology.

What's wrong with skepticism for unbased theories? The scientific method? Critical thinking?

Nothing. But evolution isn't an unbased theory.

If we don't have scientific evidence

We do. An absurd amount, actually.

, why leap ahead to a speculative conclusion, and mandate it as 'Settled Science!?'

Because that's exactly what it is. Evolution has been a settled science form more then 150 years now.
The discovery of things like DNA only reinforced it even further.

The problem arises by trying to force empirical science to answer abstract ideas, or cosmic mysteries that are beyond the scope of scientific methodology.

Examining life and unraveling the processes that life is, was and will be subject to, is well within the scope of scientific methodology...................

'Why, how, who, and what', questions about our origins are philosophical questions

No, they aren't. Just like asking if your dad is your biological dad isn't a "philosophical" question.

, and science can only stare blankly, without observable, repeatable testing.

False.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The militant atheists and their false hijacking of 'science!'

Who are these "militant atheists"?
Who are you talking about, really?

Care to give a few examples?

I celebrate and defend science

Except when it contradicts your a priori religious beliefs, it seems.

Time to come clean a bit and/or clarify a few things, I'ld say...
Please answer following questions... What do YOU believe is correct/accurate concerning:
- the origins of man
- the origins of species
- the age of the earth

Progressive indoctrinees cannot debate 'science'.. they are too invested in their beliefs, and have to reassure themselves that 'science!' corroborates their every opinion.

My irony meter just exploded again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It explains it if you accept the assumption/axioms it rests on

And which would those be?

So here it is: You can't observe that I am wrong nor that my post is wrong

Primarily because you are being so vague.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They never do seem to realize such original cause arguments have to explain what created their creator.

That applies to us all.
If you want it as a common problem of knowledge, then that is already known:
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

• The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
• The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
• The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts

That is why, sceince uses the 3rd one and have no Knowledge. Nobody has Knowledge as longs as we remain humans. That is not how everyday life works.
Everybody, their grandmother and her dog run into that, when we play Knowledge. I just know that is so for all systems and variation in science, philosophy and religion.

I am in a sense, the odd one out as religious, because I am a hard core skeptic for all claims of Knowledge. But that also applies for those who use science.
Here are the limits of science:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And which would those be?

The axiom for science is the following:
We can in general trust our senses and reason and objective reality is natural and fair.

Primarily because you are being so vague.

No, because you can't observe wrong. The word "wrong" has no observable, objective referent. When anybody use it, it comes from their individual cognition and/or feelings/emotions.
You can't see, touch or otherwise in an observational sense observe wrong. And there is no scientific instrument for, which you can measure wrong. The word "wrong" is human and if there were no humans, there would be no wrong. That is different for what "reality" is about, right. But wrong is not objective.

 

[gnostic]

My point exactly. The militant atheists and their false hijacking of 'science!' as their own personal justification system is absurd, yet they do it all the time.

This is where are sadly prejudiced, usfan.

Biologists, whether they are Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, deists, atheists, agnostics, etc, have accepted the same theory of evolution.

There are no theism vs atheism here.

The only biologists who don’t accept are the less than 1% - the group who may referred to themselves as creationists.

I am only talking about professional biologists or those who worked in biology-related fields. I am not talking about those non-biology professions.

Atheists haven’t hijacked biology with “evolution”. There are actually more biology-working Christians in the world than there are atheists, Christians who have accepted evolution, so saying atheists hijacking biology is nothing more than conspiracy theory.

Evolution is the same theory, that they have all come to accept. There are no one version of evolution for atheists and another version for Christians.

There is no such things as Christian Science or Atheist Science.

And as to Creation Science and Intelligent Design, these two are nothing more than pseudoscience and woo.

The existence of Creator or Designer cannot be observed, measured, quantified or tested, so they failed the requirements of both falsifiability man’s scientific method.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is where are sadly prejudiced, usfan.

Biologists, whether they are Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, deists, atheists, agnostics, etc, have accepted the same theory of evolution.

There are no theism vs atheism here.

The only biologists who don’t accept are the less than 1% - the group who may referred to themselves as creationists.

I am only talking about professional biologists or those who worked in biology-related fields. I am not talking about those non-biology professions.

Atheists haven’t hijacked biology with “evolution”. There are actually more biology-working Christians in the world than there are atheists, Christians who have accepted evolution, so saying atheists hijacking biology is nothing more than conspiracy theory.

Evolution is the same theory, that they have all come to accept. There are no one version of evolution for atheists and another version for Christians.

There is no such things as Christian Science or Atheist Science.

And as to Creation Science and Intelligent Design, these two are nothing more than pseudoscience and woo.

The existence of Creator or Designer cannot be observed, measured, quantified or tested, so they failed the requirements of both falsifiability man’s scientific method.

Start here What is Scientism? and start noticing when some humans do that.
I get science. I also get when some humans use it as scientism:

Scientism as “efforts to extend scientific ideas, methods, practices, and attitudes to matters of human social and political concern.”

It is not wrong in all sense of the word to deny evolution, when using science. It is wrong as science, but it is not wrong as a human to do it. Some people believe that those 2 are the same and that science supports both. That is scientism; to believe that all forms of wrong are based on science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The axiom for science is the following:
We can in general trust our senses

That is not an axiom of science at all. If anything, the opposite is true: we can NOT trust our senses. This is why we use machines and tools to do the measurements. This is why we do tests and experiments to remove any human bias as best as possible. This is why peers review other people's work.

and reason and objective reality is natural and fair.

I don't know what you mean by that.

Here are the basal assumptions scientists (and everybody else, for that matter) make:
- reality is real
- reality is consistent enough so that we can learn about it
- models with predictive capabilities are better then models without such capabilities

That's it. I invite you to explain why any of these is "problematic".
It seems to me that one can't even properly function in day-to-day life, without making those basal assumptions.

In other words: we make those assumptions, because we basically have no other choice. Plus, the assumptions aren't pulled out of thin air either. They are very valid, supported and reasonable.

No, because you can't observe wrong

Sure I can. 2+2 = 5 ==> that's wrong, demonstrably so.

As I said, you have a habbit of being incredibly vague. You write monster posts with intelligently-sounding jargon and philosophical drivel, but in fact you say very little.

The word "wrong" has no observable, objective referent. When anybody use it, it comes from their individual cognition and/or feelings/emotions.
You can't see, touch or otherwise in an observational sense observe wrong. And there is no scientific instrument for, which you can measure wrong. The word "wrong" is human and if there were no humans, there would be no wrong. That is different for what "reality" is about, right. But wrong is not objective.

2+2 = 5 is objectrively wrong.

Sorry if you can't comprehend that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Start here What is Scientism? and start noticing when some humans do that.
I get science. I also get when some humans use it as scientism:


It is not wrong in all sense of the word to deny evolution, when using science. It is wrong as science, but it is not wrong as a human to do it. Some people believe that those 2 are the same and that science supports both. That is scientism; to believe that all forms of wrong are based on science.

You are so extremely confused. As I said previously to you: you are so deeply burried in your philosophical drivel, that you simply don't seem to be capable anymore of reasoning in practice.

Nobody is talking about "all forms of wrong" in this thread.
We are talking about scientific questions about physical reality.

Evolution theory has proven its worth and it is supported to the extreme by literally all valid evidence and contradicted by none.

There is no version of "wrong" that makes it a valid word to describe the status of evolution theory.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Sure I can. 2+2 = 5 ==> that's wrong, demonstrably so.
...

You don't see it as see through your eyes.
There are words, you use, for which what the words are about, that you can't see, what they are about.
This sentence I used, is such a case. You don't see what it is about. You think!!!

Naive empiricism is the idea that all experiences that be reduced down to be objectively real. Independent of your brain. The joke is that "all experiences that be reduced down to be objectively real" is not independent of your brain.

BTW you can't see real and that reality is real. That "reality is real" is a thought in your brain.
Your axiom is that you can do everything as something you can test using science. You can't, because you can't stop thinking and feelings as a human and make sense of it.
That is what you are doing. "Reality is real" is an axiom. You just don't notice that it is thinking in your head and it works like an axiom.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Evolution theory has proven its worth and it is supported to the extreme by literally all valid evidence and contradicted by none.

...

Worth is not science.
You are doing it again. You are using a subjective word. Something has only worth to somebody and there is no scientific worth. There is no instrument to measure worth.
Please test worth using science!!! You can't.
You are not doing science.
Read here:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
That is written by scientists!!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't see it as see through your eyes.
There are words, you use, for which what the words are about, that you can't see, what they are about.
This sentence I used, is such a case. You don't see what it is about. You think!!!

But you aren't vague and don't engage in meaningless semantic drivel, ha?

Naive empiricism is the idea that all experiences that be reduced down to be objectively real. Independent of your brain. The joke is that "all experiences that be reduced down to be objectively real" is not independent of your brain.

BTW you can't see real and that reality is real. That "reality is real" is a thought in your brain.

Yes, my brain is what does the thinking.
It's not like I have another choice.

Your axiom is that you can do everything as something you can test using science. You can't, because you can't stop thinking and feelings as a human and make sense of it.
That is what you are doing. "Reality is real" is an axiom. You just don't notice that it is thinking in your head and it works like an axiom.

I think it's quite reasonable to assume that reality is real.
Again, it's not like I have another choice.

Well, perhaps I do... but it seems like assuming reality isn't real, would easily shorten my lifespan significantly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Worth is not science.

My goodness.............

"proven its worth", as in:
- proven usefull in making sense of data
- proven usefull in giving rise to other branches of science
- proven usefull in making testable predictions
- ...

in short: "proven its scientific worth".

I kind of assumed it was obvious.

You are doing it again. You are using a subjective word. Something has only worth to somebody and there is no scientific worth

lol!

Here goes the semantic nonsense inhibiting practical communication again......

There is no instrument to measure worth.
Please test worth using science!!! You can't.
You are not doing science.
Read here:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
That is written by scientists!!!

omg!!! it's irrelevant!!!

Shocking!!

 

[shunyadragon]

Hardly. I'm not talking about any alledged bible thumpers, but the religious fervour that devotees to universal common descent have. I celebrate knowledge, the scientific method, and scrutiny. Religious True Believers from ANY camp, do violence to those ideals with mandated beliefs and forced compliance.

You do illustrate the knee jerk response of ad hom and indignation if anyone dares to question the sacred tenets of your faith..

The options are NOT:

Either believe in universal common descent, or the bible!

That is a false dichotomy. Why not use science? What's wrong with skepticism for unbiased theories? The scientific method? Critical thinking? If we don't have scientific evidence, why leap ahead to a speculative conclusion, and mandate it as 'Settled Science!?'

The problem arises by trying to force empirical science to answer abstract ideas, or cosmic mysteries that are beyond the scope of scientific methodology. 'Why, how, who, and what', questions about our origins are philosophical questions, and science can only stare blankly, without observable, repeatable testing.

..and you are right about debate, as a method of discovery. It is mostly a game, where knowledge and understanding are trampled for the promotion of beliefs.

I am a scientist of more than 50 years, and I was responding to this egregious negative view of science with valid objections. The following does not represent a fundamental knowledge and respect for science as science. It represents a mindless rant against science based on a religious agenda, which is unacceptable.

If anything is a 'religion!!' these days, it is the belief in universal common descent.. aka evolution.
1.No science to support it. It cannot be observed or repeated.
2. The devoted followers defend their faith with jihadist zeal.
3. Any questioning of the facts or theories behind it are attacked with demeaning buzzwords. 'Denier!' 'Hater!' 'Superstitious fundie nutter!!'
4. Devoted proselytizers gain positions of authority in all human institutions, ban any competitive view, and mandate exclusive indoctrination of their religious beliefs.
5. Bobbleheaded indoctrinees can recite all the memorized talking points, but don't have a clue what the science is.

Now THAT is a shining example of promoting a religious belief, and smearing the competition.

 

[usfan]

I am a scientist of more than 50 years, and I was responding to this egregious negative view of science with valid objections. The following does not represent a fundamental knowledge and respect for science as science. It represents a mindless rant against science based on a religious agenda, which is unacceptable.

You can try to force my post into your phony narrative, 'Christians are religious! Atheists have science!', if you want. Your attacks against straw men ignore my points completely..

Canned responses, talking points, and fallacies do not refute nor rebut anything i have actually said... But that is expected, in the irrational world of progressive Indoctrination..