3 of 7
3
Please present convincing reasons based on scientific findings, that naturalism is more compelling than theism. 
Posted: 20 March 2012 05:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
VeronicaS - 20 March 2012 05:25 PM

Keep repeating all of that to yourself and maybe someday you will become deranged enough to actually believe it yourself. Right now, you have a window of opportunity to jettison these ludicrous notions and go out and learn some science and try to figure out what’s actually true, rather than trying stick legs underneath your magical fantasy land. It will probably not be open for long, and then you will be back to stuck in the darkness of your ignorance.

dear Veronica

sad. Empty accusations and assertions won’t convince anyone, that you hold a position that makes most sense…..

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2012 09:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  37
Joined  2012-03-11
Lindoia - 20 March 2012 05:58 PM

Empty accusations and assertions won’t convince anyone, ..

Words to live by. We can wrap this up if you go ahead and fire the last arrow in your quiver. Tell me how compelling you find that ridiculous notion of ‘irreducible complexity’, then I can tell you what I think about it, and this will be a done deal. You can go back to your whacko religious sites and tell them how you carried the day. It isn’t like all that you’ve been doing here is braiding a lash for your own back. Be sure and post the link to this conversation when you do. They need to see what I said to you, also. You’ll be a sho’ nuff soldier of the lord, strong in the word.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2012 03:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
VeronicaS - 20 March 2012 09:40 PM
Lindoia - 20 March 2012 05:58 PM

Empty accusations and assertions won’t convince anyone, ..

Words to live by. We can wrap this up if you go ahead and fire the last arrow in your quiver. Tell me how compelling you find that ridiculous notion of ‘irreducible complexity’, then I can tell you what I think about it, and this will be a done deal. You can go back to your whacko religious sites and tell them how you carried the day. It isn’t like all that you’ve been doing here is braiding a lash for your own back. Be sure and post the link to this conversation when you do. They need to see what I said to you, also. You’ll be a sho’ nuff soldier of the lord, strong in the word.

If the reasons i presented to you so far are not compelling to you, what else should ?

have a nice day !!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2012 07:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2819
Joined  2005-04-29
Lindoia, to VeronicaS - 19 March 2012 03:44 AM

It seems you are not familiar with the fine-tune argument of the universe.

http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html

Yes, truth seems so simple, doesn’t it? Keep in mind however that people’s related prior and current viewpoints dominate their take on responses to these kinds of questions. If you feel certain that the world as we know it came about as a result of natural processes over immense spans of time, then the above take on things draws a chuckle. If you feel certain that magic is at the root of the world as we know it, you may see the above as worth latching on to intellectually.


Either way, you’ll likely look for points that validate your views. That’s the way human beings are set up both neurologically and psychologically.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2012 12:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  102
Joined  2012-01-09

To me, naturalism is more compelling because it does not suppose anything more than what you already experience, unlike theism.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2012 09:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  37
Joined  2012-03-11
nonverbal - 21 March 2012 07:46 AM

Yes, truth seems so simple, doesn’t it? Keep in mind however that people’s related prior and current viewpoints dominate their take on responses to these kinds of questions. If you feel certain that the world as we know it came about as a result of natural processes over immense spans of time, then the above take on things draws a chuckle. If you feel certain that magic is at the root of the world as we know it, you may see the above as worth latching on to intellectually.


Either way, you’ll likely look for points that validate your views. That’s the way human beings are set up both neurologically and psychologically.

The problem with this is that it could be interpreted as being a statement that both propositions are equally likely, and that an individuals personal bias is the tiebreaker. It should be pointed out that this is not the case at all. People, like the original poster, present as evidence statements that are factually incorrect,and, once these statements are systematically shown to be factually incorrect, fall back on this same sort of defense, that the person refusing to accept errors as truth is refusing to accept the truth because of their own bias, when, in reality, the person is simply refusing to replace fact with fiction. To accept intelligent design you have to start with the a priori, unquestioned assumption that it is true, and then reason in the following way. Since a god created the universe, all of the available evidence must be indicative of this. Since all of the evidence seems to demonstrate nothing of the sort, one of the following must be true in each instance of this. Either the data has been artificially manipulated to skew the results, malevolent supernatural influences have planted false data, the deeper truths of the universe have yet to be discovered, so, we have to wait for more data, or, there is a conspiracy by the elitist intelligentsia to deceive humanity.

If you start with the idea that possibly everyone is wrong about everything, so, let us look at the available evidence, and go where that leads, intelligent design is a conclussion that would never even cross your mind.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2012 09:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2819
Joined  2005-04-29
VeronicaS - 22 March 2012 09:07 AM

The problem with this is that it could be interpreted as being a statement that both propositions are equally likely, and that an individuals personal bias is the tiebreaker. It should be pointed out that this is not the case at all. . . .

Good point. By ridiculing the creationist position as magical, I was hoping to do as you suggest.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2012 03:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
QuakePhil - 21 March 2012 12:47 PM

To me, naturalism is more compelling because it does not suppose anything more than what you already experience, unlike theism.

I have experienced God through answering of prayers many times. Why should only what you experience exist ? That seems to me a very weak epistemology.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2012 03:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
VeronicaS - 22 March 2012 09:07 AM

The problem with this is that it could be interpreted as being a statement that both propositions are equally likely, and that an individuals personal bias is the tiebreaker. It should be pointed out that this is not the case at all. People, like the original poster, present as evidence statements that are factually incorrect,and, once these statements are systematically shown to be factually incorrect, fall back on this same sort of defense, that the person refusing to accept errors as truth is refusing to accept the truth because of their own bias, when, in reality, the person is simply refusing to replace fact with fiction.

It does not seem to me, that what i have presented to you so far, is based on fiction. I have rather a solid scientific support for what i have presented.

To accept intelligent design you have to start with the a priori, unquestioned assumption that it is true, and then reason in the following way.

It seems you do not know what Intelligent Design is based on. It does not make apriori assumptions. Thats why it is so compelling. Intelligent design is the result of unbiased scientists, that have lead the evidence go, wherever it is. And intelligent design is the infered result. Because the universe has a beginning, it has a cause. Because its finely tuned to life, a tuner.
Because life needs codified information, a intelligent informer.

Since a god created the universeall of the available evidence must be indicative of thisSince all of the evidence seems to demonstrate nothing of the sort 

That is your interpretation of the fact. But the finetuning leads clear to a other direction. Even the very fundamental forces of the universe are finely tuned. How do you explain that ?

http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universe

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen


weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars


gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly|
if smaller: stars would be so cool that nuclear fusion would not ignite, thus no heavy element production


electromagnetic force constant
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding


ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production


ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding


ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2012 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
nonverbal - 22 March 2012 09:27 AM
VeronicaS - 22 March 2012 09:07 AM

The problem with this is that it could be interpreted as being a statement that both propositions are equally likely, and that an individuals personal bias is the tiebreaker. It should be pointed out that this is not the case at all. . . .

Good point. By ridiculing the creationist position as magical, I was hoping to do as you suggest.

you have only two alternatives to a creator of the universe.

1. the universe arised from absolutely nothing.
2. The universe is eternal, in some way ? ( that includes bubble universes, multiverses, oscillating universes etc. )

What makes you believe, one of the two alternatives makes more sense that a creator ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2012 07:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  37
Joined  2012-03-11
Lindoia - 22 March 2012 03:46 PM

It does not seem to me, that what i have presented to you so far, is based on fiction. I have rather a solid scientific support for what i have presented.

It makes absolutely no sense for me to go back and take all of what said point at a time again and again. What you have presented so far has already been shown to be false, point by point. Your ‘fact claims’ are simply not true. And it still hasn’t clicked yet in your mind that, since all of your so-called evidence is false, your ludicrous conclusion built from that is also false.

Lindoia - 22 March 2012 03:46 PM

It seems you do not know what Intelligent Design is based on. It does not make apriori assumptions. Thats why it is so compelling. Intelligent design is the result of unbiased scientists, that have lead the evidence go, wherever it is. And intelligent design is the infered result. Because the universe has a beginning, it has a cause. Because its finely tuned to life, a tuner.
Because life needs codified information, a intelligent informer.


On the contrary, it is you that does not understand what intelligent design is based on. I would suggest that you go read the ruling handed down in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It’s only about 124 pages. In that trial, the best and brightest that intelligent design had to offer got their chance to present the ‘evidence’ to a conservative christian judge that was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush. It would not be possible to find a more sympathetic ear. After the trial, here is was that sympathetic ear had to say about the best and brightest that intelligent design had to offer.

 

“Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions. The inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony.”

Again, you have been shamelessly lied to. Don’t take it personally, though, because they will also lie under oath to a federal judge. It is still remotely possible that you believe that the things you are saying are true. But, once we remove all of the evidence that you presented which is obviously, demonstrably false, that leaves you absolutely nothing. You believe this foolishness because it is consistent with your religious convictions, but, it has no basis in fact at all. How strongly you believe this doesn’t matter. You are wrong.

Lindoia - 22 March 2012 03:46 PM

That is your interpretation of the fact. But the finetuning leads clear to a other direction. Even the very fundamental forces of the universe are finely tuned. How do you explain that?

I already have. Go back and read what I wrote the last time you made that ignorant statement.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 March 2012 08:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
VeronicaS - 23 March 2012 07:26 PM

It makes absolutely no sense for me to go back and take all of what said point at a time again and again. What you have presented so far has already been shown to be false, point by point.

That is what you assert. I only don’t know based on what you make that claim…..

Your ‘fact claims’ are simply not true.

how do you know ?

And it still hasn’t clicked yet in your mind that, since all of your so-called evidence is false, your ludicrous conclusion built from that is also false.

what evidence is false ?

On the contrary, it is you that does not understand what intelligent design is based on. I would suggest that you go read the ruling handed down in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It’s only about 124 pages. In that trial, the best and brightest that intelligent design had to offer got their chance to present the ‘evidence’ to a conservative christian judge that was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush. It would not be possible to find a more sympathetic ear. After the trial, here is was that sympathetic ear had to say about the best and brightest that intelligent design had to offer.

why should that trial be representative ?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/post-dover_educ054531.html

since the Kitzmiller v. Dover lawsuit, at least four states have passed policies requiring or permitting the teaching of scientific criticisms of evolution.

In 2006, South Carolina adopted a standard requiring students to “Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.”

In 2006, Mississippi passed a law holding that “No local school board, school superintendent or school principal shall prohibit a public school classroom teacher from discussing and answering questions from individual students on the origin of life.”

In 2008, Louisiana required passed a policy requiring that Louisiana schools shall “create and foster an environment…that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

In 2009, Texas adopted science standards that require students to “analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations ... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking,” and also “analyze and evaluate” core evolutionary claims, such as “common ancestry,” “natural selection,” and “mutation.”
If you haven’t heard of these victories, there’s a good reason why: the media love to cover debates over evolution-education, but only on rare occasions do they accurately report the ID movement’s wins.

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 March 2012 07:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  37
Joined  2012-03-11
Lindoia - 23 March 2012 08:07 PM

since the Kitzmiller v. Dover lawsuit, at least four states have passed policies requiring or permitting the teaching of scientific criticisms of evolution.

In 2006, South Carolina adopted a standard requiring students to “Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.”

In 2006, Mississippi passed a law holding that “No local school board, school superintendent or school principal shall prohibit a public school classroom teacher from discussing and answering questions from individual students on the origin of life.”

In 2008, Louisiana required passed a policy requiring that Louisiana schools shall “create and foster an environment…that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

In 2009, Texas adopted science standards that require students to “analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations ... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking,” and also “analyze and evaluate” core evolutionary claims, such as “common ancestry,” “natural selection,” and “mutation.”
If you haven’t heard of these victories, there’s a good reason why: the media love to cover debates over evolution-education, but only on rare occasions do they accurately report the ID movement’s wins.

 

You could not possibly be this stupid.  You are citing references to decisions being made by bible belt school boards, decisions almost identical to the one that got shot down in Kitzmiller v Dover, as if that somehow establishes scientific legitimacy.
I suggested that read the decision by judge Jones so that you could see what happens to intelligent design when it gets a fair hearing on a level playing field. It crumbles like stale crackers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 March 2012 08:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
VeronicaS - 24 March 2012 07:58 AM

I suggested that read the decision by judge Jones so that you could see what happens to intelligent design when it gets a fair hearing on a level playing field. It crumbles like stale crackers.

oh really ? i just don’t know why. What makes you so confident about that ? i have not seen good, convincing arguments from you so far…..

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 March 2012 08:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  37
Joined  2012-03-11

I suppose I should continue to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are merely dull-witted and gullible.
You said “What makes you so confident about that ? ” as if I was talking about a case still pending or something. I am confident that the courts will rule against creationism, under any guise, in cases like Kitzmiller v Dover Area School Board, McLean v Arkansas Board of Education, Epperson v Arkansas, etc.. because the cases are over and the rulings have already been handed down. The best of reasons to be confident. It has already happened.

You say “I have not seen good, convincing arguments from you so far…..” as if all of your erroneous claims about the reality of nature have gone unanswered. You have seen plenty of good, convincing arguments that show you are just plain wrong on every point that you have tried to make, and I have only mentioned the tip of the iceberg, it’s just that no amount of evidence is sufficient to sway you from your fairy tales. The problem is that you are either incapable of understanding or unwilling to accept that which is so obviously true.

To try and use “god created it” as the explanation for how the universe came into being is to dodge the question, because the next question is “where did god come from?”. Whatever explanation you offer for the origin of god would make a lot more sense if you just skipped god and applied it to the universe, because we know that the universe exists, and there is good, solid evidence to support that. ‘God did it” is also a non sequitur. If asked a question of ‘how’, the correct answer is not in the form of ‘who’. 


Your original question was why is methodological materialism accepted by scientists, but supernatural explanations are not even considered. The answer is still because methodological naturalism works and has a proven track record of results, while supernatural explanations fail immediately when examined. You are your own worst enemy in that conversation because the nonsense, errors and lies that you have posted have articulated my point far more clearly than I ever could.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 7
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed