Demon Lord Plot Continues...

[a-guitarist]

Just because you've heard them before, Pali, doesn't make the arguments any less valid. It just means that what many of us require to validate our faith within ourselves isn't the same for you.

I never believed in God growing up. I was probably the only five year old in my Sunday school who just thought that the meaning of church was sitting with a bunch of people playing games, the leading of which was talking about this funny guy with a white beard. And even later in life, when I grasped the idea of God, I found it odd. But, now I'm twenty six, I've come to the region of faith in my life on my own.

A giant portion of my faith is based on science. (Atoms blinking in and out and not coming back where they once left, universal energy throughout the universe- even in a vacuum, brain synchronizations, seasonal changes and the statistics that follow them, phases of the moon and it's sway on the population, psychological ramifications for actions, etc.) And much of what I 'believe' in would have been laughed at by both scientists and religiousists (new word?) even ten years ago... but science vindicated me in both their eyes.

And, of course, there are just portions of what I believe to be true that science can't, and (honestly) most likely will never prove. And that's the way I like it. I can't wait to find out what the end of my book will be like... if it will be the depressing one, the happy one, or something never before thought?

As for the "asylum" idea, the time I spent in the Psych Ward proved to me that believing in something doesn't make it real to anyone else but you, and that doesn't make it wrong or damaging. I've got many stories from the week or so I spent there. I gained a new appreciation for the "insane" or "crazy", as most of them I met where genuinely happy people... and perfectly content living their lives that were "normal" minus the flaw that they had an invisible walkman in which Jimi was playing songs for them and talking to them, or other similar situations (if you want them, send me a PM, I'd be happy to share.) And of the forty or so people spending time in this place with me, only one was "violent"... and that was the the nursing staff after they wouldn't let him make a phone call on New Years Eve to his "friend" that "wasn't real". Imagine being locked up for three months (this person was there for that long at this point) because you refused to take medicine that you didn't believe you needed, medicine that you were forced to take because you didn't share a belief with the majority, and because you didn't want to believe the majority of the world... you weren't allowed to talk to a friend you had for ten years. It'd be like getting thrown in your "Asylum" because you believe science means more than religion, and is better than it. You're not hurting anyone with your belief, and you're made perfectly happy by having your belief... so what (or who) does it hurt to believe it?

I was very content with my a lot of the things I believed to be true, and after I "lost" those, I was hurt for a while. But, even now I'm sure a lot of what I believe and hold true to this day many people would simply find "crazy". I still "see" things, I still "hear" things, and I still "think" things that most call "delusional", but in the end... I don't hurt anyone. I don't force anyone to believe me, and I don't expect them to simply because they claim to have met the burden of scientific skepticism.

Also, religion may have caused a lot of pain in the world, but so has metallurgy. That doesn't make having steel or bronze in the world a mistake or pointless. It just means it's been used for the wrong reasons.

a-g

[Pali]

Sorry my friend' date=' but you are just plain wrong on several of the things you attribute to faith-based beliefs. Furthermore, we are returning to the fallacy of "look at all the things they believed that have been wrong" to disprove and discredit.[/quote']

You're right, it is a fallacy, and one I should not have returned to.

The Earth being the center of the universe, Geocentrism, is quite old. However the Ptolemaic model, proposed by Roman mathmatecian/astronomer Claudiaus Ptolemy, that was later refuted by the Copernican heliocentric model, was the most widely accepted version. The fact that the Church supported the Ptolemaic model does not make it a faith-based creation as it seems you are insinuating. It was a creation of science and not religion.

It was a creation of philosophy, not anything resembling the modern scientific method, as I mentioned before. I don't blame them for being wrong here... it's not like they had the technology to actually apply something like modern science to this field, but from my point of view they'd have been more justified in adopting a "We don't know" position than making the assumption that the Earth is the center of the universe. The problem here, of course, is that people hate admitting that we don't know things and demand an answer to believe for now, regardless of it's basis.

The Flood Story is a common story that has been found through many different civilizations. While I admit I am not completely current of the findings from the research, it was my belief that research - fossil records and whatnot - have shown evidence corroberating a global flood.

That is incorrect. The reason we find sea fossils on land is because the tectonic plates are in constant movement, and a lot of what is land now used to be underwater (the Himalayas, for instance, are covered with marine fossils... which ceases to be surprising when you recognize that they were formed as the Indian subcontinent slammed into Asia and shoved upwards a ton of the land that used to be under water separating them). There is no geological evidence that a global flood happened. Now, flood stories are common among many different civilizations, but that's because those civilizations lived along rivers that periodically flooded (sometimes disastrously when that flooding was greater than expected). Civilizations that lived in places that didn't have periodically flooding rivers don't have flood myths.

Skepticism also cannot adaquetely answer the question of the existence of a higher being specifically because that is not an area that is falsifiable. The only cogent point, therefore, is that faith should not be used to explain science. Faith then, perforce, can only be used to explain that which lies outside the realm of science. Ultimately, this means, at least to me, that one can still be a skeptic while holding a belief in a higher being.

You're right, the idea of a higher being is not falsifiable. Which is exactly why I think that it is an unjustified belief to hold. There are innumerable beliefs that cannot be falsified (such as the existence of Klingons)... this does not make it rational to hold them, and it certainly is not a skeptical position (skepticism being nonacceptance of claims without evidence supporting them). A position only becomes justified after it has withstood testing.

A giant portion of my faith is based on science.

If there's evidence supporting it, it's not faith. If there isn't evidence supporting it, it's not science. Now, some of the things you mentioned have evidence supporting them (psychological effects of the lunar cycle, for instance), some of them I don't know enough about the relevant field to comment on (quantum physics I'm not terribly knowledgeable about, though what I do understand makes me strongly doubt that whole atoms spontaneously appear and disappear... certain subatomic particles can, but they work by different rules) and some of them don't (such as a universal energy field... 10 times out of 10, when I hear someone talk about a universal energy, they are using the word "energy" in a way that no physicist ever would, so I'd love to know exactly what you mean by that). Again, that you guessed a few things right does not on its own justify the basis for that guessing.

And I never said that insanity cannot bring happiness. But a belief making you happy doesn't mean that the belief is right or that you're logically justified in holding that belief. I'm not going to argue whether it was right or not to lock up the people you mention, but whether they'd actually harm themselves on their own or not has nothing to do with whether what they believe is real or imaginary.

Also, religion may have caused a lot of pain in the world, but so has metallurgy.

Metallurgy is a tool. Religion is all too often a motivator and a dividing line. There is a difference. Science gives a picture of how things are... it makes no judgements on how things should be. People who favored eugenics were motivated not by evolutionary theory, but by utopian idealism that saw evolution as a tool by which the species could be improved. There is a very important difference here.

[Icor]

I don't get it. Let me see if I can try to enunciate a few things.

I look at the Grand Canyon and think that it was once filled with water, thus the sedimentary layers and the river. It was just damned up because of a world-wide flood, and it all washed out in 40 minutes.

But a friend of mine who is an Evolutionist believes that the layers were carved out over 40,000,000 years (or whatever the number was) by that river. I can't say that this is wrong because I wasn't there to know!

Furthermore, I can not know that my theory is correct either, because the possibilities are not testable. They aren’t! Think about what you’d have to do to create absolute fact from a theory. We cannot fill the ground up with dirt and make a new river, and we cannot make another world-wide flood. In essence, we can make educated assumptions, for which there are always counter arguments.

What is obvious is that fossils in the ground do not prove that the animal that created the bones had any kids, let alone different kids, and huge oil beds under the earth do not prove that tons of plant-life was crushed by trillions of tons of sediment from a world-wide flood sent by some invisible god.

My conclusion:

Science relies on fact, and a fact is something that is an undeniable, universally accepted truth. The sun exists. Earth is here. Trees have leaves. Science takes visible facts, small and large, and compares them to find explanations for nature.

The exact moment two observers of nature (AKA, scientists) are unable to agree upon facts that they see, they leave the realm of science and enter the realm of hypothesis. And because there are creation scientists, whether people like it or not, "reasonable doubt" is not exclusive to the observer; one observer can be absolutely sure that they are right (and mind you, this has nothing to do with majority), but it only takes one other person to accept a contradictory truth to make them into a speculator.

(EDIT ADDENDUM: What I am saying is that fact itself is only absolute if every sentient person on the planet agrees on said fact.)

I have learned that through writing this that it is exceedingly arrogant to say to someone that they were created or evolved in an exact way. If I were to draw an image (like I often do), I would be offended if someone came up to me and told me exactly how I drew it! They don’t know how I drew it, only I do! Only I knew what I was thinking when I drew it, how long it took, what inspired me, etc etc etc. They can only assume to know how I created that original piece of artwork. The image exists, that is an absolute fact. But the origin of each line are testable within the limitations of individual bias. I don't care if they say God made it appear in 7 days, or it evolved on its own. I made it, it is mine, I know more about it than they could ever hope to.

In closing: it is not logical to presume we know exactly how the world got here unless we ourselves created it, or single-handedly spurned its evolution, and it is extremely arrogant to impose our own conclusions on others. Anyone who disagrees with this needs to explain to me how they were able to travel 65 billion years into the past, or looked directly into the face of god to test their theories. Solution: let people believe what they want, for it is their right, and appreciate the beauties of each theory regardless of their practicality. I do not promote creationism over evolution, I simply accept creationist assumptions.

[yxlist]

YAY!! Or just skip this if you wanna...

Evolution does a great job of explaining how life adapts and changes with time. Over the past century, the theory has been verified by countless experiments and observations. So is the scientific evidence supporting evolution irrefutable?

To answer this question, it is first necessary to understand the two assumptions on which science is based. The first is that man can accurately observe his surroundings and formulate laws to describe it (the observable axiom). The second is that every event that has happened, is happening or will happen can be explained by math, chemistry, physics or biology (the naturalistic axiom). Science requires both axioms to function properly.

Within scientific circles, the theory of evolution must be true because science has no way to disprove it. When science assumes that all events have a naturalistic explanation, it also assumes that the theory of evolution is true. The naturalistic axiom does not allow scientists to consider the possibility that perhaps God used evolution as a tool to create life. Science simply assumes that this possibility is false; As a result, scientific experiments focus on how evolution happens not whether or not the theory is true.

The naturalistic axiom allows science to do some very interesting things. For example, science has yet to figure out how life originated. Using the naturalistic axiom for justification, this major flaw in evolutionary theory has been quietly swept under the rug. As a result, today very few scientists are involved in origins research and the origin of life will likely remain a mystery.

Perhaps even more interesting, science does not have a plausible explanation for how the first genes and proteins evolved. Here the scientific community has chosen to do something completely different. Instead of sweeping this problem under the rug, they label any scientist who conducts experiments or develops mathematical and computer models to look at this issue a Creationist. This label destroys the scientific credibility of both the scientist and his (or her) ideas and findings.

This behavior may at first seem odd. But there is a good explanation for it. Natural selection and chance (even given 100 trillion years to operate) do not seem to be able to explain the evolution of the first genes and proteins. This observation threatens the very nature of science because it calls attention to the fact that the naturalistic axiom might just be a faulty assumption. The truth is no longer important because the scientific establishment must preserve the axioms on which it is based. Thus, scientists who do not have faith in the naturalistic axiom are labeled Creationists and their theories about evolution are dismissed as cleverly disguised forms of religion.

Intelligent Design

Intelligent design (ID theory) is science without the naturalistic axiom. The theory still relies on the observable axiom. But it differs from science in that intelligent design does not assume that everything has a natural cause. This allows scientists to examine the evidence and if they see something that just cannot happen, they can infer design. Intelligent design is not science - because it does not rely on the naturalistic axiom. Intelligent design is not religion - because it does not require faith. Intelligent design is a framework of logical thinking based on the observable axiom that can be used to analyze scientific data.

if you feel the need to refute this, do so at the website where I got this snippet (or if you just want get some more info)...

http://theory-of-evolution.net/

Edit: I put this here because it does a fair job of showing the inherent flaw of why science

is not always right (because it simply can't be concerning some things) and that science and creationism can co-support each other for some people. This is one of the reasons people can believe in both. Again, it *all* boils down to something that can not be proven one way, or another, and that, my friend, is where our faith comes in.

[yxlist]

oh, also, klingon's DO exist. ask any trekkie. Want me to prove it scientifically?

Their language didn't create itself, now did it?! lol

[Pali]

Evolution does a great job of explaining how life adapts and changes with time. Over the past century' date=' the theory has been verified by countless experiments and observations. So is the scientific evidence supporting evolution irrefutable?[/quote']

No, but to refute it you need evidence that refutes it, of which there isn't any.

Within scientific circles, the theory of evolution must be true because science has no way to disprove it. When science assumes that all events have a naturalistic explanation, it also assumes that the theory of evolution is true.

Wrong. The theory of evolution is potentially disprovable through many means (a fossil rabbit from the Pre-Cambrian would destroy the theory instantly). The point is, however, that this hasn't happened... there has been no evidence found that argues against the core mechanisms of the theory. The details, however, are revised constantly as we learn new things.

The naturalistic axiom does not allow scientists to consider the possibility that perhaps God used evolution as a tool to create life. Science simply assumes that this possibility is false; As a result, scientific experiments focus on how evolution happens not whether or not the theory is true.

Wrong. If there was given a testable way of examining the God hypothesis, where result X would support it and result Y would disprove it, the God hypothesis would be scientific. However, it is not testable, and therefore it is not scientific. Science revolves around the ability to test claims... without that testing, you cannot have reason to think the claim valid. And whether evolution happens at all or not has been tested thousands of times over the last 150 years since the theory was produced, and it has PASSED every test.

The naturalistic axiom allows science to do some very interesting things. For example, science has yet to figure out how life originated. Using the naturalistic axiom for justification, this major flaw in evolutionary theory has been quietly swept under the rug. As a result, today very few scientists are involved in origins research and the origin of life will likely remain a mystery.

Perhaps even more interesting, science does not have a plausible explanation for how the first genes and proteins evolved. Here the scientific community has chosen to do something completely different. Instead of sweeping this problem under the rug, they label any scientist who conducts experiments or develops mathematical and computer models to look at this issue a Creationist. This label destroys the scientific credibility of both the scientist and his (or her) ideas and findings.

Actually, a ton of scientists are involved in researching the origins of life, and they've produced numerous models for it.

and

are examples of such. The difference is that all the steps involved in these models are testable... we can work with the proteins and amino acids and other building blocks of life now in labs and see if they work as our predictions say they would. If they are found to work otherwise, the models are changed.

Again, ID does not provide a testable model, and therefore it is not science.

This behavior may at first seem odd. But there is a good explanation for it. Natural selection and chance (even given 100 trillion years to operate) do not seem to be able to explain the evolution of the first genes and proteins.

Yes, they do. Proteins form naturally, without any guidance, all the time in labs.

This observation threatens the very nature of science because it calls attention to the fact that the naturalistic axiom might just be a faulty assumption. The truth is no longer important because the scientific establishment must preserve the axioms on which it is based. Thus, scientists who do not have faith in the naturalistic axiom are labeled Creationists and their theories about evolution are dismissed as cleverly disguised forms of religion.

ID was decided as a religious movement by a conservative, Bush-appointed judge. It is not testable, therefore it is not science.

Intelligent design (ID theory) is science without the naturalistic axiom.

Science is naturalistic because the natural is TESTABLE. The supernatural is not, therefore there is no way to distinguish between a correct explanation and an incorrect one.

Again, it *all* boils down to something that can not be proven one way, or another, and that, my friend, is where our faith comes in.

Skepticism and faith are exact opposites. One requires reason to believe, the other is belief without reason. They are in no way the same thing.

ID is nothing but a god of the gaps argument. It takes positions that we do not have a very clear understanding of yet, declares them impossible to understand, and inserts a designer as the only possible explanation. This does not get us anywhere. It doesn't increase our understanding of how the universe works, it gives us no way to know whether we're right or wrong, and it only begs the question then of "who designed the designer?" And once again, the reason it is not science is because it makes no predictions and therefore is untestable.

[Pali]

I'd love to respond to you, Icor, but I've got to go to work. Maybe when I get off I'll remember to do so.

In short, however, I will say that the models used to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon are testable. While we cannot go back and watch and be absolutely certain that they are exactly what went down, we can observe how things act today and extrapolate past events based on that. And the geological evidence simply is not there to suggest a world-wide flood ever happened... it would have left unmistakeable markers in the geostrata all over the world, and they aren't there (in comparison, the meteor that killed the dinosaurs left a thin layer of iridium [rarely found on Earth] found around most of the planet), not to mention the damage it would have done to most life on Earth.

[yxlist]

sorry, i dont know how to quote unless i quote your whole post, so i put your quotes in quotations and then responded.

Pali:

"No, but to refute it you need evidence that refutes it, of which there isn't any."

This same thing applies to God. He can not be proven, nor disproven. Do you get the feeling your arguing your own point here? Because you are.

"Wrong. The theory of evolution is potentially disprovable through many means (a fossil rabbit from the Pre-Cambrian would destroy the theory instantly). The point is, however, that this hasn't happened... there has been no evidence found that argues against the core mechanisms of the theory. The details, however, are revised constantly as we learn new things."

Again you contradict yourself. All of your own points are that science can be measured and proven, the statement said basically science believes itself until it can be disproven and you disagree with it? Isn't that your entire argument with all these posts?

"Wrong. If there was given a testable way of examining the God hypothesis, where result X would support it and result Y would disprove it, the God hypothesis would be scientific. However, it is not testable, and therefore it is not scientific. Science revolves around the ability to test claims... without that testing, you cannot have reason to think the claim valid. And whether evolution happens at all or not has been tested thousands of times over the last 150 years since the theory was produced, and it has PASSED every test."

I dont see how you're disagree with what you quoted above this in my post. Again you are saying "Wrong" but saying the exact same thing as the quote. Which means you agree, I think? Two negatives is a positive? Obviously there is no way to test it, and therefore science can not accept it...thats precisely what it said. and what you said. boggle.

"Actually, a ton of scientists are involved in researching the origins of life, and they've produced numerous models for it. This and this are examples of such. The difference is that all the steps involved in these models are testable... we can work with the proteins and amino acids and other building blocks of life now in labs and see if they work as our predictions say they would. If they are found to work otherwise, the models are changed."

Its safe to say a number of different scientists all have a number of different models, many of which are contradictory. Does that make one model more scientific than another? Does that make one less scientific? Does that make one more correct or incorrect than another? No. Why? Because none of them can be proven. I watched the youtube video, this particular model has NOT been verified or replicated in a lab, that's why its a model, thats why they are all models, no one knows for sure. Science does some really good guesswork based on its findings is basically what they are saying.

"Yes, they do. Proteins form naturally, without any guidance, all the time in labs."

Really? I would think the world naturally refers to 'nature', not in a controlled setting such as a laboratory.

"Skepticism and faith are exact opposites. One requires reason to believe, the other is belief without reason. They are in no way the same thing."

I again disagree. I have my faith, like many others on here who have said the exact same thing, BECAUSE of skepticism. I am not ignorant, I feel I am as near informed as you can be on the subject because I have done my own exhaustive researching as far as reading goes.

Which brings me to my closing point. You have faith. Its obvious. You have faith in science, and I can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. You automatically (blindly?) accept what a man or men have told you because of what they have done or seen themselves (supposedly?). Have you ever been in a lab to perform all these experiments you tout? I'm thinking probably not. So you just believe what you are told. At least with faith its a matter of searching your heart and coming to a belief based on something more than just being told 'God is real.' No one accepts God just because they were told to. They were told to and then they wrestled with it, not once, not twice, but many times in that great scientific lab called their cerebellum, over and over and over, and He either won them through faith, or didn't. Perhaps if you're bored you should read Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. Its a step by step guide into the thoughts of how a completely non-believe atheist came to not only believe in a higher power, but the God of christianity using only logical thought processes. Ok, this really is the last post I'll leave here, I hope everyone has enjoyed this thread as much as myself. Very enlightening, though it did sorta turn into a "I'm right you're wrong" kind of thing without any real intentions, I think. No, I believe.

[a-guitarist]

If there's evidence supporting it, it's not faith. If there isn't evidence supporting it, it's not science. Now, some of the things you mentioned have evidence supporting them (psychological effects of the lunar cycle, for instance), some of them I don't know enough about the relevant field to comment on (quantum physics I'm not terribly knowledgeable about, though what I do understand makes me strongly doubt that whole atoms spontaneously appear and disappear... certain subatomic particles can, but they work by different rules) and some of them don't (such as a universal energy field... 10 times out of 10, when I hear someone talk about a universal energy, they are using the word "energy" in a way that no physicist ever would, so I'd love to know exactly what you mean by that). Again, that you guessed a few things right does not on its own justify the basis for that guessing.

And I never said that insanity cannot bring happiness. But a belief making you happy doesn't mean that the belief is right or that you're logically justified in holding that belief. I'm not going to argue whether it was right or not to lock up the people you mention, but whether they'd actually harm themselves on their own or not has nothing to do with whether what they believe is real or imaginary.

Metallurgy is a tool. Religion is all too often a motivator and a dividing line. There is a difference. Science gives a picture of how things are... it makes no judgments on how things should be. People who favored eugenics were motivated not by evolutionary theory, but by utopian idealism that saw evolution as a tool by which the species could be improved. There is a very important difference here.

Just because evidence supports part of it doesn't make it all instantly true. Because I believe when the atom phases out, it takes part of you with, and when it phases back in within something you've touched, part of you is now in that. Not just molecularly, but spirtiually and "soully". And, you are right, it isn't whole atoms, but building blocks of them. I'm not sure which ones, as I can't seem to recall now.

When 'universal energy' was described to me, it was done in a lot of dumbed down talk, admitently. But, the basic synopsis is that in any given space, at any given time, the potential for energy creation exists, even within a complete vacuum, due to something having to do with dark matter and dark energy (vacuum energy, sometimes, I think it's called). According to that idea, though, it isn't possible to harness the energy for "work" related means, but that doesn't factor into why I use it for my beliefs. Oh, and Physicists are the ones that use these terms and coined them, not me. Got a problem with my usages of it, bring it up with Hawkings... if you can catch him between his studio time and lectures.

What my argument was, wasn't that you thought "insanity" didn't bring happiness. It just seems to me that you want to make everyone bend to your rationalizations (and your thoughts and stances are very good, well thought out, educated, and mostly unarguable... if you follow what you say). My example was more of, regardless of the truth of validity of the claims, they've bettered the lives of the people making them and there is what wrong with that? Logic is all well and good on paper, but once you adapt it to the real world you still get many more questions than answers. And, after all, we're human... there is nothing logical about us (or our creations, Vulcans included. )

Wars have been fought over land, oil, fish, women, and air space, they were pretty good dividers right through history, but I don't see anyone arguing their illogical nature. (the fight over them, not the objects themselves) And the Nazi Eugenics, to my knowledge, was not related to religion. Instead, it was based in "science" that was bastardized or interpreted wrongly at the time. I could be wrong here, as I have done no research into Nazism and Religion... (Yes, I understand their implications on Juadism, but, that was based in what they claimed as genetic purity, of which they felt Jews were not. Hence the slaughter.) From other research, I think Hitler wanted to start his own religion with him as the figure head, but I, again, can't remember much about it or just don't recall any other mention past that.

But, Pali, please keep talking. It's fun listening to you, and you're very well spoken. I hope you're on a Debate team or club.

a-g

[EyeSeeU]

How about we not argue about this, because the real truth would kill us all. Who cares about God? Can you prove he/she exists/existed? Can you disprove? Until the day you can do either it is really silly to argue about it. How about we just say we do not know. If people want to believe in something let them believe in it. Just as long as your not trying to make me believe in it to... then we will be having problems!

[Deykari]

I'm going to add what is ptotentially the most intellignent (drunken) reponse to this thread, but, yeah. I totally love boobs.

Dey

[yxlist]

I have to say I *have* experimented on numerous boobs, and not all of them are real! lol

[Questioner]

TMI

lol?

[EyeSeeU]

Its a boob eat boob world baby!

[Pali]

Just because evidence supports part of it doesn't make it all instantly true. Because I believe when the atom phases out' date=' it takes part of you with, and when it phases back in within something you've touched, part of you is now in that. Not just molecularly, but spirtiually and "soully". And, you are right, it isn't whole atoms, but building blocks of them. I'm not sure which ones, as I can't seem to recall now.[/quote']

Atoms do not "phase out", or at the very least there is no evidence to support the idea that they do. Nothing is predicted by quantum physics to simply "phase out". Extremely minute particles of matter and antimatter will occasionally spontaneously form and mutually annihilate, but this is not "phasing" to some other location in any way. It's not a well understood phenomena, as far as I know, but then it's been a long time since I've looked it up. EDIT: As for those other things, you don't have any evidence for them. Even if atoms did occasionally phase to new locations and back, that wouldn't mean that you transfer part of some soul to them... that is a separate claim that requires its own evidence for.

When 'universal energy' was described to me, it was done in a lot of dumbed down talk, admitently. But, the basic synopsis is that in any given space, at any given time, the potential for energy creation exists, even within a complete vacuum, due to something having to do with dark matter and dark energy (vacuum energy, sometimes, I think it's called). According to that idea, though, it isn't possible to harness the energy for "work" related means, but that doesn't factor into why I use it for my beliefs. Oh, and Physicists are the ones that use these terms and coined them, not me. Got a problem with my usages of it, bring it up with Hawkings... if you can catch him between his studio time and lectures.

If you could find me Stephen Hawking using the term "energy" in this context, I would lose all respect for the man instantly. The term energy is ONLY used by physicists (in a physics context) as potential for work. In physics, it has no other meaning. And the potential for energy creation does not exist ANYWHERE as far as physics is concerned... thermodynamic laws state that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. Whoever told you this was giving you psuedoscientific bs, my friend.

What my argument was, wasn't that you thought "insanity" didn't bring happiness. It just seems to me that you want to make everyone bend to your rationalizations (and your thoughts and stances are very good, well thought out, educated, and mostly unarguable... if you follow what you say). My example was more of, regardless of the truth of validity of the claims, they've bettered the lives of the people making them and there is what wrong with that? Logic is all well and good on paper, but once you adapt it to the real world you still get many more questions than answers. And, after all, we're human... there is nothing logical about us (or our creations, Vulcans included. )

Yes, they have bettered the lives of many people. But the argument I am making is not that they have no value whatsoever, only that they have no value in determining the nature of reality.

Wars have been fought over land, oil, fish, women, and air space, they were pretty good dividers right through history, but I don't see anyone arguing their illogical nature. (the fight over them, not the objects themselves)

I would, at least for most situations. In some circumstances, however, violence is a perfectly logical course of action.

And the Nazi Eugenics, to my knowledge, was not related to religion. Instead, it was based in "science" that was bastardized or interpreted wrongly at the time. I could be wrong here, as I have done no research into Nazism and Religion... (Yes, I understand their implications on Juadism, but, that was based in what they claimed as genetic purity, of which they felt Jews were not. Hence the slaughter.) From other research, I think Hitler wanted to start his own religion with him as the figure head, but I, again, can't remember much about it or just don't recall any other mention past that.

I did not say eugenics was related to religion. You're quite right to say that it wasn't. As I said, it was based on a utopian ideal (which, excluding the supernatural aspects, shares many similarities with religious beliefs). And yes, Hitler, much like Stalin, wanted to create a state in which HE was considered the absolute power. Hitler decided to claim he was doing God's work (whether he believed it or was simply using it as a political tool is unknowable) which would grant him authority much in the same way the Pope has, whereas Stalin saw religion as a threat (can't have God around being a higher authority than the Party, now can we?).

But, Pali, please keep talking. It's fun listening to you, and you're very well spoken. I hope you're on a Debate team or club.

Thanks, but no, not on any team or in a club. I've just been at this a long time.

Now, onto the next...

"No, but to refute it you need evidence that refutes it, of which there isn't any."

This same thing applies to God. He can not be proven, nor disproven. Do you get the feeling your arguing your own point here? Because you are.

No, I am not. Scientific theories are falsifiable in principle... that there isn't evidence that refutes evolutionary theory shows the strength of the theory, because there are infinite possibilities that COULD disprove it and those have not been found to be the case. Theism is inherently indisprovable because it is NOT falsifiable... if you can, please, give me one piece of hypothetical evidence that would disprove your belief in God.

"Wrong. The theory of evolution is potentially disprovable through many means (a fossil rabbit from the Pre-Cambrian would destroy the theory instantly). The point is, however, that this hasn't happened... there has been no evidence found that argues against the core mechanisms of the theory. The details, however, are revised constantly as we learn new things."

Again you contradict yourself. All of your own points are that science can be measured and proven, the statement said basically science believes itself until it can be disproven and you disagree with it? Isn't that your entire argument with all these posts?

Science relies on being testable. No theory is ever taken to be absolute truth and reaches a state where questioning of it ceases... every bit of new information in the relevant field is a test. Every time a new fossil is found it is a test of the predictions of evolutionary theory. Every time a new genetic code is sequenced it is a test of the predictions of evolutionary theory. That it continually passes these tests is what convinces us that it is very likely to be correct. Tell me, what predictions has the God hypothesis made that have been tested and it has passed (in a way that can be objectively judged and reviewed by others, as scienctific discoveries and experiments are)?

"Wrong. If there was given a testable way of examining the God hypothesis, where result X would support it and result Y would disprove it, the God hypothesis would be scientific. However, it is not testable, and therefore it is not scientific. Science revolves around the ability to test claims... without that testing, you cannot have reason to think the claim valid. And whether evolution happens at all or not has been tested thousands of times over the last 150 years since the theory was produced, and it has PASSED every test."

I dont see how you're disagree with what you quoted above this in my post. Again you are saying "Wrong" but saying the exact same thing as the quote. Which means you agree, I think? Two negatives is a positive? Obviously there is no way to test it, and therefore science can not accept it...thats precisely what it said. and what you said. boggle.

You said the naturalistic axiom is the reason the God hypothesis is rejected. You were wrong. The reason it is rejected is because it is inherently untestable, like other supernatural explanations. That natural explanations are testable and supernatural ones are not is the fault of those who believe those explanations (for instance, if we had wizards who used magic all over the place, or Jedi, then their use of such abilities would be scientifically examinable because they would be replicable and testable... in the rare instances where supernatural explanations given were testable, they invariably FAILED those tests to the point where the only ones left are the untestable ones).

"Actually, a ton of scientists are involved in researching the origins of life, and they've produced numerous models for it. This and this are examples of such. The difference is that all the steps involved in these models are testable... we can work with the proteins and amino acids and other building blocks of life now in labs and see if they work as our predictions say they would. If they are found to work otherwise, the models are changed."

Its safe to say a number of different scientists all have a number of different models, many of which are contradictory. Does that make one model more scientific than another? Does that make one less scientific? Does that make one more correct or incorrect than another? No. Why? Because none of them can be proven. I watched the youtube video, this particular model has NOT been verified or replicated in a lab, that's why its a model, thats why they are all models, no one knows for sure. Science does some really good guesswork based on its findings is basically what they are saying.

Yes. It's educated guesswork based on observation of how such chemicals interact with each other. It is based on geological evidence of the state of the early Earth, and the predictions that such models make can be tested in later experiments or potentially in examination of the fossil record and genetics. Now, you're right that with our limited information we cannot be certain that any specific model accurately reflects what really happened, but then, we don't need to be... to answer the theist challenge that science cannot explain how life could've began naturally, all we need are models that fit the data that show how it COULD have. Now, in what way is YOUR model any more useful or explanatory? What is it based on? Is there any way we can test it against new information that we'll gain in the future?

"Yes, they do. Proteins form naturally, without any guidance, all the time in labs."

Really? I would think the world naturally refers to 'nature', not in a controlled setting such as a laboratory.

In nature now, free proteins are incredibly rare and do not interact in any way like they would have 3.5 billion years ago. Nearly all are used by modern life. Only in labs can those conditions be replicated.

"Skepticism and faith are exact opposites. One requires reason to believe, the other is belief without reason. They are in no way the same thing."

I again disagree. I have my faith, like many others on here who have said the exact same thing, BECAUSE of skepticism. I am not ignorant, I feel I am as near informed as you can be on the subject because I have done my own exhaustive researching as far as reading goes.

Then tell me, what could convince you that a deity does not exist? In what way could your belief be falsified? I can tell you numerous possible ways in which my acceptance of evolutionary theory could be reversed, or my acceptance of general relativity. What evidence was it that turned you from nonacceptance (the starting point of any skeptical inquiry) of the god hypothesis to acceptance?

Which brings me to my closing point. You have faith. Its obvious. You have faith in science, and I can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. You automatically (blindly?) accept what a man or men have told you because of what they have done or seen themselves (supposedly?). Have you ever been in a lab to perform all these experiments you tout? I'm thinking probably not. So you just believe what you are told.

I believe what has been independently tested and verified by dozens of people to be the case. I am also fully prepared to alter that belief based on new information (for example, I used to believe that neanderthals were ancestors of humans, until new comparisons of our genetic codes showed that they were actually cousins, not parents, on the evolutionary tree). Again, I ask you, what new information would cause you to change your views on the existence of a deity, or even the particulars of that deity? If you have some way to test your beliefs in which the results would alter or disprove them, then I'd say no, you're not using faith to form those beliefs. But you haven't ever given me any such tests that could be performed.

At least with faith its a matter of searching your heart and coming to a belief based on something more than just being told 'God is real.' No one accepts God just because they were told to. They were told to and then they wrestled with it, not once, not twice, but many times in that great scientific lab called their cerebellum, over and over and over, and He either won them through faith, or didn't.

The cerebellum is very, very far from a scientific lab. It is incredibly biased, is very happy to make assumptions, and is very strongly set against being convinced it is wrong. And searching your heart does not tell you anything about the real world. It is asking yourself what you want to be true, trying to convince yourself it is true, without any objectivity and without any falsifiability.

[EyeSeeU]

Why are we still talking about this?

[Pali]

I find it fun and I'm willing to keep it up.

[yxlist]

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.

-- Albert Einstein.

[Iusedtobesomebody]

There is a book I read I think you'd enjoy, Pali, but I forget the title (I'll have to dig it up). It's basically using Quantum Mathematics to tie how the earth can be millions of years old and yet still created by God. It was a great read, and made me want to study QM even more.

I'll get back to you.

[Pali]

You don't need quantum mechanics for that to be a possibility. As I said before, assuming the universe to be deterministic, a creator god could've started things off in the exact right way that they would lead to the formation of Earth and the eventual evolution of humanity.

The question isn't if it's possible. The question is if there's any evidence that suggests it is probable.

And yxlist, I find it amusing that you're quoting someone there who did not believe in a personal god.

[yxlist]

yah, not a personal god, but certainly he did believe in intelligent design of the universe. oh, and he's a scientist, I think

edit: ok, really, no more posts on this, its fun, but wow, its at like 13 pages! Change of subject.... how about them Bengals? Wow. I live near Cinci and I am depressed as hell. They couldn't win a game if they were given a handicap score of 21 to nothing

[Pali]

yah' date=' not a personal god, but certainly he did believe in intelligent design of the universe.[/quote']

Yes, he did. He also believed that quantum physics was incorrect. Einstein may have been a genius, but that doesn't stop him from having been wrong in numerous ways. EDIT: Einstein was impressed by what he saw as a sublime harmony within his field (physics). I am not. The simple fact that the universe works as it does and has the properties it does doesn't point to any specific reason for those properties. The mere existence of physical constants does not necessitate an intelligent designer as their cause.

[Iusedtobesomebody]

re Pali: Just thought you'd like a good read. *shrug* I found it very interesting.

[Mali]

I for one see no conflict between evolution and creationism. They are not mutually exclusive. Science is a way to learn about God.

[Pali]

I for one see no confllict between evolution and creationism. They are not mutually exclusive. Science is a way to learn about God.

Actually, as evolution is by definition an unguided process, they are mutually exclusive... unless you're using the term creationism to mean something other than special creation of humans or other life on Earth.

Just thought you'd like a good read. *shrug* I found it very interesting.

I have no doubt it would be an interesting read, but these days I sadly have very little time for reading (especially any sort of deep reading where I'm actually thinking about what I read) outside of when I'm on the crapper. Work and hanging out with friends takes up the vast majority of my time, and with Fable 2, Fallout 3, and Gears 2 all coming out in the next couple weeks, I'll be very occupied indeed.