This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

summerblues wrote:

bogbrush wrote:My point is that the reason for dis issuing them - that they are invebtionscwithout evidence - stands the same for the Christian God or any of the others.

People believed in leprechauns etc because they tried to explain the world as best they could.  Nothing wrong with that.  They only became redundant because we were able to explain physical phenomena better without them.  You believe the same now applies to God.  But there is a difference.  Unlike with leprechauns, we have never crossed the line where we can explain everything.  And it is not at all clear we can ever do that.  You believe we can, but until we do, your disbelief is not based on science but rather on aesthetics:  to you, the non-existence of God appears more aesthetically consistent with whatever we have discovered with science thus far.  That is ok except that you do not want to present it that way, i.e., as one possible belief among many.  You want to present your view as scientific.

But that kind of intellectual pirouette is disingenuous.  At the end of the day, your appeal to aesthetics is not that different from nitb's inference of God's existence via appeal to the aesthetics of carnal relations between you and Mrs. BB.  In fact, in some sense nitb's approach is more self-consistent.  She readily admits her belief in God requires leap of faith, whereas you pretend that your disbelief does not.

My view isn’t based on science but on logic and rationality.it is not faith to default to disbelief in the absence of evidence, it’s rationality. I make no appeal here or there, I simply state the bleeding obvious that knowledge has already uncovered a vast swathe of what was thought mysterious, that process continues today and will do so in the future, and it’s a reasonable proposition that we will resolve ever bigger questions. 

God sits in an ever diminishing corner, needed by some to explain ever fewer questions and fans of this idea are clinging into a disintegrating raft. They need to swim for shore.

I find this idea that because non-exstance cannot be proven we must be agnostic very weak. For some strange reason peoples religious beliefs get a pass to respect where political views do not. I have no respect for religious opinion, I think it’s one of the big handicaps that humans drag around with them and we’d be better off without it.

What you believe is neither rational nor obvious. It is pure, 200 proof, faith. But unlike religious faith, your faith is blind because you are not even able to recognize it as such.

Please tell me what I say that has no basis in rational, logical thinking.

Don’t bother with.....

- “you have faith we will be able to explain everything” because I haven’t said that, I’ve said were explaining more every day and there’s every chance we will find how the cosmos developed. However, even if we don’t that is no logical reason to invent a deity (an idea which itself requires even greater leaps to imagine can come into existence).

- “you can’t disprove God so it’s faith that he doesn’t exist” because that’s simply logically a massive fail. I can’t even begin to describe how weak that is. The absence of disproof is no basis at all for belief.

Of course the absence of disproof matters. Absence of disproof is not basis for belief but it is enough to make positive disbelief irrational.

We have no ability to either scientifically or rationally determine the existence of God, or lack thereof. We can:

(a) Leave it at that and be agnostic about it.
(b) Make a leap of faith and positively believe in God, or
(c) Make a leap of faith and positively disbelieve in God.

All three are internally consistent (thought obviously (a) and (c) cannot be simultaneously correct).

But you are trying to:
(d) positively disbelieve in God and claim rational justification for it.

But you cannot provide such justification. It is not even clear to me from your mumbo-jumbo where it is that you think you see such justification. I thought you were relying on your belief that ultimately we will explain everything, but you are saying that that is not it. But you do not have anything better than that.

There’s two kinds of hypothesis: one which explains the evidence and which is consistent with available information, and one which is no more than a suggestion.

An example of the first might be to say that a sportsman exceeding his previous achievements is abusing PEDs. You or I can’t prove it but neither can we disprove. The passed his tests and nobody has any evidence. It corresponds to a pattern of performance, but then that isn’t proof. We’re stuck.

An example of the second is where I explain that my absence from work was because of an alien abduction which left no marks or witnesses and which left such trauma that I can’t answer questions without stress, so spoiling a polygraph test. Still, you can’t disprove it so you keep an open mind do you, boss?

The idea of a God falls into the 2nd category. It explains the circumstances, corresponds to nothing which is experienced in common life and is so (literally) outlandish as to defy testing.

In other words, like the excuse for missing work, it’s a complete load of old bollocks.

That is a tendentious example. I can easily construct alternative explanations of your work absence that do not involve aliens and that occur more frequently than alien abductions.

But we are unable to construct any explanation of universe, so we have no God-less alternative to fall back to.

What you believe is neither rational nor obvious. It is pure, 200 proof, faith. But unlike religious faith, your faith is blind because you are not even able to recognize it as such.
==========
This is what I was trying to explain earlier but in vain.

You all proceed from the position that it’s normal to imagine supernatural explanations for things you don’t understand. 

I understand why, it’s been drummed into you so hard from birth that there has to be an overarching purpose and this idea is normal that you’re trapped in this irrational idea. That, and the crazy idea that religious faith should somehow be treated with respect, is what seems to trap most people.

It’s very like the whole Matrix / Red Pill thing. Once you took it you’d never think it normal again but it’s chalkenging at first when so much has been invested in it.

summerblues wrote:That is a tendentious example.  I can easily construct alternative explanations of your work absence that do not involve aliens and that occur more frequently than alien abductions.

But we are unable to construct any explanation of universe, so we have no God-less alternative to fall back to.

Yes you could, and those things might become like the first category. That’s why I showed you there were two types.

Oh so the God explanation must be the default? Without a clear explanation from physics then there’s a God? That is simply ridiculous.

I understand why, it’s been drummed into you so hard from birth that there has to be an overarching purpose and this idea is normal that you’re trapped in this irrational idea. That, and the crazy idea that religious faith should somehow be treated with respect, is what seems to trap most people.
==========≠===
From birth? You cannot be more wrong. Certainly not in my case. Maybe in our collective subconscious but I guess you do not believe in psychology either.

bogbrush wrote:Oh so the God explanation must be the default? Without a clear explanation from physics then there’s a God? That is simply ridiculous.

???
I never said that. I just said that we do not have any God-less default either. Unlike in your alien example.

It is you who is saying that in the absence of proof either way we have to default to "no God" case. Ridiculous, I agree.

I certainly do believe training / indoctrination happens relentlessly, Tenez, and I am sure it is this which accounts for the difficulty many have with a purposeless Universe. It seems to unnerve most people, like those Jehovahs Witnesses I mentioned a while back.

Summerblues, it is indeed me saying that an extrordinary claim like “it was all put here by a supernatural being” should require extraordinary proof, but since that idea actually has zero proof at all then absolutely the default belief of a rational person must be to regard the Universe as Godless.

It is possible to rationally say that one option is much more likely than another even if there is no evidence disproving any side.

For example, if I'm an estate agent and while showing people around a new flat I say 'behind this door is an invisible dinosaur which is impossible to track'- this claim is far more likely to be untrue than true.

Summerblues, you've made some fair points, but went too far when comparing the points of NITB and Bogbrush. You've said NITB admits she's taking a leap of faith while Bogbrush hasn't, and you said NITB was therefore more self consistent. However you crucially failed to mention that Bogbrush's world view doesn't include anything that is clearly disprovable, while NITB's Bible literalist view has the weight of evidence significantly against it.

My question for Bogbrush is this: It's quite easy for you to disprove Jehovah's Witnesses views, or any of the current religions. But why can't we have some doubt over whether an abstract force exists outside the laws of science that we would consider 'supernatural'? Why do we have to have the presumption either way- why can't we agnostic until proven otherwise?

DECIMA wrote:It is possible to rationally say that one option is much more likely than another even if there is no evidence disproving any side.

For example, if I'm an estate agent and while showing people around a new flat I say 'behind this door is an invisible dinosaur which is impossible to track'- this claim is far more likely to be untrue than true.

There was a time you could find a dinosaur behind a bush. Nowadays you can have an even more complex being behind a door, when frankly just having a bush or a door can be a miracle in the first place. Have you grasped the fact that having something instead of nothingness is already "supernatural"?

My question for Bogbrush is this: It's quite easy for you to disprove Jehovah's Witnesses views, or any of the current religions. But why can't we have some doubt over whether an abstract force exists outside the laws of science that we would consider 'supernatural'? Why do we have to have the presumption either way- why can't we agnostic until proven otherwise?

why would God or a force need to be "supernatural" or "outside" the laws of science? First we would need to define "God". God could for instance set or simply be the physical laws.

DECIMA wrote:It is possible to rationally say that one option is much more likely than another even if there is no evidence disproving any side.

For example, if I'm an estate agent and while showing people around a new flat I say 'behind this door is an invisible dinosaur which is impossible to track'- this claim is far more likely to be untrue than true.

.........

My question for Bogbrush is this: It's quite easy for you to disprove Jehovah's Witnesses views, or any of the current religions. But why can't we have some doubt over whether an abstract force exists outside the laws of science that we would consider 'supernatural'? Why do we have to have the presumption either way- why can't we agnostic until proven otherwise?

I think you’ve put your finger on it earlier. Nothing is ever 100% certain but there comes a point where it’s wasteful to sustain the question. The invisible dinosaur might just be there... maybe it’s only 99.999999999999999999% certain it isn’t. Maybe a couple more 9’s! At that point I can’t be bothered calling it open and I’d rather just say it isn’t there.

I put a God at roughly the same confidence level, hence I call it.

bogbrush wrote:
I think you’ve put your finger on it earlier. Nothing is ever 100% certain but there comes a point where it’s wasteful to sustain the question. The invisible dinosaur might just be there... maybe it’s only 99.999999999999999999% certain it isn’t. Maybe a couple more 9’s! At that point I can’t be bothered calling it open and I’d rather just say it isn’t there.

I put a God at roughly the same confidence level, hence I call it.

I would put the veracity of a Biblical God or any man made personable God at that 99.9recurring % unlikely confidence level.
But would you put an abstract force ‘God’, outside the laws of physics or time, as on the same confidence level as the invisible dinosaur? I would agree it’s more unlikely than not, but how can you be this assured?

Tenez wrote:This is what I was trying to explain earlier but in vain.

Yeah, I know

bogbrush wrote:I put a God at roughly the same confidence level, hence I call it.

But you have no rational basis to claim that kind of confidence level. You are pulling it out of thin air.

Why are you so adamant to claim level of confidence that you cannot justify? Why not just say you cannot rationally decide either way but choose the disbelief because you find that intuitively more appealing?

By trying to claim certainty that is plainly not there, you just end up looking sillier than you need to.

summerblues wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I put a God at roughly the same confidence level, hence I call it.

But you have no rational basis to claim that kind of confidence level. You are pulling it out of thin air.

Why are you so adamant to claim level of confidence that you cannot justify?  Why not just say you cannot rationally decide either way but choose the disbelief because you find that intuitively more appealing?

By trying to claim certainty that is plainly not there, you just end up looking sillier than you need to.

Course I have!

Please present to the forum the evidence you have for this God thing. Sightings, tangible proof, anything really. And psychotic episodes like when Abraham claimed voices made him tie his son up and be on the verge of knifing him are shaky, in 2017 you get locked up for that kind of behaviour.

By the way "Oh but it's all so amazing and what would be the purpose otherwise, and anyway scientists haven't got the answer so there must be one" don't count.

My position is honest, the agnostic one is pathetic. I've already explained the difference between genuine doubt and this kind of stupidity.

DECIMA wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
I think you’ve put your finger on it earlier. Nothing is ever 100% certain but there comes a point where it’s wasteful to sustain the question. The invisible dinosaur might just be there... maybe it’s only 99.999999999999999999% certain it isn’t. Maybe a couple more 9’s! At that point I can’t be bothered calling it open and I’d rather just say it isn’t there.

I put a God at roughly the same confidence level, hence I call it.

I would put the veracity of a Biblical God or any man made personable God at that 99.9recurring % unlikely confidence level.
But would you put an abstract force ‘God’, outside the laws of physics or time, as on the same confidence level as the invisible dinosaur? I would agree it’s more unlikely than not, but how can you be this assured?

Absolute absence of any evidence whatsoever or a technical explanation of the mechanisms involved, or even a reasonable approximation thereof, for something that corresponds to no observed phenomena.

And I am by nature a highly decisive person. Doubt is a choice, not a default position.

I am not sure I agree with the absolute absence of evidence. If we are talking about an old man sitting on a cloud well yeah. But there are things whch are unique and non-reproduce able.

Prove us we can produce universes at will, or how we can turn energy into a few amino acids able to reproduce each others.

The onus is as much on you to prove it can be done.

We know energy can turn into amino acids because we know the equation that converts matter to energy and the mechanisms by which it can reverse. We all know the equation very well.

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_16-5-2014-15-32-44

Once we have matter the process of forming atoms, molecules etc are pretty straightforward.


However, and this is the main thing, failure to prove one path is not evidence of a different one. This is not logical. Just because theory X is not fully proven doesn’t absolve theory Y of the burden to prove. And as far as I see there is not one iota of hard evidence for a God. Not a trace a scintilla. Compared to this, the incomplete mechanisms for natural development amount to vast amounts even if they are as yet incomplete (but gaining ground by the day).

bogbrush wrote:We know energy can turn into amino acids because we know the equation that converts matter to energy and the mechanisms by which it can reverse. We all know the equation very well.

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_16-5-2014-15-32-44

Once we have matter the process of forming atoms, molecules etc are pretty straightforward.

You are hiding behind a science we already know without being willing  to see (or probably aware of) the peculiarity of life (amino acids forming chains and suddenly replicating- what we could call life). We are only aware of this happening once in 4.5billion years. Some with a real scientific mind have worked out that life may have a chance in 10(exp-150) to occur. That's not 10 or 20 "0" after the coma but 150!...

However, and this is the main thing, failure to prove one path is not evidence of a different one. This is not logical. Just because theory X is not fully proven doesn’t absolve theory Y of the burden to prove. And as far as I see there is not one iota of hard evidence for a God. Not a trace a scintilla. Compared to this, the incomplete mechanisms for natural development amount to vast amounts even if they are as yet incomplete (but gaining ground by the day).

Indeed and this is what SB and I have been trying to show you. We are not trying to prove God or Purpose exists but that you have no proof either "He" did not put his finger in the evolution process.[/quote]

Not hiding at all. Unlike yourself I have faced in to every question I have been asked.

I've got one for you; do you actually believe there is a supernatural being who has made all this happen? If you answer this I have more to follow; I think it's about time in this debate that you and some others actually defend your opinions, so let's start with knowing what they are (rather than what they aren't).

bogbrush wrote:Not hiding at all. Unlike yourself I have faced in to every question I have been asked.

I've got one for you; do you actually believe there is a supernatural being who has made all this happen? If you answer this I have more to follow; I think it's about time in this debate that you and some others actually defend your opinions, so let's start with knowing what they are (rather than what they aren't).

You have a blind spot where you don’t see what you claim is a belief, too.
Instead, you are going around in circles unable to explain how matter began (let alone why...).

You also keep using the word “logic” and “logical” to support your conviction.
Are you able to at least explain what logic is with your physical laws?

Sience on its own is not even a spec of dust in the big picture.

noleisthebest wrote:
You also keep using the word “logic” and “logical” to support your conviction.
Are you able to at least explain what logic is with your physical laws?

Good point. Or also energy, gravity, time, space?

bogbrush wrote:Not hiding at all. Unlike yourself I have faced in to every question I have been asked.

I've got one for you; do you actually believe there is a supernatural being who has made all this happen? If you answer this I have more to follow; I think it's about time in this debate that you and some others actually defend your opinions, so let's start with knowing what they are (rather than what they aren't).

I am a bit like you BB. I don't want to believe in something just for the sake of it. I am sure no-one does. I however need to know what the hell I am doing here. I could be like a pig, eating and fucking all day (not a bad life after all), but unlike a pig, something in me will feel unsatisfied, I guess we could call this my "spiritual" side. Looks like this is a need all civilisations have had and this is why they believe in spiritual entities or science (the modern golden vault) like you do. This need to believe (or know) is as tangible and necessary as the food feeding our bodies.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Not hiding at all. Unlike yourself I have faced in to every question I have been asked.

I've got one for you; do you actually believe there is a supernatural being who has made all this happen? If you answer this I have more to follow; I think it's about time in this debate that you and some others actually defend your opinions, so let's start with knowing what they are (rather than what they aren't).

I am a bit like you BB. I don't want to believe in something just for the sake of it. I am sure no-one does. I however need to know what the hell I am doing here. I could be like a pig, eating and fucking all day (not a bad life after all), but unlike a pig, something in me will feel unsatisfied, I guess we could call this my "spiritual" side. Looks like this is a need all civilisations have had and this is why they believe in spiritual entities or science (the modern golden vault) like you do. This need to believe (or know) is as tangible and necessary as the food feeding our bodies.

/

I can’t stop laughing and imaginging pigs now...

Poor things...my dad said they are quite smart animals, in fact...(he grew 2-3 a few years ago), apparently more intelligent than dogs, he even gave them names and talked to them.


But yes, we can’t help asking questions and even that is another question - why do we ask them?

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
You also keep using the word “logic” and “logical” to support your conviction.
Are you able to at least explain what logic is with your physical laws?

Good point. Or also energy, gravity, time, space?

Honestly, these things are substantially understood to a very deep level. Not wholly, and some more than others, but there is far stronger understanding than you seem to think.

And I notice you are not responding to my challenge.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Not hiding at all. Unlike yourself I have faced in to every question I have been asked.

I've got one for you; do you actually believe there is a supernatural being who has made all this happen? If you answer this I have more to follow; I think it's about time in this debate that you and some others actually defend your opinions, so let's start with knowing what they are (rather than what they aren't).

I am a bit like you BB. I don't want to believe in something just for the sake of it. I am sure no-one does. I however need to know what the hell I am doing here. I could be like a pig, eating and fucking all day (not a bad life after all), but unlike a pig, something in me will feel unsatisfied, I guess we could call this my "spiritual" side. Looks like this is a need all civilisations have had and this is why they believe in spiritual entities or science (the modern golden vault) like you do. This need to believe (or know) is as tangible and necessary as the food feeding our bodies.

Nope, you are exactly like a pig and your delusions of spirituality have zero basis - AGAIN - in fact. The one thing you said that was accidentally truer than you thought is that the need to explain is like the need for food - it is EXACTLY like that because it is only a by product of the instinct to interpret and make sense of the environment.

And as regards believing, or your continued lame attempts to portray me as having some kind of stupid faith, could you just stop it? It’s thick.

noleisthebest wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Not hiding at all. Unlike yourself I have faced in to every question I have been asked.

I've got one for you; do you actually believe there is a supernatural being who has made all this happen? If you answer this I have more to follow; I think it's about time in this debate that you and some others actually defend your opinions, so let's start with knowing what they are (rather than what they aren't).

You have a blind spot where you don’t see what you claim is a belief, too.
Instead, you are going around in circles unable to explain how matter began (let alone why...).

You also keep using the word “logic” and “logical” to support your conviction.
Are you able to at least explain what logic is with your physical laws?

Sience on its own is not even a spec of dust in the big picture.

This isn’t even coherent.

If you can’t grasp this stuff at least have the good grace not to declare you’ve not been told.

bogbrush wrote:

DECIMA wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
I think you’ve put your finger on it earlier. Nothing is ever 100% certain but there comes a point where it’s wasteful to sustain the question. The invisible dinosaur might just be there... maybe it’s only 99.999999999999999999% certain it isn’t. Maybe a couple more 9’s! At that point I can’t be bothered calling it open and I’d rather just say it isn’t there.

I put a God at roughly the same confidence level, hence I call it.

I would put the veracity of a Biblical God or any man made personable God at that 99.9recurring % unlikely confidence level.
But would you put an abstract force ‘God’, outside the laws of physics or time, as on the same confidence level as the invisible dinosaur? I would agree it’s more unlikely than not, but how can you be this assured?

Absolute absence of any evidence whatsoever or a technical explanation of the mechanisms involved, or even a reasonable approximation thereof, for something that corresponds to no observed phenomena.

And I am by nature a highly decisive person. Doubt is a choice, not a default position.

Why should a default position not be some level of doubt?
My position is this:
-God as an abstract supernatural entity- far more unlikely than likely. Due to the fact we have a pattern where: humans can't explain a phenomena (i.e. lightning), have a supernatural explanation, then learn more and find a natural scientific explanation. Based on this pattern, the origin of the universe is more likely to not be explained by supernatural causes, whether humans get the answer or not.
-God as a personable being, and man made religions- both can be ruled out with a 99.9recurring degree of certainty. God having human qualities is unlikely, simply something humans imagined to give themselves an easy way to understand a supernatural figure. And man mad religions' claims have all been debunked scientifically.

Why is my position unreasonable here Bogbrush? I have some doubt over the truth, only some certainty about what is not true.

bogbrush wrote:Not hiding at all. Unlike yourself I have faced in to every question I have been asked.

I've got one for you; do you actually believe there is a supernatural being who has made all this happen? If you answer this I have more to follow; I think it's about time in this debate that you and some others actually defend your opinions, so let's start with knowing what they are (rather than what they aren't).

Why is no one on the other side taking up Bogbrush's challenge?
Why is he the only one facing this grilling?

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Not hiding at all. Unlike yourself I have faced in to every question I have been asked.

I've got one for you; do you actually believe there is a supernatural being who has made all this happen? If you answer this I have more to follow; I think it's about time in this debate that you and some others actually defend your opinions, so let's start with knowing what they are (rather than what they aren't).

I am a bit like you BB. I don't want to believe in something just for the sake of it. I am sure no-one does. I however need to know what the hell I am doing here. I could be like a pig, eating and fucking all day (not a bad life after all), but unlike a pig, something in me will feel unsatisfied, I guess we could call this my "spiritual" side. Looks like this is a need all civilisations have had and this is why they believe in spiritual entities or science (the modern golden vault) like you do. This need to believe (or know) is as tangible and necessary as the food feeding our bodies.

Nope, you are exactly like a pig and your delusions of spirituality have zero basis - AGAIN - in fact. The one thing you said that was accidentally truer than you thought is that the need to explain is like the need for food - it is EXACTLY like that because it is only a by product of the instinct to interpret and make sense of the environment.

And as regards believing, or your continued lame attempts to portray me as having some kind of stupid faith, could you just stop it? It’s thick.

Gosh! You are an emotional pig or machine, I am not sure.

Yes, BB is a moral pig, as well. He strongly disapproves of abortion. (which is good)

Is there such a thing as a good pig?

DECIMA wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Not hiding at all. Unlike yourself I have faced in to every question I have been asked.

I've got one for you; do you actually believe there is a supernatural being who has made all this happen? If you answer this I have more to follow; I think it's about time in this debate that you and some others actually defend your opinions, so let's start with knowing what they are (rather than what they aren't).

Why is no one on the other side taking up Bogbrush's challenge?
Why is he the only one facing this grilling?

Because they don’t have any arguments. They don’t know what the Hell is going on, they know so little science that when I get explain things they think I’ve not written it, and fundamentally they are scared stiff of a Godless Universe.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Not hiding at all. Unlike yourself I have faced in to every question I have been asked.

I've got one for you; do you actually believe there is a supernatural being who has made all this happen? If you answer this I have more to follow; I think it's about time in this debate that you and some others actually defend your opinions, so let's start with knowing what they are (rather than what they aren't).

I am a bit like you BB. I don't want to believe in something just for the sake of it. I am sure no-one does. I however need to know what the hell I am doing here. I could be like a pig, eating and fucking all day (not a bad life after all), but unlike a pig, something in me will feel unsatisfied, I guess we could call this my "spiritual" side. Looks like this is a need all civilisations have had and this is why they believe in spiritual entities or science (the modern golden vault) like you do. This need to believe (or know) is as tangible and necessary as the food feeding our bodies.

Nope, you are exactly like a pig and your delusions of spirituality have zero basis - AGAIN - in fact. The one thing you said that was accidentally truer than you thought is that the need to explain is like the need for food - it is EXACTLY like that because it is only a by product of the instinct to interpret and make sense of the environment.

And as regards believing, or your continued lame attempts to portray me as having some kind of stupid faith, could you just stop it? It’s thick.

Gosh! You are an emotional pig or machine, I am not sure.

You brought pigs into it.

Pigs are mammals, very close to us relatively. Or do we have souls? What is a soul? Where does it come from? What makes it?

Or am I to be the only one who can answer questions and support my arguments? (Hint: Yes, I am)

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
You also keep using the word “logic” and “logical” to support your conviction.
Are you able to at least explain what logic is with your physical laws?

Good point. Or also energy, gravity, time, space?

Honestly, these things are substantially understood to a very deep level. Not wholly, and some more than others, but there is far stronger understanding than you seem to think.

And I notice you are not responding to my challenge.

That's why we are wasting our time. I don't think you have the scientific knowledge to measure the extend of our ignorance. You know the saying, the more we learn, the more we know what we don't know. We do not know how the universe came about, we don't know how life came about and we don't even know how the Homo Sapiens Sapiens and his unique consciousness came into being. You simply bag all those questions into "it's all physical and chemical" without even knowing what is time, space and energy.

From what I gather you do not even believe in psychology either, ignoring therefore the emotional energies ruling our world. Those energies are structuring our "psyche" and are as organised as our internal organs...but once again this is all disillusion for you.

I am not going to say what I believe in cause unlike a pig I know what I don't know and I don't "believe". I simply need to know.

Tenez wrote:
I am not going to say what I believe in cause unlike a pig I know what I don't know and I don't "believe". I simply need to know.

A few years ago we were debating religion and I remember you said you believed in God, then you claimed my God was Nadal, and indicated he wasn't a very good God with the phrase: 'atleast my God doesn't...' (shows you admitted belief)   
Also on the course of this thread you've said you believe there's something that gives us a purpose beyond scientific processes, even talking about how there is significance in the fact the sun and the moon appear the same size to us as humans.
So now, after seeing the amount of scrutiny you would come under, don't pretend you've been a neutral agnostic in this debate all along. Say what you think is likely to be true, give evidence for it, and try and defend it to Bogbrush.

bogbrush wrote:

DECIMA wrote:
Why is he the only one facing this grilling?

Because they don’t have any arguments. They don’t know what the Hell is going on, they know so little science that when I get explain things they think I’ve not written it, and fundamentally they are scared stiff of a Godless Universe.

Tbh, I've only studied physics to secondary education level, so some of the science discussed here has been very new to me. But I think I can follow it more or less logically, and hopefully try and spot if claims can be substantiated by the evidence provided, even if the details are not initially familiar.
Also you did not respond to my post at 7:19pm

noleisthebest wrote:You have a blind spot where you don’t see what you claim is a belief, too.
Instead, you are going around in circles unable to explain how matter began (let alone why...).

Both sentences are exactly right.  Even if physics manages to come up with a "theory of everything", as they like to call it, it does not move the needle on the ultimate question.  I am not sure science even knows how to ask that question, let alone answer it.

DECIMA wrote:Why is he the only one facing this grilling?

Because he is making by far the strongest claims.  Everyone else is - as far as I can tell - either agnostic or readily admitting that their belief is ultimately a matter of faith.  All of those can be debated, but not "resolved".

BB is the only one who claims that his position follows from reason rather than belief.  So he is the only one who can be expected to reason it out.

bogbrush wrote:Or am I to be the only one who can answer questions and support my arguments? (Hint: Yes, I am)

But you have not supported your arguments.  As far as I can tell, so far you have essentially:

(a) given an example of something extremely unlikely (alien abduction) and said that belief in God is similar to belief in that,

(b) said that disbelief in God has to be the default position in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and

(c) suggested that people only believe in God because they cannot imagine the world otherwise.

All of these statements are just declarations of your position.  None of them addresses the issue - as arguments they are vacuous.

It is not even clear to me that you appreciate how you would need to go about reasoning your position out.

summerblues wrote:

DECIMA wrote:Why is he the only one facing this grilling?

Because he is making by far the strongest claims.  Everyone else is - as far as I can tell - either agnostic or readily admitting that their belief is ultimately a matter of faith.  All of those can be debated, but not "resolved".

BB is the only one who claims that his position follows from reason rather than belief.  So he is the only one who can be expected to reason it out.

Surprising post

1/ Firstly why are you exempting people who talk about belief from being able to 'reason it out'? Would you do this in any other discussion? Imagine if we were discussing sport and I said something which sounded unreasonable, and then declared that it was a faith based belief. You would start picking holes in my argument and tear apart my stance. Be honest. Just because this question is a tougher one, why should people who choose not to reason be given an intellectual pass?

2/ The stance NITB has, of Bible literalism, deserves more criticism than Bogbrush as overwhelming evidence exists that it is untrue, unlikes BB's stance. Making a faith based belief on something humans are unsure about is different from making a faith based belief on something which has virtually been disproven. NITB's beliefs fall into the latter category, and you didn't seem to differentiate that at all.

3/ NITB will now say that her belief is faith based, but beware, this humility generally only appears when met with scientific evidence to the contrary. I remember multiple occasions on the past where she's called atheists ignorant and blind, and even taken the extra step of trashing evolution on the basis of the Bible. The humble 'oh it's just faith' line can suddenly be replaced by extreme unyielding certainty when it suits.

On a related note, if you saw my longer post to BB where I made my stance clear, do you have any disagreements with that?

DECIMA wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

DECIMA wrote:
Why is he the only one facing this grilling?

Because they don’t have any arguments. They don’t know what the Hell is going on, they know so little science that when I get explain things they think I’ve not written it, and fundamentally they are scared stiff of a Godless Universe.

Tbh, I've only studied physics to secondary education level, so some of the science discussed here has been very new to me. But I think I can follow it more or less logically, and hopefully try and spot if claims can be substantiated by the evidence provided, even if the details are not initially familiar.
Also you did not respond to my post at 7:19pm

Many of these concepts are accessible to intelligent people with enquiringly minds without substantial academic education, which kind of explains why you’re getting it and some aren’t.

As for the doubt question, I have acknowledged slight room for doubt (the invisible dinosaur point) but to my mind there comes a point where doubt is so slight as to make it reasonable to move on. If we didn’t we’d almost literally never make a firm decision about anything, even invisible dinosaurs.

summerblues wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Or am I to be the only one who can answer questions and support my arguments? (Hint: Yes, I am)

But you have not supported your arguments.  As far as I can tell, so far you have essentially:

(a) given an example of something extremely unlikely (alien abduction) and said that belief in God is similar to belief in that,

(b) said that disbelief in God has to be the default position in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and

(c) suggested that people only believe in God because they cannot imagine the world otherwise.

All of these statements are just declarations of your position.  None of them addresses the issue - as arguments they are vacuous.

It is not even clear to me that you appreciate how you would need to go about reasoning your position out.

(a) I contrasted two types of doubt and very reasonably classed belief in God with the extremely unlikely group, as befitting the utter absence of any evidence and it’s contrary nature to any observed phenomena.

(b) it is completely rational to adopt a default position where things are not unless reasonable evidence produced to make it so. Otherwise you’d be unable to function, constantly looking out for predatory spaghetti monsters and malicious invisible dinosaurs.

(c) I’d love to know what it is that otherwise motivates people to adopt a rock solid belief in something for which they have no evidence, and interestingly almost always happens to be the particular faith that their parents held. How coincidental that their parents happened to teach them about the right God? What spectacular luck that NITB wasn’t born to parents of Islamic, Buddhist, Classic Roman/Greek/Scandinavian/Native American faith!

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:
I am not going to say what I believe in cause unlike a pig I know what I don't know and I don't "believe". I simply need to know.

A few years ago we were debating religion and I remember you said you believed in God, then you claimed my God was Nadal, and indicated he wasn't a very good God with the phrase: 'atleast my God doesn't...' (shows you admitted belief)   
Also on the course of this thread you've said you believe there's something that gives us a purpose beyond scientific processes, even talking about how there is significance in the fact the sun and the moon appear the same size to us as humans.
So now, after seeing the amount of scrutiny you would come under, don't pretend you've been a neutral agnostic in this debate all along. Say what you think is likely to be true, give evidence for it, and try and defend it to Bogbrush.

I am not a neutral agnostic. But I don't pretend I know what I don't know.

I do not know what it is but there is something that is smarter than all scientists united cause scientists are only working on what is already there, and what is already there is bloody smart and complex. That something might be "Matter" and matter has having intelligence, a will, like it has also gravity and time.

When a second set of jaws of a prehistoric fish turns into your ear bones, it is because it feels it's better like that as you (or the matter constituting mammals) wanted/needed to be able to hear things. It takes many years of a consistent will. Not much different that me willing to have a house in France's riviera. If I had not that will, I would never have that house.

So what is this "Will"? Easy to say it's "physics" and "chemistry" but those are the lego pieces, there is still something within or outside able to put them together very smartly, even if it takes its time.

When you say there is no evidence for something smart you must be kidding. It's like me saying look at this stone....one day, it will turn into something lively and a whole evolution process will turn it into a thinking being. You'd say I am a fool. And you'd be right......except that it actually happened! And the chance of that as I said are currently estimated at 150 "0"s after the coma.
Enough to make us humble in front of the universe!

Tenez wrote:

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:
I am not going to say what I believe in cause unlike a pig I know what I don't know and I don't "believe". I simply need to know.

A few years ago we were debating religion and I remember you said you believed in God, then you claimed my God was Nadal, and indicated he wasn't a very good God with the phrase: 'atleast my God doesn't...' (shows you admitted belief)   
Also on the course of this thread you've said you believe there's something that gives us a purpose beyond scientific processes, even talking about how there is significance in the fact the sun and the moon appear the same size to us as humans.
So now, after seeing the amount of scrutiny you would come under, don't pretend you've been a neutral agnostic in this debate all along. Say what you think is likely to be true, give evidence for it, and try and defend it to Bogbrush.

I am not a neutral agnostic. But I don't pretend I know what I don't know.

I do not know what it is but there is something that is smarter than all scientists united cause scientists are only working on what is already there, and what is already there is bloody smart and complex. That something might be "Matter" and matter has having intelligence, a will, like it has also gravity and time.

When a second set of jaws of a prehistoric fish turns into your ear bones, it is because it feels it's better like that as you (or the matter constituting mammals) wanted/needed to be able to hear things. It takes many years of a consistent will. Not much different that me willing to have a house in France's riviera. If I had not that will, I would never have that house.

So what is this "Will"? Easy to say it's "physics" and "chemistry" but those are the lego pieces, there is still something within or outside able to put them together very smartly, even if it takes its time.

When you say there is no evidence for something smart you must be kidding. It's like me saying look at this stone....one day, it will turn into something lively and a whole evolution process will turn it into a thinking being. You'd say I am a fool. And you'd be right......except that it actually happened! And the chance of that as I said are currently estimated at 150 "0"s after the coma.
Enough to make us humble in front of the universe!

Now it becomes crystal clear to me. You fundamentally do not understand evolution; the process you describe is completely wrong in the most basic and important way.

If you'd like me to explain it to you I will but only if you wish it and are prepared to read and give it attention. I don't want to waste any more time unless you're prepared to listen.

Tenez wrote:
When a second set of jaws of a prehistoric fish turns into your ear bones, it is because it feels it's better like that as you (or the matter constituting mammals) wanted/needed to be able to hear things. It takes many years of a consistent will. Not much different that me willing to have a house in France's riviera. If I had not that will, I would never have that house.

Yeah Bogbrush is right here, that's just not how evolution works, sorry Tenez

bogbrush wrote:...Now it becomes crystal clear to me. You fundamentally do not understand evolution; the process you describe is completely wrong.

If you'd like me to explain it to you I will but only if you wish it and are prepared to read and give it attention. I don't want to waste any more time unless you're prepared to listen.

It's funny you say that! I have studied "Compared Anatomy" for 5 years (It was one of my subject (evolution in effect) while graduating in Neurophysiology and humoral systems (glands). But not only at the anatomy level but also at the cell level. You can read on this forum way before we started this thread how I explained the role of mitochondria in the cell evolution.

But if you can teach me better I am certainly happy to hear from you.