| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: January 06 2010 at 06:00 |
 Trademark wrote:
"So none of these things can be proved by science because they are not of science, they can only be believed by faith, so there cannot be a rational explanation and cannot be given the benefit of the doubt."
And yet they happen. |
Do they? Do they really? Do they really really happen?
I have no doubt that people believe these paranormal/miracles happen, but I seriously do not believe in a non-rational explanation for them myself because I do not feel the need to reject a rational explanation and can accept that random coincidences do happen.
Of course, religious people have a "problem" with random coincidence, for some of them evolution is a series of random coincidences that simply could not have happened because they choose to ignore the non-random filtering of those random chance events. These filters are required for the system to work and keeps the system within the physics/biology/chemistry of the Universe. If science required non-random filtering that resulted in evolution (or the non-random filter) defying the laws of nature then the theory would rightly be rejected as false.
With paranormal events, the coincidental random events are also subject to non-random filtering which results in a percieved pattern that requires a non-rational explanation. If that is the case then it is the non-random filtering that is in error and the percieved pattern is false, if the resultant explanation defies the physics/biology/chemistry of the Universe then the explanation is simply wrong, worse still if the non-random filtering is also irrational.
Last year I saw a green VW beetle and that day we had 4" of snow...I saw a green VW beetle yesterday and now my garden is covered in 12" of snow... if you don't believe in coincidence then should I torch that beetle to prevent further snow? No, of course not, there must have been several occasions where I saw that car and it didn't snow and there will have been times when it's snowed without seeing the green VW, but I "forgot" those non-coincidental times because they did not register as being important at the time.
|
|
What?
|
 |
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 06:19 |
Dalezilla wrote:
Why would god not just tell us that he's there?
|
That's an interesting observation, and one I hear frequently. Seems simple enough.
But what could God do that would change the mind of the staunchest atheist?
God could do all manner of bizarre things, but I think most staunch atheists would write it off as something science could explain (which is fine, since I believe science can explain most, if not all miracles anyway, but that doesn't make them any less miracles- not the point here though).
A staunch atheist would most likely write off such an experience as a hallucination, ate too many beans last night...etc.
That's all interesting, because the Bible says that no man comes to Christ unless God the Father drags the person to him (John 6:44). God does not coax or cajole or persuade or plea. He drags sinners to salvation. He completely changes their minds for them (Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 15:5).
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 06:25 |
James wrote:
I'm an Atheist but don't use that term myself as I feel using a term for a non-belief is akin to a Religion/Philosophy.
I do not need to prove God does not exist. I know it does not. I also do not mean the normal view of God. I mean all forms.
I have lived 29 years perfectly fine without any need for religion and I am happy being this way.
|
If you really say "I know that God does not exist" then it does sound like strong faith (as Carl Sagan defined faith: belief in the absence of evidence). I recommend you watch the video I posted in the other thread ... you might find it interesting. 
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - January 06 2010 at 06:28
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 06:33 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Yep, 700 MTS were more oir less normal ina middle class family in the 70's and 80's.
Today all the houses are being destroyed and built 100 or 120 mts apartments.
Ivám |
70 meters across sounds like a mansion to me ... in Germany only very wealthy people could afford such a house. My parents own a house that easily supports two families, and it's only about 25 meters across (it has three floors).
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 06:42 |
Dean wrote:
Trademark wrote:
"So none of these things can be proved by science because they are not of science, they can only be believed by faith, so there cannot be a rational explanation and cannot be given the benefit of the doubt."
And yet they happen. |
Do they? Do they really? Do they really really happen?
I have no doubt that people believe these paranormal/miracles happen, but I seriously do not believe in a non-rational explanation for them myself because I do not feel the need to reject a rational explanation and can accept that random coincidences do happen.
Of course, religious people have a "problem" with random coincidence, for some of them evolution is a series of random coincidences that simply could not have happened because they choose to ignore the non-random filtering of those random chance events. These filters are required for the system to work and keeps the system within the physics/biology/chemistry of the Universe. If science required non-random filtering that resulted in evolution (or the non-random filter) defying the laws of nature then the theory would rightly be rejected as false.
With paranormal events, the coincidental random events are also subject to non-random filtering which results in a percieved pattern that requires a non-rational explanation. If that is the case then it is the non-random filtering that is in error and the percieved pattern is false, if the resultant explanation defies the physics/biology/chemistry of the Universe then the explanation is simply wrong, worse still if the non-random filtering is also irrational.
Last year I saw a green VW beetle and that day we had 4" of snow...I saw a green VW beetle yesterday and now my garden is covered in 12" of snow... if you don't believe in coincidence then should I torch that beetle to prevent further snow? No, of course not, there must have been several occasions where I saw that car and it didn't snow and there will have been times when it's snowed without seeing the green VW, but I "forgot" those non-coincidental times because they did not register as being important at the time.
|
I agree of course, but I think that you made a mistake in the previous post by saying that these phenomena are "not of science". That goes along the line of Gould's "non overlapping magisteria" ... which I strongly disagree with. I am sure that for all the paranormal phenomena that have been reported there exists an alternative rational explanation. People are free to dismiss the rational explanation and believe the supernatural theory. But in order to defend it in conversation they'll have to explain why it should be more likely that the natural order of the universe (the laws of physics) have been altered in the favor of their theory, than that there was a rare coincidence, or that not all the information necessary to understand the phenonemon rationally are known to us.
|
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 06:42 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
James wrote:
I'm an Atheist but don't use that term myself as I feel using a term for a non-belief is akin to a Religion/Philosophy.
I do not need to prove God does not exist. I know it does not. I also do not mean the normal view of God. I mean all forms.
I have lived 29 years perfectly fine without any need for religion and I am happy being this way.
|
If you really say "I know that God does not exist" then it does sound like strong faith (as Carl Sagan defined faith: belief in the absence of evidence).
I recommend you watch the video I posted in the other thread ... you might find it interesting.
|
It isn't faith. It's Common Sense and Clear Thinking. I cannot even comprehend anything else being true.
|
|
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 06:48 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
I can respect pure atheism, but apathy is terrible. What happens after death is more important than life because death is forever, you can't just blow it off... |
I agree that apathy is unhealthy but I think your remark re 'what happens after death' pretty much sums up a particular middle eastern mindset i.e. certain religious beliefs engender an attitude where the consequences of the secular 'here and now' are marginalised in favour of the afterlife. It's a complete no-brainer that such a perspective can lead certain individuals to perpetrate hideous acts of barbarism. A cynic might suggest that: In the west we have salvation by donation In the middle east we have salvation by detonation
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 07:38 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I agree of course, but I think that you made a mistake in the previous post by saying that these phenomena are "not of science". That goes along the line of Gould's "non overlapping magisteria" ... which I strongly disagree with. I am sure that for all the paranormal phenomena that have been reported there exists an alternative rational explanation. People are free to dismiss the rational explanation and believe the supernatural theory. But in order to defend it in conversation they'll have to explain why it should be more likely that the natural order of the universe (the laws of physics) have been altered in the favor of their theory, than that there was a rare coincidence, or that not all the information necessary to understand the phenonemon rationally are known to us.
|
I made no mistake - the specific instances I listed (FTL communication, targeted narrowcasting, information density vs field density, etc.) are simply impossible within the laws of physics, ergo, are not of science. Therefore the phenomena was not real but imagined and does not require a rational scientific explanation to debunk it. It is perfectly reasonable in those cases not to even bother looking for a rational scientific explanation - premonitions are a perfect example of that, regardless of how many people do believe them, nothing suggests that they are nothing other than imagined events.
If the only "rational" explanation needs to alter the natural order of the Universe to make it work, then there is something wrong with the explanation, not with the physics.
|
|
What?
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 08:17 |
" that not all the information necessary to understand the phenonemon rationally are known to us."
Like your deist/atheist comparison, there is no difference between this explanation and a supernatural one from a practical real-life perspective, so I'll say your becoming a "Super". Albeit, one more like Syndrome than Mr. Incredible, sort of a fake super.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 08:19 |
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 08:20 |
Trademark wrote:
" that not all the information necessary to understand the phenonemon rationally are known to us."
Like your deist/atheist comparison, there is no difference between this explanation and a supernatural one from a practical real-life perspective, so I'll say your becoming a "Super". Albeit, one more like Syndrome than Mr. Incredible, sort of a fake super. |
I simply assumed the scientific position, admitting that there a lot about the universe that we still don't know or can't explain yet. I find nothing incredible in that position.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 08:25 |
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I agree of course, but I think that you made a mistake in the previous post by saying that these phenomena are "not of science". That goes along the line of Gould's "non overlapping magisteria" ... which I strongly disagree with. I am sure that for all the paranormal phenomena that have been reported there exists an alternative rational explanation. People are free to dismiss the rational explanation and believe the supernatural theory. But in order to defend it in conversation they'll have to explain why it should be more likely that the natural order of the universe (the laws of physics) have been altered in the favor of their theory, than that there was a rare coincidence, or that not all the information necessary to understand the phenonemon rationally are known to us.
|
I made no mistake - the specific instances I listed (FTL communication, targeted narrowcasting, information density vs field density, etc.) are simply impossible within the laws of physics, ergo, are not of science. Therefore the phenomena was not real but imagined and does not require a rational scientific explanation to debunk it. It is perfectly reasonable in those cases not to even bother looking for a rational scientific explanation - premonitions are a perfect example of that, regardless of how many people do believe them, nothing suggests that they are nothing other than imagined events.
If the only "rational" explanation needs to alter the natural order of the Universe to make it work, then there is something wrong with the explanation, not with the physics. |
So you're essentially saying that there are supernatural realms that are exempt from scientific study?  Maybe I'm just saying that statements like "phenomenon X is not of science" are bound to be misquoted.
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 08:33 |
Dean wrote:
Trademark wrote:
"So none of these things can be proved by science because they are not of science, they can only be believed by faith, so there cannot be a rational explanation and cannot be given the benefit of the doubt."
And yet they happen. |
Do they? Do they really? Do they really really happen?
I have no doubt that people believe these paranormal/miracles happen, but I seriously do not believe in a non-rational explanation for them myself because I do not feel the need to reject a rational explanation and can accept that random coincidences do happen.
Of course, religious people have a "problem" with random coincidence, for some of them evolution is a series of random coincidences that simply could not have happened because they choose to ignore the non-random filtering of those random chance events. These filters are required for the system to work and keeps the system within the physics/biology/chemistry of the Universe. If science required non-random filtering that resulted in evolution (or the non-random filter) defying the laws of nature then the theory would rightly be rejected as false.
With paranormal events, the coincidental random events are also subject to non-random filtering which results in a percieved pattern that requires a non-rational explanation. If that is the case then it is the non-random filtering that is in error and the percieved pattern is false, if the resultant explanation defies the physics/biology/chemistry of the Universe then the explanation is simply wrong, worse still if the non-random filtering is also irrational.
Last year I saw a green VW beetle and that day we had 4" of snow...I saw a green VW beetle yesterday and now my garden is covered in 12" of snow... if you don't believe in coincidence then should I torch that beetle to prevent further snow? No, of course not, there must have been several occasions where I saw that car and it didn't snow and there will have been times when it's snowed without seeing the green VW, but I "forgot" those non-coincidental times because they did not register as being important at the time.
|
Look Dean, I know you are the master of science around these places as Rob is in Bible knowledge, so, I know I can argue when I understand the half of what you are posting -I'm trying really, but it's a little tough- and I really don't know if you will understand me but, science is a growing thing, you don't know if we are getting close and suddenly we discover that when we die we become part of the light... there's a theory about that... I heard two physics talk about it, about all that witnessing of near to death phenomena, that all persons that have lived it claim that they saw a great light infront of them... well, this physics believes that if there's a soul maybe when we die their soul or essence of whatever accelerates into the speed of light and joins with God, because God is the light... I know... It doesn't sounds that convincent but I can assure you this guys really were talking with some formulas and all the stuff... of course I'm not telling the thing accurate but I'm a journalist not a scientist... so... My point is that if you only denied what science has not reach to tell of, I think is better to give the benefit of doubt don't you think...
PD: my house, or the house of my parents actually is about 60 mts or some... you know, in Central and South America the old houses are really big... as Iván is telling, now they are destroying the old house to build up small apartments, overpopulation is now a problem especially in the big cities. At least in Guatemala, there's still plenty of this big old houses all around Guatemala City...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 08:35 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I agree of course, but I think that you made a mistake in the previous post by saying that these phenomena are "not of science". That goes along the line of Gould's "non overlapping magisteria" ... which I strongly disagree with. I am sure that for all the paranormal phenomena that have been reported there exists an alternative rational explanation. People are free to dismiss the rational explanation and believe the supernatural theory. But in order to defend it in conversation they'll have to explain why it should be more likely that the natural order of the universe (the laws of physics) have been altered in the favor of their theory, than that there was a rare coincidence, or that not all the information necessary to understand the phenonemon rationally are known to us.
|
I made no mistake - the specific instances I listed (FTL communication, targeted narrowcasting, information density vs field density, etc.) are simply impossible within the laws of physics, ergo, are not of science. Therefore the phenomena was not real but imagined and does not require a rational scientific explanation to debunk it. It is perfectly reasonable in those cases not to even bother looking for a rational scientific explanation - premonitions are a perfect example of that, regardless of how many people do believe them, nothing suggests that they are nothing other than imagined events.
If the only "rational" explanation needs to alter the natural order of the Universe to make it work, then there is something wrong with the explanation, not with the physics. |
So you're essentially saying that there are supernatural realms that are exempt from scientific study?
Maybe I'm just saying that statements like "phenomenon X is not of science" are bound to be misquoted.
|
Yeah, that was I understand in his last post... I thought you were saying that science could explain everything, of course, not faith, but anything else...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 08:41 |
|
^ well, I think that science can explain faith, too (I linked to the Andy Thomson presentations on YouTube, for example). I agree with Dean there that supernatural phenomena exist in the minds of people. I've linked to a Michael Shermer video, too, where for example a miraculous appearance of the virgin Mary in Florida was "debunked". In that case the image on the windows of the buildings had a perfectly rational, scientific explanation and the reason why people think of it as supernatural is how they interpret these images.
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 08:44 |
|
Well, you know we are not talking about shapes in windows or something like it, right...??? I mean, Dean said before that he do not discuss faith, that that matter is not about science... but we are talking about energy of the brain and what happened in the moment of death... Dean believes in coincidence, and I really do not believe on it so...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 08:53 |
|
^ do you think that there is no coincidence at all ... that everything happens for a reason or with a purpose?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 09:00 |
jampa17 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Dean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I agree of course, but I think that you made a mistake in the previous post by saying that these phenomena are "not of science". That goes along the line of Gould's "non overlapping magisteria" ... which I strongly disagree with. I am sure that for all the paranormal phenomena that have been reported there exists an alternative rational explanation. People are free to dismiss the rational explanation and believe the supernatural theory. But in order to defend it in conversation they'll have to explain why it should be more likely that the natural order of the universe (the laws of physics) have been altered in the favor of their theory, than that there was a rare coincidence, or that not all the information necessary to understand the phenonemon rationally are known to us.
|
I made no mistake - the specific instances I listed (FTL communication, targeted narrowcasting, information density vs field density, etc.) are simply impossible within the laws of physics, ergo, are not of science. Therefore the phenomena was not real but imagined and does not require a rational scientific explanation to debunk it. It is perfectly reasonable in those cases not to even bother looking for a rational scientific explanation - premonitions are a perfect example of that, regardless of how many people do believe them, nothing suggests that they are nothing other than imagined events.
If the only "rational" explanation needs to alter the natural order of the Universe to make it work, then there is something wrong with the explanation, not with the physics. |
So you're essentially saying that there are supernatural realms that are exempt from scientific study?
Maybe I'm just saying that statements like "phenomenon X is not of science" are bound to be misquoted.
|
Yeah, that was I understand in his last post... I thought you were saying that science could explain everything, of course, not faith, but anything else... |
That's one of the problems of the ambiguity of language.
Science can only explain real events.
Supernatural events are not real.
The study of the supernatural and the paranormal are pseudosciences. They are exempt from scientific study because they are not scientific in the same way that the Science of Star Trek is not real and not scientific - it is a known work of fiction - we don't have to prove or disprove any of it.
When a single supernatural paranormal event can be demonstrated under controlled conditions then we can start looking for the hitherto unknown laws of physics that could explain it, but while it is purely circumstantial and hearsay it will remain in the realms of fiction.
|
|
What?
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 09:04 |
Dalezilla wrote:
Why would god not just tell us that he's there? |
Well... to simple answers...
Pragmatical answer: God is almighty, and he creates the universe, so why do you think He/She feel force to prove you or show you nothing...? He doesn't mind about your disbelief because He doesn't need us, tradition and faith tell us that He create us and the universe because of love and is the only explanation that he aloud us to destroy his creations over and over... just because He love us... so, He doesn't need and doesn't want to brings us an explanation or a proof...
Phylosophical answer: in the Bible said "Bless those who believe without seeing"... so if you see him coming down through the cloud this morning and you finally said "Oh, He exists" you will not be blessed because you only believe until you have a proof, while you should believe before... I'm not saying that He will not save you... maybe... but the believing in God is not a safe thing. The Bible said that you will be haunt and you will suffer for your believings... you will not suffer if everybody sees Him someday you know...
And well... as Rob said above... if you witness a miracle... it's probably that many many scientist or disbelievers should invent and justification like collective delusion, or esquizofrenia and always get an excuse and still won't believe it...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 06 2010 at 09:08 |
jampa17 wrote:
Look Dean, I know you are the master of science around these places as Rob is in Bible knowledge, so, I know I can argue when I understand the half of what you are posting -I'm trying really, but it's a little tough- and I really don't know if you will understand me but, science is a growing thing, you don't know if we are getting close and suddenly we discover that when we die we become part of the light... there's a theory about that... I heard two physics talk about it, about all that witnessing of near to death phenomena, that all persons that have lived it claim that they saw a great light infront of them... well, this physics believes that if there's a soul maybe when we die their soul or essence of whatever accelerates into the speed of light and joins with God, because God is the light... I know... It doesn't sounds that convincent but I can assure you this guys really were talking with some formulas and all the stuff... of course I'm not telling the thing accurate but I'm a journalist not a scientist... so... My point is that if you only denied what science has not reach to tell of, I think is better to give the benefit of doubt don't you think... |
Near death experiences are not death, whatever happens to the human brain when restricted of oxygen and blood are the subject of hallucination and dream-states, this is a known (and dangerous) phenomena (eg. erotic asphyxiation). I'm not holding my breath in the hope that this will scientifically prove an afterlife. 
|
|
What?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll
