Political Crossfire Forums

[lovebush]

JDHURF wrote: lovebush wrote: JDHURF wrote: lovebush wrote: JDHURF wrote: lovebush wrote: JDHURF wrote: [
We weren’t talking about belief but rather faith. Science does not require faith, religion does.


What do you call it when science leads to what can only be assumed to be the answer but the conclusion is not falsifiable. ie big bang, origins of life etc. When something leads to "what can only be assumed....is not falsifiable" we are no longer speaking of science. The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory and as such it is falsibiable, there are competing theories right now that dispute the accuracy of the big bang, such as brane cosmology, the same applies to any theory regarding the begining of life but for the fact that the scientfic community widely agrees with the theory of evolution, there are no other competing scientific theories.


this may be my lack of education shining through here, but I thought it was the inability to falsify something that keeps it labeled a theory. A theory remains a theory until it is proved to be true, making it a scientific fact or false, and adding it to the scrapheap of history. But if there is no way to repeat and observe an event that may have happened thousands or billions of years ago it can not be empirically proved or falsified. That is an incorrect interpretation of what "theory" means with regards to science.


would you please provide the correct definition? Gladly:
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

thanks

[JDHURF]

You're welcome.

[mojo]

JDHURF wrote: mojo wrote: The concepts of love, hope, and beauty are supernatural. They fly in the direct face of the idea that men are no better than animals. Love is not necessary for our survival. Hope certainly isn't necessary. We are the only creature that sees the beauty of things. That in and of itself should be proof of a divine being.
Your post comes off as a vein attempt to legitimatize the alleged validity of religious dogma. Naturalism does not – in any way – make the claim that human beings are no better than animals, quite the contrary.
Only through evolution is it understood with such clarity our dominant attributes that raise us above the vast majority of the animal kingdom. To claim that altruism, love, etc. retains no survival value is to admit that one doesn’t actually know anything about the subject. That is simply false – that these specific items are not defined naturally - and illustrates definitively that you know nothing of the subject. I suggest that you look into kin-selection altruism and reciprocal altruism or the chemical oxytocin; these items help describe the biological nature of love and altruism and how - through evolution - such items have been adapted so as to further our survival ability.
Furthermore I find it wholly unwarranted to claim that we are the only creature that views the environment in which they live as beautiful.

Your putting reasons for things entirely unreasonable. Love is not a necessary thing for our survival. Every other creature in the universe doesn't have the capacity to love buyt can survive jus the same. Even if the emotion of love was an evolutionary trait what are the chances that a reasoning being would be endowed with such a gift. The chances of such an occurence are supernatural in themselves.

You can easily put rhyme and reason to the universe. But in your reason you are stripping the very romance that is needed to sustain mankind.

Quote: mojo wrote: Free will is an intangible and supernatural concept.
I disagree. Many claim that free will is illusory and does not exist – look into hard determinism – but there are many philosophers that claim that free will is the product of cognitive evolutionary upsurge – look into the Multiple Drafts theory of consciousness – and can exist in a deterministic universe, this is known as compatibilism. It can clearly be defined and theorized in a supernatural fashion but over 90% of the elite scientists dealing with such concepts define it otherwise….naturally.

I am saying that Free will does exist. I have faith in its existence.

A "cognitive evolutionary upsurge" just seems like science language for birth of the soul. The soul is God's territory.

Quote: mojo wrote: Love, hope, and beauty are illogical and irrational sentiments. That is exactly what makes them so important.
Simply untrue.

Is it reasonable for a human being to have these emotions and feelings? Many other creatures are capable of survival without them. They are without reason.

But it is the irrational things that give value to our survival.

Quote: mojo wrote: All animals react with instinct. Is that our human condition?
Of course instinct is part of the human condition.

Is a part and a small part at that.

Quote: mojo wrote: If you beleive the human is an animal you must believe in predestination of our lives.
Incorrect. It is usually theists that propose the supernatural concept of “fate” and "destiny.” If you reject evolution then this will clearly be a difficult discussion.

Theists who fall into a Calvinist trap. A trap that is not Catholic theology.
I believe in evolution. I believe the story of Adam and Eve described the creation of Man's soul not his body.

Quote: mojo wrote: You must think that we do the things we do because nature tells us to do those things.
The human species has evolved a highly advanced form of consciousness and, with that, free-will. We are clearly still bound to specific instincts and biological urges that we are unable to overcome – our adrenal gland helps makes this so – but we have also evolved to the point where we are able to locate, understand and review certain instincts and urges, then pose possible actions to take in accordance to them and choose which solution or action is best fit to follow through with. Nature “tells us to do things” but we also have the ability – via evolutionary upsurge – to decide for ourselves which actions to either carry out or to refrain from.

I agree free will is real.

Quote: mojo wrote: But if you believe in the concept of free will then you have the first building block towards faith. Free will is entirely agaisnt the laws of nature. No other "animal" can boast such a claim.
That is an unwarranted claim and I insist on the evidence of it. Free-will is not “entirely against the laws of nature” where is your evidence of this? Again I direct you towards the scientific theories of compatibilism found in the Multiple Drafts and Global workspace theories of consciousness (to name only two), in these scientific theories free-will not only does not go against the law of nature it is a part of the law of nature.

I would also like to clarify that Nature is more of a proverbial sister to our existence than the actual God. I think many inexperienced theists can easily fall into the trap of worshiping nature itself.

Darwins Law is "survival of the fittest". Free Will is not necessary for survival. It gives value to survival. Other species are more than capable of surviving without it. Free Will sets us apart from the animals not joins us to them.
Quote: mojo wrote: When we are born we can see colors, have opposable thumbs, have pleasurable sex (only dogs have this amazing ability, most organisms reproduce by simply splitting in half), the ability to reason, and can walk upright. All of natures best examples of evolution all present within one life form.
This is not evidence of supernaturalism.

There is no better evidence than these unreasonable gifts.

Quote: mojo wrote: I am sure you can counter by saying that these traits are simply the offspring of evolution. That position is entirely logical. But what you must realize is that a human being craves the romantic nature of his life.
Because of the nature of evolution, again, look into the topics I mentioned previously.
mojo wrote: People need to know that not only is their existence rational but it is irrational as well. Its not some cosmic cooincidence that we are built the way we are built.
Correct, it was the process of evolutionary upsurge. It was not some form of cosmic voodoo that oversaw our “creation” and/or put into motion the process of evolution, it was simply the nature of the universe.

"Evolutionary upsurge" sounds like scientific terms for the sudden birth of free-will and the soul. WHY?

What kind of cosmic cooincidence would put a life giving energy in one place of a reasonable climate. Then this being which evolved through millions of years of tribulation suddenly was able to think and more importantly DECIDE. What kind of cosmic coincidence is that. Your right it is reasonable to beleive those things. But God never had a miracle that wasn't explained.

[JDHURF]

mojo wrote: Your putting reasons for things entirely unreasonable. Love is not a necessary thing for our survival. Every other creature in the universe doesn't have the capacity to love buyt can survive jus the same. Even if the emotion of love was an evolutionary trait what are the chances that a reasoning being would be endowed with such a gift. The chances of such an occurence are supernatural in themselves.
You can easily put rhyme and reason to the universe. But in your reason you are stripping the very romance that is needed to sustain mankind.
Love is essential for the promulgation of our social species, which is the very basis of evolution, the adaptation of specific attributes and characteristics that enable the species to survive in a more proficient manner.
How do you know that other species do not retain the capacity to love their fellows? It is known that several great apes mourn for long periods of time when their fellow apes die and the same goes for several other species; you are simply mythologizing the human species.
Your attempt to evidence the supernatural nature of love by invoking that such an occurrence may be hard to conceive of and that the “chances” of such evolution may be slim is the same sort of feeble logic that has brought us irreducible complexity and intelligent design.
Your last vein attempt to justify religious supernaturalism is without any merit. To make the unsupported claim that science naturally defining and describing processes that were once believed to be divine is, in any way, taking away the wonder and beauty of the natural universe is outright preposterous. There is magnificent beauty in the physical universe well outside the realm of supernatural mythology. I am in awe of the beauty and magnificence of the natural universe and am in no need for any supernatural descriptions to find “romance” within the universe. Your inane argument is text book theist rubbish and is, itself, insipid. If one is after “romance,” if they desire to view and obtain real beauty and magnificence found within the universe, they need only have a look through the Hubble telescope – if they want to see something absolutely beautiful and wondrous. Or contemplate the unraveling of the human genome, or read a page of Stephen Hawking. That is real beauty, mystery and wonder. Hawking describes the event horizon which is the lip of a black hole – it theoretically exists – and if you could get to it and topple in you would be able to view the past and the future - you wouldn’t have enough time of course - but that is true romance and I will not accept flimsy, half-witted, pre-scientific mutterings from our savage ancestors in its stead. Some people would rather turn their attention to a burning bush or to the fact that Lazarus makes no comment on being resurrected from the dead, I simply do not find in such things any bit of “romance.”
mojo wrote: I am saying that Free will does exist. I have faith in its existence.
A "cognitive evolutionary upsurge" just seems like science language for birth of the soul. The soul is God's territory.
I know that you are claiming that free-will does exist. I am fairly capable regarding my reading comprehension skills. I agree with the claim, it seems to me that free will does exist and I would agree with the compatablist philosophies.
The phrase that I used, “cognitive evolutionary upsurge,” is describing a vastly complex process in which - through evolution - human beings evolved the capacity to be able to develop free-will. It has absolutely nothing to do with any supernatural phenomena, most important of which, a phantom-like specter that is claimed to inhabit the human body. It is not a “science language” for the “birth of the soul,” and with such statements you have adequately illustrated your lack of scientific education.
mojo wrote: Is it reasonable for a human being to have these emotions and feelings? Many other creatures are capable of survival without them. They are without reason.
But it is the irrational things that give value to our survival.
Of course it is reasonable for human beings to retain such emotions and feelings. I am beginning to weary of your unsubstantiated and absolutely unwarranted claims that espouse the erroneous idea that no other species on the planet is capable of experiencing human-like emotions and feelings. Do some research into the great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas), I suggest such authors as Frans de Waal, Peter Singer, Jane Goodall, Diane Fossey and Birute Galdikas for a beginning.
Your inaccurate and ostentatious reasoning that human beings are absolutely unlike any and all other forms of life on Earth which is proof itself of our “divine” nature is feeble, false and proof only of humanities vainglorious narcissism.
mojo wrote: I believe in evolution. I believe the story of Adam and Eve described the creation of Man's soul not his body.
That is interesting. You have – to some degree – corrected my impression of your religious fanaticism.
mojo wrote: I would also like to clarify that Nature is more of a proverbial sister to our existence than the actual God. I think many inexperienced theists can easily fall into the trap of worshiping nature itself.
Darwins Law is "survival of the fittest". Free Will is not necessary for survival. It gives value to survival. Other species are more than capable of surviving without it. Free Will sets us apart from the animals not joins us to them.
I simply disagree with your first paragraph.
As for free will not being “necessary” for our survival, that much I can agree with. It is not absolutely necessary but it has proved to be advantageous to survival hence its evolution. That is what neo-Darwinism is in essence. I can agree that free-will helps to categorize us apart from the vast majority of species of life – let us not dismiss the capacity various great apes have to develop free-will – but let us also not act as if free-will does not provide the human species with an advantageous ability to survive, for it does. While free-will is not essential or necessary for survival it is, clearly, advantageous for survival and that is precisely the reason why humans have evolved the capacity to develop free-will.
mojo wrote: There is no better evidence than these unreasonable gifts.
There are no “unreasonable gifts” only reasonable attributes that have evolved because they provide an advantage in our survival as a social species.
mojo wrote: "Evolutionary upsurge" sounds like scientific terms for the sudden birth of free-will and the soul. WHY?
Because you fail to grasp the complex process which it is describing.
mojo wrote: What kind of cosmic cooincidence would put a life giving energy in one place of a reasonable climate. Then this being which evolved through millions of years of tribulation suddenly was able to think and more importantly DECIDE. What kind of cosmic coincidence is that. Your right it is reasonable to beleive those things. But God never had a miracle that wasn't explained.
Evolutionary upsurge is not coincidence and the adaptation of specific traits and aspects of a species - over the time span of millions of years – that provide the species an advantage in their survival is neither “sudden” nor “coincidental.”

[Saf]

RELIGION FORUM

[johnflesh]

Awesome read so far, thanks much on all the information and points of view on this.

Science and Religion huh? At it again, you guys never quit.
(not refering to posters but the actual subjects, heh)

I see a vortex of reality when I understand science and religion. I see God, believe in the message of Jesus Christ, go to church as much as I can, read books on physics, conduct scientific experiments, pray, show compasion, use math daily, research biology. I am still unclear on why these things that I do conflict on paper?

For instance:

Mojo writes 'facts' based on a person who has faith in God.

JDHURF writes 'facts' based on data produced through the use of science.

Isn't it clear by this alone? Science and religion are 2 seperate entities. The only thing they have in common is that they are tools the human brain uses to measure. Instruments simply put. You could say that science is the yard stick in which we calculate the world and religion is the reason we want to live in this world. Science can tell you how much there is while religion can help you decide how much you want.

In my mind I see the bible as a step by step guide on how to avoid trouble in your life. How to avoid the BS.

-Anyone who has had a father who would whip you for disobeying his rules can understand, honor thy father. Same goes with the mother too, hehe.
-In our society it is illegal to kill someone. Thou shalt not kill comes to mind. If you don't want to end up in jail, don't kill anyone, resolve your differences other ways.
-No sex before marriage. Hard one to follow but anyone who had a surprise pregnancy understood 2 things very clearly... 1. You are having a kid. 2. No matter if you have commited to sex partner for life, you have to see them at least for the next 18 years.

Those are to name a few.

The story of Jesus. A man died for the sins of all who ever lived. No matter if it is scientifically proven on video! on Discovery Channel or if it is the truth of a man who actually lived doesn't really matter. The symbolic force of what he meant is the message. It is the principle that matters. I don't see how finding a nail that was in his hand or the wood that he was crusified on will change the message.

Something I ask the science community is if God stood before you, what would be the first tool you'd use to measure God?

I ask the religious community if God could be proven through some new recent data that God cannot exist, ironclad proof, would you still belive in a higher power?

Hypothetical of course, obtuse perhaps but it shows you one thing.

Religion and science go hand and hand and without the two used as one resource there is just debate that ends in the same thing. You are both right.

Just because science has told me how my body decays over time, or why I feed my dog and he doesn't feed me, or how my heart works, doesn't mean that it has told me why I want to preserve it. Or why I want to destroy it. Or why I want to change it. Or why I want to know more than what science or religion has told us.

I want to see scientific studys of people who have died and come back to life. I want to see scientific approaches to those who have psychic abilities, people who have proven time and again they have extra abilities. I want to see religious approaches to measuring and explaining point of origin. I want more data that only science and religion can produce.

The Intent of God is to merge heaven and earth. See heaven and it will be realized.

[JDHURF]

johnflesh wrote: Isn't it clear by this alone? Science and religion are 2 seperate entities. The only thing they have in common is that they are tools the human brain uses to measure. Instruments simply put.
I agree. Essentially science and religion are two distinct categories, with the one similarity that you pointed out already, both attempt to derive a working understanding of existence; they are both tools to this end, albeit very different ones.
johnflesh wrote: You could say that science is the yard stick in which we calculate the world and religion is the reason we want to live in this world. Science can tell you how much there is while religion can help you decide how much you want.
I’m simply not convinced that religion only exists as a means by which one obtains comfort, satisfaction and ambition. Surely one may derive such traits from their religious precepts, and their fervent belief in a specific religious tradition may enhance them also, but to claim that religion exists only as a means to this one end is – I claim – fraught with complication and contradictory evidence.
johnflesh wrote: In my mind I see the bible as a step by step guide on how to avoid trouble in your life. How to avoid the BS.
I don’t see the bible as such. I view the bible as our archaic and baroque ancestor’s pre-scientific attempt to structuralize and understand the world in which they lived and to set forth a dogmatic interpretation of the “supernatural” and set of “ethics.”
johnflesh wrote: In our society it is illegal to kill someone. Thou shalt not kill comes to mind. If you don't want to end up in jail, don't kill anyone, resolve your differences other ways.
The prohibition against murder long predates Moses and the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Religion is simply not the best repository for our ethical intuitions.
johnflesh wrote: No sex before marriage. Hard one to follow but anyone who had a surprise pregnancy understood 2 things very clearly... 1. You are having a kid. 2. No matter if you have commited to sex partner for life, you have to see them at least for the next 18 years.
Sexual abstinence is a predominately religious behavior that does not require our adherence as ethically superior to all alternatives.
johnflesh wrote: The story of Jesus. A man died for the sins of all who ever lived. No matter if it is scientifically proven on video! on Discovery Channel or if it is the truth of a man who actually lived doesn't really matter. The symbolic force of what he meant is the message. It is the principle that matters. I don't see how finding a nail that was in his hand or the wood that he was crusified on will change the message.
I find vicarious redemption to be reeking of immorality at its base and I do not find the story of Jesus – dying for all humanities sins – to be one worth lending credence to. I also do not find that the symbolic force of Jesus is enough to allow the beliefs in such an escape from criticism and critique. Jesus did not repudiate the OT – wherein there is a slew of commandments calling for the death of many individuals, even stubborn children – and Jesus himself was not an absolutely forgiving and compassionate man; he outright called for the death of people himself.
I agree that it is the principle that matters and it is with the principle found in Judeo-Christian tradition with which I disagree with.
johnflesh wrote: Something I ask the science community is if God stood before you, what would be the first tool you'd use to measure God?
This is a hypothetical “what if?” game that, to play, one must begin with the assumption that god exists. I’m not a big fan of playing the insipid game of “what if?”
johnflesh wrote: Religion and science go hand and hand and without the two used as one resource there is just debate that ends in the same thing. You are both right.
Incorrect and a direct contradiction to your opening statements.
johnflesh wrote: I want to see scientific studys of people who have died and come back to life. I want to see scientific approaches to those who have psychic abilities, people who have proven time and again they have extra abilities. I want to see religious approaches to measuring and explaining point of origin. I want more data that only science and religion can produce.
You claim that you desire data that only “science and religion” can produce yet you mention a plethora of paranormal items that have either been completely debunked or have proven to be nothing more than superstition. People do not have supernatural abilities, people are not psychic and there is no evidence that NDE’s are proof of the supernatural, quite the contrary.
johnflesh wrote: The Intent of God is to merge heaven and earth. See heaven and it will be realized.
Religious jargon. This sentence is transient and without substance to me.

[Anyis]

[quote="mojo"]Your putting reasons for things entirely unreasonable. Love is not a necessary thing for our survival. Every other creature in the universe doesn't have the capacity to love buyt can survive jus the same.[quote]

I disagree mojo, humans have evolved into the dominant species on the planet mainly because of our evergrowing intellect, problem-solving skills, and large brains. I believe that as we have evolved into what we are today so too has our understanding of love. However, practically ever creature on this planet has the capability to love in some form. Dogs risking their life to save their master is love. Animals protecting their young at the risk of their own lives is a form of love. Even though they can not verbalize their emotions as we can, I do not believe that that makes them any less cappable of love.

[mojo]

Anyis wrote: mojo wrote: Your putting reasons for things entirely unreasonable. Love is not a necessary thing for our survival. Every other creature in the universe doesn't have the capacity to love buyt can survive jus the same.

I disagree mojo, humans have evolved into the dominant species on the planet mainly because of our evergrowing intellect, problem-solving skills, and large brains. I believe that as we have evolved into what we are today so too has our understanding of love. However, practically ever creature on this planet has the capability to love in some form. Dogs risking their life to save their master is love. Animals protecting their young at the risk of their own lives is a form of love. Even though they can not verbalize their emotions as we can, I do not believe that that makes them any less cappable of love.

Yes I believe animals do have the capacity to love in some form or another. But I believe those are just small gifts and are not apart of any greater package of their existence.

We are apart of a species that requires love in order to survive. Animals only utilize out of neccesity we utilize it from the moment we wake.

JDhurf's position is entirely reasonable. He could say that every action is the result of a stimulus that undergoes a rigorous process within the brain that weighs options such as evolutionary instinct, pleasure, and risk/reward. But I will never be convinced that those are the kinds of actions that make our existence go round. There is something special and I dare say "magical" about our ability to act unreasonably and without cause or root.

[Anyis]

mojo wrote: We are apart of a species that requires love in order to survive. Animals only utilize out of neccesity we utilize it from the moment we wake.

I do not know if we require love as much as care.

[mojo]

Anyis wrote: mojo wrote: We are apart of a species that requires love in order to survive. Animals only utilize out of neccesity we utilize it from the moment we wake.

I do not know if we require love as much as care.

Caring is a form of love. Love is required to be a warm and healthy individual.

[Anyis]

mojo wrote: Anyis wrote: mojo wrote: We are apart of a species that requires love in order to survive. Animals only utilize out of neccesity we utilize it from the moment we wake.

I do not know if we require love as much as care.

Caring is a form of love. Love is required to be a warm and healthy individual.

During her years of abuse at home, Oprah Winfrey says she kept a positive attitude and has become a succesfull individual. However, I would go so far as to say I don't believe Oprah recieved much love during her childhood years that were full of rape and abuse. So I do not believe Love is required to become warm and healthy, though I would agree that it certainly helps.

However, caring can be a form of love depending on the care given. When I was a child and caught a grasshopper and fed it and watched it grow I cared for it, but I did not love it.

[greeneye]

[quote="JDHURF"]

johnflesh wrote: I want to see scientific studys of people who have died and come back to life. I want to see scientific approaches to those who have psychic abilities, people who have proven time and again they have extra abilities. I want to see religious approaches to measuring and explaining point of origin. I want more data that only science and religion can produce.

JDHURF wrote: You claim that you desire data that only “science and religion" can produce yet you mention a plethora of paranormal items that have either been completely debunked or have proven to be nothing more than superstition. People do not have supernatural abilities, people are not psychic and there is no evidence that NDE’s are proof of the supernatural, quite the contrary.

I think there are many changes going on in our modern world, including a new scientific revolution that is quietly under way. Laboratories all over the world in the last few decades have proven that many kinds of paranormal phenomena are real and this is creating some new paradigms. In fact, Thomas Kuhn pointed out in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, there tends to be a cultural lag in recognizing a new scientific paradigm. You might find this book an interesting read: The Synchronized Universe by Dr. Claude Swanson, educated as a physicist at MIT and Princeton University. (And this Dutch study is also interesting)

It summarizes evidence for many kinds of paranormal phenomena. In many of these cases these forces have been demonstrated under rigorous scientific statistics, with odds of millions or even billions to one against chance. Yes, these effects are now being proven in the laboratory, even though they defy present scientific theory.

With regards to science and discovered scientific law, I recently posted this remark on another PC thread. It's somewhat related to this topic.

Quote: Acknowledging our dot in the universe helps man maintain a perspective on life: We are part of a much larger sphere . What science has discovered and acknowledged regarding the forces of nature thus far in man's evolution helps us function and live with a little more understanding as well as aids society to progress forward. However, let us bear in mind that the force of gravity existed and was an absolute fact (truth) long before Sir Isaac Newton discovered it; and the earth and all the other planets revolved around the sun.long, long before Nicolaus Copernicus, and Galileo Galilei re-discovered this absolute fact (truth); and the Pythagorean Theorem which taught that numbers were the real reality, that the core of the physical world was mathematical existed as an absolute fact (truth) long before Pythagoras rediscovered it in 6th Century BC; and the structure of matter was an absolute fact (truth) long before the French chemist Antoine Lavoisier published a list of "elements"--substances. (to name a just few discoveries that were really re-discovered and considered unproven 'beliefs' before they became absolute facts and truth to man.)

Thus one can only humbly acknowledge today, in our little dot, that there remains many other areas of man's existence that science can not explain the whys and why nots. And just as gravity effected mankind centuries before Newton discovered it, and the world thought the earth was the center of the universe before Copernicus and Galileo, there are still universal laws (absolute truths and facts) at play in man's world today that we have yet to fully understand and re-discover but yet their immutable principles effect man in ways that we may call "grey" or 'beliefs.' Perhaps the distance between this grey and man's greater understand and awareness of it is what may bring science and God closer together.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1548605&sid=70981b3eb70faa4b26de2e6188779142#1548605

[JDHURF]

greeneye wrote: I think there are many changes going on in our modern world, including a new scientific revolution that is quietly under way. Laboratories all over the world in the last few decades have proven that many kinds of paranormal phenomena are real and this is creating some new paradigms. In fact, Thomas Kuhn pointed out in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, there tends to be a cultural lag in recognizing a new scientific paradigm. You might find this book an interesting read: The Synchronized Universe by Dr. Claude Swanson, educated as a physicist at MIT and Princeton University.
My threshold for evangelical Christians trotting out Thomas Kuhn in support of any and all breed of paranormal and religious nonsense is at its limit.
As for Dr. Claude Swanson, I went to his website at: http://www.synchronizeduniverse.com/ and let’s just say that a physicist educated at MIT and Princeton is clearly no guarantee that, when speaking on behalf of supernaturalism and pseudoscience, they have the least bit of scientific credibility.
This guy claims that ESP and levitation is a reality! That simply repudiates any and all credibility that he has regarding such phenomena.
greeneye wrote: It summarizes evidence for many kinds of paranormal phenomena. In many of these cases these forces have been demonstrated under rigorous scientific statistics, with odds of millions or even billions to one against chance. Yes, these effects are now being proven in the laboratory, even though they defy present scientific theory.
Some people will believe anything.

[greeneye]

JDHURF wrote: Some people will believe anything.

When scientists today go outside the "box" (and there are many) of a science that is broken, in an attempt to find more evolved meaning and answers to what science can not explain, I find this positive and progressive.

As far as credible, let us bear in mind that Galileo, during his time, was discredited for many of his beliefs about gravity and other theories he had that are now scientific principles because people did not understand them and they were stuck in a paradign of 'acceptable given (beliefs)'.

In fact many scientific principles, we accept today, were initially considered to be superstitious and downright false by the current governing bodies.

So when a scientist today has a new theory, or evidence and studies, regarding something science has not be able to explain thus far, personally, I am not quick to judge, disbelieve or believe; but instead read, evaluate and consider the evidence.

Again, history shows that a number of our scientific laws and theories were ridiculed during their time of discovery. Surely, history can help us to reason but yet have an open mind.

[JDHURF]

greeneye wrote: When scientists today go outside the "box" (and there are many) of a science that is broken, in an attempt to find more evolved meaning and answers to what science can not explain, I find this positive and progressive.
The very fact that you claim science is broken speaks volumes about the sort of belief system you operate under.
greeneye wrote: As far as credible, let us bear in mind that Galileo, during his time, was discredited for many of his beliefs about gravity and other theories he had that are now scientific principles because people did not understand them and they were stuck in a paradign of 'acceptable given (beliefs)'.
To spuriously compare Galileo to the pseudoscientist Swanson would be laughable were it not so perverse. I am simply exhausted with regards to conservatives and religious fanatics trotting out Kuhn and misrepresenting his writing in support of hokum, and that is what you are doing.
This is not about science being stuck in a Kuhnian paradigm of “acceptable given beliefs” but about what is demonstrably legitimate and valid scientific work supported by evidentiary abutment and what is paranormal, pseudoscientific superstition and hokum gratuitously masquerading around as some sort of perverse post-modern scientific endeavor.
greeneye wrote: In fact many scientific principles, we accept today, were initially considered to be superstitious and downright false by the current governing bodies.
Clearly not support for either ESP or levitation. Furthermore I believe you meant to say “past governing bodies” rather than “current.” Or you should have preceded the "current" with "then" in order that it would be coherent: "then current bodies," because you are speaking of the past.
greeneye wrote: So when a scientist today has a new theory, or evidence and studies, regarding something science has not be able to explain thus far, personally, I am not quick to judge, disbelieve or believe; but instead read, evaluate and consider the evidence.
That is not what Swanson has done, he has claimed that the paranormal is absolutely real and indisputable, such as ESP and levitation; two phenomena that have been widely and profusely debunked years ago by legitimate scientists.
greeneye wrote: Again, history shows that a number of our scientific laws and theories were ridiculed during their time of discovery. Surely, history can help us to reason but yet have an open mind.
Jesus – tap dancing – Christ that is a lame argument. By this reasoning we should be scientifically open to the possibility that Pluto is made of cheese or that our computers are run by blue fairies and poltergeists, get a grip man, ESP and levitation are both simply irrational and superstitious beliefs that only those with a beguiled sense of reason have the capacity to contemplate, well, that’s not true, many people with severe psychological disturbances share some of these very same beliefs while they waste away their lives on a psych ward.
I mean no offense - you seem like a good guy - but I have a limited threshold for the amount of voodoo I am able to tolerate.

[Anyis]

I have seen so many shows and read a few books on the paranormal and whatnots. I believe that there is something there that we can't yet explain or know about. However, the public is skeptical because of all the fakes like Cynthia Brown who go around hyping their names up in public appearances about their 'powers'. I don't trust anyone who has to go on shows and right tons of books about their abilities; I do, however, believe that their is some fact in several news articles I've read by what seem to be prominent scientists of our time, discussing the paranormal and paranormal activities.

[greeneye]

JDHURF wrote: The very fact that you claim science is broken speaks volumes about the sort of belief system you operate under.

Yes, it does appear like my belief system is a bit different from yours. Thus, I will not attempt to convince you that I can bend the spoon. :wink:

greeneye wrote: As far as credible, let us bear in mind that Galileo, during his time, was discredited for many of his beliefs about gravity and other theories he had that are now scientific principles because people did not understand them and they were stuck in a paradign of 'acceptable given (beliefs)'.

JDHURF wrote: To spuriously compare Galileo to the pseudoscientist Swanson would be laughable were it not so perverse.
Swanson is but one of a small group of scientists in the parapsychology field today. Probably the most notable is Joseph Rhine and I've also heard of Dean Radin. You can go ahead and laugh at Swanson -- however, They Laughed at Galileo Too

JDHUI wrote: I am simply exhausted with regards to conservatives

I am sorry for your exhaustion. You might want to take some deep breaths; this is just an online forum where ideas can be exchanged and debated -- should not cause exhaustion.

JDHURF wrote: Jesus – tap dancing – Christ that is a lame argument.
You may not like the argument JDHURF, however, we live in a world today where our technology and scientific discoveries and theories were considered absolutely impossible, irrational, superstitious and insane 100 years ago.

What you may consider absolutely impossible because concepts do not fit within a nice, neat specified scientific box of parameters, 100 years from now may very well be the norm. It's just a matter of connecting the dots between the mind, the physical and the supernatural. The fact that there's now a growing sector of this new science working on the paranormal... it's just a matter of time.

And as sure as what goes up must come down.... the dots will mostly likely get connected .... and science will one day understand how someone can bend the spoon. 8:) Even though some people understand it already.

JDHURF wrote: By this reasoning we should be scientifically open to the possibility that Pluto is made of cheese

Humm.... so it's not made of cheese....?


JDHURF wrote: ESP and levitation are both simply irrational and superstitious beliefs that only those with a beguiled sense of reason have the capacity to contemplate,

Surely, you must be aware that the CIA has found credibility in ESP and used it successfully

JDHURF wrote: I have a limited threshold for the amount of voodoo I am able to tolerate.

30 Years ago natural holistic medicine was considered voodoo. It's now saving thousands of lives.

Quote: All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.

Albert Einstein

[JDHURF]

greeneye wrote: Yes, it does appear like my belief system is a bit different from yours. Thus, I will not attempt to convince you that I can bend the spoon.
:lol: By the way, science is not broken.
greeneye wrote: Swanson is but one of a small group of scientists in the parapsychology field today. Probably the most notable is Joseph Rhine and I've also heard of Dean Radin. You can go ahead and laugh at Swanson -- however, They Laughed at Galileo Too
I didn’t say that Swanson, himself, was laughable but, rather, that the comparison of Swanson to Galileo would be were it no so perverse in its inaccuracy.
greeneye wrote: You may not like the argument JDHURF, however, we live in a world today where our technology and scientific discoveries and theories were considered absolutely impossible, irrational, superstitious and insane 100 years ago
We are clearly not discussing technological advances, I would be much more open to this line of inquiry, we are discussing occult attributes and behavior, a stark difference.
greeneye wrote: What you may consider absolutely impossible because concepts do not fit within a nice, neat specified scientific box of parameters, 100 years from now may very well be the norm. It's just a matter of connecting the dots between the mind, the physical and the supernatural. The fact that there's now a growing sector of this new science working on the paranormal... it's just a matter of time.
There is no possible way to scientifically investigate the supernatural, by definition, nice try.
greeneye wrote: And as sure as what goes up must come down.... the dots will mostly likely get connected .... and science will one day understand how someone can bend the spoon.
I first assumed that you were being facetious regarding the bending of spoons, you aren’t being serious are you?
greeneye wrote: Surely, you must be aware that the CIA has found credibility in ESP and used it successfully
Now I will laugh. :lol:
greeneye wrote: 30 Years ago natural holistic medicine was considered voodoo. It's now saving thousands of lives.
A fallacious argument. Thunder was also once considered a form of voodoo, this has nothing to do with the scientific viability of ESP and levitation, clearly.

The Albert Einstein quote says nothing of the scientific viability of the supernatural and paranormal.

[greeneye]

greeneye wrote: Yes, it does appear like my belief system is a bit different from yours. Thus, I will not attempt to convince you that I can bend the spoon.
JDHURF wrote: By the way, science is not broken.

No, it's not broken... however, there's a lot it can't explain yet and one of those things it can't explain is how the universe was created. But that's OK... believers have their beliefs about creation, and scientists have their theory -- and then perhaps between all that ... there's God's intention... the subject of this thread. :-D

Now there's a potential contentious debate: the scientific argument about God's intention......:?

[my full post didn't post the first time... so I'm reposting :) ]

greeneye wrote: You may not like the argument JDHURF, however, we live in a world today where our technology and scientific discoveries and theories were considered absolutely impossible, irrational, superstitious and insane 100 years ago

JDHURF wrote: We are clearly not discussing technological advances, I would be much more open to this line of inquiry, we are discussing occult attributes and behavior, a stark difference.

Well, the world burned people like Joan of Arch centuries ago because she said she was talking to an angel. We've come a long way with regards to beliefs and tolerance. We don't burn people anymore for talking to angels. But now, there's a field in science called parapsychology that is trying to understand who Joan of Arch was communing with centuries ago, because in our modern society, many people seem to be having similar experiences.

greeneye wrote: What you may consider absolutely impossible because concepts do not fit within a nice, neat specified scientific box of parameters, 100 years from now may very well be the norm. It's just a matter of connecting the dots between the mind, the physical and the supernatural. The fact that there's now a growing sector of this new science working on the paranormal... it's just a matter of time.

JDHURF wrote: There is no possible way to scientifically investigate the supernatural, by definition, nice try.

If the supernatural realm turns out to be is a different energy field, a different reality from the physical plane, I disagree... Would it not just be a matter of creating (developing) instruments that can measure a different frequency then our physical world?

greeneye wrote: Surely, you must be aware that the CIA has found credibility in ESP and used it successfully

JDHURF wrote: Now I will laugh.

Why?

greeneye wrote: 30 Years ago natural holistic medicine was considered voodoo. It's now saving thousands of lives.

JDHURF wrote: A fallacious argument. Thunder was also once considered a form of voodoo, this has nothing to do with the scientific viability of ESP and levitation, clearly.

If there is a group of scientists now who are attempting through laboratory studies, analysis and research to understand how and why ESP between so many people works, I have no problem in moving the clock forward 50-100 years and seeing ESP as an accepted and understood natural science.

Why can't you?