Comments on: Mistakes God made: Where is the Mongoose of Truth? http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/10/mistakes-god-made-where-is-the-mongoose-of-truth/ Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:04:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/10/mistakes-god-made-where-is-the-mongoose-of-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-5210 Andy Kaiser Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:43:20 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1788#comment-5210 <p>Thread locked. Anyone bothering to read the whole thing can tell why.</p> Thread locked. Anyone bothering to read the whole thing can tell why.

]]> By: nbjayme http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/10/mistakes-god-made-where-is-the-mongoose-of-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-5205 nbjayme Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:07:46 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1788#comment-5205 nbjayme, <em>You didn’t really answer either of my questions:</em> <em>1) Do you understand how different hypotheses could have different probabilities of being true? </em> What is your basis for probabilities to be true?  Aliens have no solid scientific proof to speak of, yet you were willing to concede the idea of existence in the absence of scientific proof.  Have you ever seen all possible alien life forms in the Universe to judge that they breath the same air we do, talk  like we do, or communicate the way we do?  ;-)  Even in the absence of proof it's not unreasonable nor illogical for one to be open to the idea.  Same also with the belief of God's existence. (Which God is it or religion is another subject to explore). No human structure exists without someone building it.  That the galaxy as a material structure points to a highly logical conclusion that there is a Builder.  That the planetary motions and environment follow not an "abstract" law but a "concrete" law expressed in scientific fields of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. -- points to a highly logical conclusion that the Builder has Intelligence. This reminds me of: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/el-dorado-legendary-lost-city-gold-amazon/   The perception of science is still dependent on the observer (scientist).  We build scientific machines to amplify our perception, yet we have to put in mind that our perception is dependent on our 5 senses - See, Hear, Taste, Feel, Smell.  We are machines built with those senses -- could there be more that we are not aware of?  Science need to explore all the forest where God might be hiding. 2) What is the non-scientific fairytale you mention? Read #1. ;-) Andy nbjayme,

You didn’t really answer either of my questions:

1) Do you understand how different hypotheses could have different probabilities of being true?

What is your basis for probabilities to be true?  Aliens have no solid scientific proof to speak of, yet you were willing to concede the idea of existence in the absence of scientific proof.  Have you ever seen all possible alien life forms in the Universe to judge that they breath the same air we do, talk  like we do, or communicate the way we do?  ;-)  Even in the absence of proof it’s not unreasonable nor illogical for one to be open to the idea.  Same also with the belief of God’s existence. (Which God is it or religion is another subject to explore).

No human structure exists without someone building it.  That the galaxy as a material structure points to a highly logical conclusion that there is a Builder.  That the planetary motions and environment follow not an “abstract” law but a “concrete” law expressed in scientific fields of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. — points to a highly logical conclusion that the Builder has Intelligence.
This reminds me of:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/el-dorado-legendary-lost-city-gold-amazon/
 
The perception of science is still dependent on the observer (scientist).  We build scientific machines to amplify our perception, yet we have to put in mind that our perception is dependent on our 5 senses – See, Hear, Taste, Feel, Smell.  We are machines built with those senses — could there be more that we are not aware of?  Science need to explore all the forest where God might be hiding.

2) What is the non-scientific fairytale you mention?

Read #1. ;-)

Andy

]]> By: Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/10/mistakes-god-made-where-is-the-mongoose-of-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-5201 Andy Kaiser Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:58:12 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1788#comment-5201 <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; color: #333333;">nbjayme,</span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;">You didn't really answer either of my questions:</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">1) Do you understand how different hypotheses could have different probabilities of being true? Your above answer describes how you think I'm wrong. That's fine, but it doesn't answer my question.</span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; line-height: 22px; color: #333333;">2) What is the non-scientific fairytale you mention?</span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 22px;">I'm willing to discuss, but we need to make progress in our conversation (whether or not we ever agree). Otherwise we're just wasting each other's time. </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 22px;">Andy</span></span></p> nbjayme,

You didn’t really answer either of my questions:

1) Do you understand how different hypotheses could have different probabilities of being true? Your above answer describes how you think I’m wrong. That’s fine, but it doesn’t answer my question.

2) What is the non-scientific fairytale you mention?

I’m willing to discuss, but we need to make progress in our conversation (whether or not we ever agree). Otherwise we’re just wasting each other’s time.

Andy

]]> By: nbjayme http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/10/mistakes-god-made-where-is-the-mongoose-of-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-5199 nbjayme Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:22:27 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1788#comment-5199 <em>"Show me one example of consciousness without a living organism."</em> The question begs that non-living has conciousness.  Therefore wrong assertion on your part. ;-)  Moreover, what hypothetical organism are you looking into?  If you are to limit this on earth then you miss the entire point of the hypothetical logic as it presents myriad lifeforms from  possibility of extraterrestrial down to the Universe.   Thought in itself is a concept with no material properties. ;-)   <em>"This is not a “belief”, per your definition of the term. "</em> "No God exists" is a belief.  A belief not within the bounds of religion.  Moreover, Santa has nothing to do with it.  Anyone knows the background facts on Santa.  But the belief of "No-God-exists" requires scientific proof and presumption that science learned the entirety of the Universe.  Science is just beginning to learn and learn to begin each day. ;-)   <em>"No because you choose to, as it reinforces what you want to believe.  You discard a multitude of “historical events” that do not match your beliefs."</em> The logic begs that one event did not happen because all others happened.  The Fatima Miracle happened in history.  Others of the same purported event have known to be a manipulation of man or have no credible background to speak with.  The Fatima event is different, with the children having their own conviction amidst discouragement from family, media, Church officials, and the anti-Catholic communist State.  ;-) <em>"There are lots of “miracles” attesting to the presence of completely contradictory Gods."</em> Thus, science will be there to attest and confirm, as well as, investigations from Church officials to determine it's authenticity.  Was there background authenticity and scientific study on those purported miracles you want to lump all-together?  I believe none, unlike that of Fatima Miracle. <em> </em> "All possible life forms proposed are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry." Your conciousness is not governed by laws of physics and chemistry.  No one can predict what you are to do or think next, we can only imply.  Does that mean you don't exists? :D I think you need a serious look into your *version* of science, and reasses from where you come from.   A basic logic tutorial will help you focus on logic and stop using *emotions* and *nonsense* to this issue.   <em> </em> “Show me one example of consciousness without a living organism.”
The question begs that non-living has conciousness.  Therefore wrong assertion on your part. ;-)  Moreover, what hypothetical organism are you looking into?  If you are to limit this on earth then you miss the entire point of the hypothetical logic as it presents myriad lifeforms from  possibility of extraterrestrial down to the Universe.   Thought in itself is a concept with no material properties. ;-)
 
“This is not a “belief”, per your definition of the term. “
“No God exists” is a belief.  A belief not within the bounds of religion.  Moreover, Santa has nothing to do with it.  Anyone knows the background facts on Santa.  But the belief of “No-God-exists” requires scientific proof and presumption that science learned the entirety of the Universe.  Science is just beginning to learn and learn to begin each day. ;-)
 
“No because you choose to, as it reinforces what you want to believe.  You discard a multitude of “historical events” that do not match your beliefs.”
The logic begs that one event did not happen because all others happened.  The Fatima Miracle happened in history.  Others of the same purported event have known to be a manipulation of man or have no credible background to speak with.  The Fatima event is different, with the children having their own conviction amidst discouragement from family, media, Church officials, and the anti-Catholic communist State.  ;-)
“There are lots of “miracles” attesting to the presence of completely contradictory Gods.”
Thus, science will be there to attest and confirm, as well as, investigations from Church officials to determine it’s authenticity.  Was there background authenticity and scientific study on those purported miracles you want to lump all-together?  I believe none, unlike that of Fatima Miracle.


“All possible life forms proposed are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry.”
Your conciousness is not governed by laws of physics and chemistry.  No one can predict what you are to do or think next, we can only imply.  Does that mean you don’t exists?
:D
I think you need a serious look into your *version* of science, and reasses from where you come from.   A basic logic tutorial will help you focus on logic and stop using *emotions* and *nonsense* to this issue.
 

]]> By: rc_moore http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/10/mistakes-god-made-where-is-the-mongoose-of-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-5198 rc_moore Tue, 19 Jan 2010 07:26:45 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1788#comment-5198 nbjayme said: "Consciousness  is a property beyond material realm. " A completely false assertion.  If conscious was beyond the material realm,  it would exist when the material realm (the living organism) does not.  Show me one example of consciousness without a living organism.   "“No God exists” is already a belief to start with" This is not a "belief", per your definition of the term.  If it is then "No Santa Claus exists" is also a belief,  "nbjayme is  from Venus" is also a belief,   or "nbjayme is a follower of Satan" is also a belief. The default position as supported by the evidence (or lack of ) is never a belief. All mathematics would completely fall apart if this was true. "I accepted the idea of God because of manifestation in historical event (i.e. the Fatima Miracle)." No because you choose to, as it reinforces what you want to believe.  You discard a multitude of "historical events" that do not match your beliefs.  There are lots of "miracles" attesting to the presence of completely contradictory Gods.  You reject all but the ones you want,  filtering out all religions not your own. "And, since we need not scientific proof to warrant the possibility of such hypothesis, the same is true to the approach of the hypothesis of the existence of God." All possible life forms proposed are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry.  God, be definition is not.  It is logically impossible to bridge this comparison as you have done,  as the sets of objects are by definition mutually exclusive. I would recommend studying elementary set theory and logic, in an environment that does not allow you to merely assert things as being true.  This is your path from speaking nonsense. nbjayme said:
“Consciousness  is a property beyond material realm. ”
A completely false assertion.  If conscious was beyond the material realm,  it would exist when the material realm (the living organism) does not.  Show me one example of consciousness without a living organism.
 
““No God exists” is already a belief to start with”
This is not a “belief”, per your definition of the term.  If it is then “No Santa Claus exists” is also a belief,  “nbjayme is  from Venus” is also a belief,   or “nbjayme is a follower of Satan” is also a belief.
The default position as supported by the evidence (or lack of ) is never a belief. All mathematics would completely fall apart if this was true.
“I accepted the idea of God because of manifestation in historical event (i.e. the Fatima Miracle).”
No because you choose to, as it reinforces what you want to believe.  You discard a multitude of “historical events” that do not match your beliefs.  There are lots of “miracles” attesting to the presence of completely contradictory Gods.  You reject all but the ones you want,  filtering out all religions not your own.
“And, since we need not scientific proof to warrant the possibility of such hypothesis, the same is true to the approach of the hypothesis of the existence of God.”
All possible life forms proposed are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry.  God, be definition is not.  It is logically impossible to bridge this comparison as you have done,  as the sets of objects are by definition mutually exclusive.
I would recommend studying elementary set theory and logic, in an environment that does not allow you to merely assert things as being true.  This is your path from speaking nonsense.

]]> By: nbjayme http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/10/mistakes-god-made-where-is-the-mongoose-of-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-5197 nbjayme Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:53:51 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1788#comment-5197 <em>"Do you understand my point about how a probability can be different for several related hypothesis?"</em> The probability of alien life forms points to the hypothesis that there are myriad life forms. ;-)  And, since we need not scientific proof to warrant the possibility of such hypothesis, the same is true to the approach of the hypothesis of the existence of God. 1) That all properties of known life are processed and coming from a source called Universe.  Conciousness  is a property beyond material realm.  Hence, Conciousness comes from Conciousness and material state comes from material state.  Conciousness is one that makes the Universe say, "I'm alive."  Life as we know on earth take only what have been made available. ;-) 2) As one suggested the Universe to be older than Earth and with the hypothesis of myriad lifeforms there is then that logical hypothesis that life can come in different packages (or properties of matter).  <em>Am I supposed to pretend you have produced one credible fact? </em> "No God exists" is already a belief to start with.  Thus, one can be bias even any amount of credible facts are presented. ;-)   There is no credible fact in science disproving God and the  "No-God-exists" idea requires burden of proof. In my case, I accepted the idea of God because of manifestation in historical event (i.e. the Fatima Miracle).  “Do you understand my point about how a probability can be different for several related hypothesis?”
The probability of alien life forms points to the hypothesis that there are myriad life forms. ;-)  And, since we need not scientific proof to warrant the possibility of such hypothesis, the same is true to the approach of the hypothesis of the existence of God.
1) That all properties of known life are processed and coming from a source called Universe.  Conciousness  is a property beyond material realm.  Hence, Conciousness comes from Conciousness and material state comes from material state.  Conciousness is one that makes the Universe say, “I’m alive.”  Life as we know on earth take only what have been made available. ;-)
2) As one suggested the Universe to be older than Earth and with the hypothesis of myriad lifeforms there is then that logical hypothesis that life can come in different packages (or properties of matter). 

Am I supposed to pretend you have produced one credible fact?
“No God exists” is already a belief to start with.  Thus, one can be bias even any amount of credible facts are presented. ;-)   There is no credible fact in science disproving God and the  “No-God-exists” idea requires burden of proof.
In my case, I accepted the idea of God because of manifestation in historical event (i.e. the Fatima Miracle). 

]]> By: Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/10/mistakes-god-made-where-is-the-mongoose-of-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-5196 Andy Kaiser Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:01:48 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1788#comment-5196 <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; color: #333333;">rc_moore, </span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;">I took the time to read the warning from <span style="font-size: 13px;">St. Augustine. Thanks for posting that. I hadn't heard it before. Interesting stuff - it's now in my personal quote collection.</span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 22px;">Andy</span></span></p> rc_moore,

I took the time to read the warning from St. Augustine. Thanks for posting that. I hadn’t heard it before. Interesting stuff – it’s now in my personal quote collection.

Andy

]]> By: Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/10/mistakes-god-made-where-is-the-mongoose-of-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-5195 Andy Kaiser Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:52:43 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1788#comment-5195 <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 22px;">nbjayme,</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 22px;">I sense we're getting really off track here. I'd rather not argue for argument's sake. Permit me to consolidate what I believe are the core aspects of the discussion between us:</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; line-height: 22px; color: #333333;"><em>It doesn’t really make a difference Mr. Andy.  you proprosed the alien god without scientific facts and you were willing to concede to that.</em></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 22px;">When I said the following:</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 22px;">"...given a choice between the alien/god hypothesis, no gods at all, and yes, alien life on other worlds, the 'no gods at all' theory has the highest probability of being right."</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 22px;">Do you understand my point about how a probability can be different for several related hypothesis?</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 22px;"><span style="font-style: italic;">So Mr. Andy Kaiser, it seems you’re willing to concede only to your own fairytale without scientific basis.  And the more it shows you are motivated by *emotion* and not by logical consistency.</span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 22px;">What is the non-scientific fairytale you mention? Atheism? Or the idea that an alien life is comparable to god? If this is atheism, I can address that. If we're talking about the alien idea, then please answer my probability question above, and we'll go from there.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 22px;">Andy</span></span></p> nbjayme,

I sense we’re getting really off track here. I’d rather not argue for argument’s sake. Permit me to consolidate what I believe are the core aspects of the discussion between us:

It doesn’t really make a difference Mr. Andy.  you proprosed the alien god without scientific facts and you were willing to concede to that.

When I said the following:

“…given a choice between the alien/god hypothesis, no gods at all, and yes, alien life on other worlds, the ‘no gods at all’ theory has the highest probability of being right.”

Do you understand my point about how a probability can be different for several related hypothesis?

So Mr. Andy Kaiser, it seems you’re willing to concede only to your own fairytale without scientific basis.  And the more it shows you are motivated by *emotion* and not by logical consistency.

What is the non-scientific fairytale you mention? Atheism? Or the idea that an alien life is comparable to god? If this is atheism, I can address that. If we’re talking about the alien idea, then please answer my probability question above, and we’ll go from there.

Andy

]]> By: rc_moore http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/10/mistakes-god-made-where-is-the-mongoose-of-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-5194 rc_moore Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:46:16 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1788#comment-5194 nbjayme said: "By the way, the Bible knew about evolution — the serpent loosing it’s leg" I think that statement pretty much proves my assertion that you know very little science.   I don't mind that really -- there a lot of things I do not know either.  The difference between us is that you do not wish to know anything that contradicts your faith, and deny any and all evidence presented to you.  I have no faith to contradict, and never deny objective evidence. "Beside, what’s with the “I-am-more-intelligent” attitude you’re having?" I think this is more of a "my pointing out the incredible ignorance you are exhibiting" attitude.  Am I supposed to pretend you have produced one credible fact?  Do you consider me an idiot, that I would be convinced by your arguments? Now that is an objectionable attitude.  That you believe that I have misunderstood every university science class I have ever taken, every science book I have ever read, and every science degree  I hold is undeserved, because my knowledge contradicts your religious belief.  Because that is what you imply. I suggest you once again read the quote by St. Augustine I posted.  It would do you good to read and understand it.     nbjayme said:
“By the way, the Bible knew about evolution — the serpent loosing it’s leg”
I think that statement pretty much proves my assertion that you know very little science.   I don’t mind that really — there a lot of things I do not know either.  The difference between us is that you do not wish to know anything that contradicts your faith, and deny any and all evidence presented to you.  I have no faith to contradict, and never deny objective evidence.
“Beside, what’s with the “I-am-more-intelligent” attitude you’re having?”
I think this is more of a “my pointing out the incredible ignorance you are exhibiting” attitude.  Am I supposed to pretend you have produced one credible fact?  Do you consider me an idiot, that I would be convinced by your arguments?
Now that is an objectionable attitude.  That you believe that I have misunderstood every university science class I have ever taken, every science book I have ever read, and every science degree  I hold is undeserved, because my knowledge contradicts your religious belief.  Because that is what you imply.
I suggest you once again read the quote by St. Augustine I posted.  It would do you good to read and understand it.
 
 

]]> By: nbjayme http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/10/mistakes-god-made-where-is-the-mongoose-of-truth/comment-page-1/#comment-5193 nbjayme Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:06:48 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1788#comment-5193 <em>"Rejecting my answers because you know little of science is not much of a response."</em> Rejecting?  Where?<em> </em>It's your answers and I am presenting my proposition base on the logic and response you presented.  Beside, what's with the "I-am-more-intelligent" attitude you're having? <em> </em> <em>"As to science proving God – again, another straw man you use to avoid having to admit you have no evidence of a God either.  As has been noted many times in this thread, the burden of proof is on you — and you have not supplied any."</em> <em> </em> The Eucharistic miracles and the Fatima Miracle is the reason for my belief. If the Church would do fraud its messing with anti-Catholic communists at the time.  They are only endangering a lot of people.  But the children persisted even with discouragement from Church officials.  ;-)   <em>"DNA came first.  It’s precursors were most likely strands of RNA.  The beauty of the complementary nucleic acid pairs is that their very molecular geometry leads to self-replicating molecular chains."</em>   Therefore, the theory that we came from only one ancestral specie is a big question.  The myriads of available compounds and matters can create a variety of DNA combinations -- independent and precursor to the formation of a specie.  That a specie can be of an independent tree is scientifically logical and probable.  Therefore, although a specie can be of resemblance it is not proof of one evolving from the other or the other way around. ;-) By the way, the Bible knew about evolution --- the serpent loosing it's leg  Also of "aliens" by Ryan, the Bible speak of other beings having contact with earthly females.  There's just really some things the Bible is ahead of science. ;-) Evolutionary process does not negate that there is an Author of the process. “Rejecting my answers because you know little of science is not much of a response.”
Rejecting?  Where? It’s your answers and I am presenting my proposition base on the logic and response you presented.  Beside, what’s with the “I-am-more-intelligent” attitude you’re having?


“As to science proving God – again, another straw man you use to avoid having to admit you have no evidence of a God either.  As has been noted many times in this thread, the burden of proof is on you — and you have not supplied any.”


The Eucharistic miracles and the Fatima Miracle is the reason for my belief.
If the Church would do fraud its messing with anti-Catholic communists at the time.  They are only endangering a lot of people.  But the children persisted even with discouragement from Church officials.  ;-)
 
“DNA came first.  It’s precursors were most likely strands of RNA.  The beauty of the complementary nucleic acid pairs is that their very molecular geometry leads to self-replicating molecular chains.”
 
Therefore, the theory that we came from only one ancestral specie is a big question.  The myriads of available compounds and matters can create a variety of DNA combinations — independent and precursor to the formation of a specie.  That a specie can be of an independent tree is scientifically logical and probable.  Therefore, although a specie can be of resemblance it is not proof of one evolving from the other or the other way around. ;-)
By the way, the Bible knew about evolution — the serpent loosing it’s leg  Also of “aliens” by Ryan, the Bible speak of other beings having contact with earthly females.  There’s just really some things the Bible is ahead of science. ;-)
Evolutionary process does not negate that there is an Author of the process.

]]>