Goliath

Douglas,

I suppose I could have. I used the strong wording to indicate how much I loathe intellectually dishonest arguments (ie making claims that have again and again been shown to be unsupported or--in the case of your equations argument--unproven). I just wish to make sure that you never engage in such dishonest tactics, Douglas.

What is there to discuss? Using your words, Douglas: "I've won."

Is it proof? No. I do not see the logical implication between finding such a message on all cells and a god existing. So, if you could prove why such an implication would hold, then yes, it would be proof.

However, such a find would be quite odd, and it would (if nothing else) make me sit up and pay attention, as it were.

Sincerely,

Goliath

(edited to add smiley)

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

Synasthesia,

Easy to say - can you prove it? (Note that mere "evidence" is "irrelevant".) Also, I'm not talking about using "mathematical manipulations", etcetera, but obviously encoded meaning, IN ENGLISH LETTERS, WITH NO "GAPS", just like the words you are reading in this post.


In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender

Understood.

Perhaps both. But I never, never claimed to have a "mathematically rigorous proof", in the sense of a proof which did not involve some "evidence". Not all "proofs" are defined as they are for "mathematics", Goliath.

Why do you turn right around and misunderstand what I just said? I didn't say that I couldn't "prove" that my God exists - I said that the proof is not one which does not involve EVIDENCE. Not all "proofs" are based on mere "axioms", only those in mathematics.

What difference does that make? So, anything in NATURE which might possibly be considered as "evidence" for something "beyond" Nature cannot be taken into account, because there to do so would be using "evidence", rather than a formal logic argument?

No, but they essentially ACT AND SPEAK as though they have. So, either they're all deluded as to what a "proof" is, or you are requiring too strict of a "proof" for things found in Nature.

But if that is the case, Goliath, then it that "proof" is BASED ON "evidence". The "evidence" being the observed natural events.

Goliath, I was involved for a period of time in a "Formal Debate" here about this very issue, with "scigirl", who happens to be a graduate student in biology. She (and other scientists she liked to quote or refer to) claimed that macroevolution is just microevolution over a long period of time. Are you, "biological layman" that you are, claiming to know more about what most biologists believe than biologists themselves. Well, perhaps I can use you as a reference, next time I, should it ever occur, am involved in a debate about "micro versus macro evolution". Thanks.

Goliath, Goliath, Goliath...since when is the word "proof" limited to mathematics and its types of "proof"? But, I can assure you, scigirl and many "top" evolutionists claim that science has proven that evolution occurs beyond any doubt. Remember the quote that evolution is a "Fact, Fact, FACT!!"?

So, you are saying that science cannot "prove" anything? That's a revelation of sorts, there, Goliath. Science cannot "prove" that the photosynthesis occurs, that the Earth orbits the Sun, that DNA exists, etcetera? Or are you implicitly conceding that there are OTHER KINDS OF "PROOF" than your "full-bore", mathematical kind?

Your claim regarding science and the "supernatural" is debatable, since, if there actually is such a thing as "supernatural" occurrences", there is no reason science could not "detect" their impact in Nature in some cases, and be able to conclude that no natural process could account for the observed event or fact. For example, if a "rigorous" test was made of, say, someone's ability to manipulate objects at a distance of several miles, and it was found that there was a 100% correlation between their stated intent at manipulation, and what was observed, one could conclude (though not with "full-bore", mathematical confidence) that it had been proven that they were able to manipulate objects at a distance. Of course, one could then merely "stretch" what "Natural" means, to include such occurrences.

Ah, I see now. You are requiring "full-bore, mathematical" proof for anything "supernatural", but you accept much less rigorous "proofs", which include things based merely on "evidence", for all things purely "natural". Kind of proves my point that you are requiring things which automatically preclude any possibility of success on my part, Goliath - "stacking the deck", "setting the rules", etcetera; and that unfairly, if one wants to arrive at the truth.

Re-read my hypothetical example of the "test psychic", and tell me again why you wouldn't "accept scientific evidence and valid 'inferences'" in that case as "proof" that the person was able to manipulate objects at a distance. I'd be interested to hear your reasoning and justification, rather than just your conclusion.

Yes. But it is also fair to say that your challenge itself was unfair and formulated with an unjustified bias. Thus, I have "failed" to fulfill the "letter" of your challenge, but not the "spirit" (if you are truly "challenging" me to provide reason beyond doubt that God exists). If you can grant that if the supernatural exists, it might be scientifically detectable (and how else might it be "detected"?) in the "Natural", then perhaps we can continue. Otherwise, your "challenge" is nothing more than a semantic misapplication.

What a pity. I was expecting a fair and fair-minded "challenge". Oh well, C'est la Vie.

In Christ,

Douglas

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

And what "scientific inference" would constitute "proof" in this sense? NONE. You have just admitted that science can prove nothing, if you limit "proof" to your requirement. And this is because every scientific inference depends upon particular assumptions, just as finding that message on all cells, and concluding that God existed, would depend upon the assumptions I mentioned in the post which dealt with this.

In observing things in Nature, Goliath, one can't get away from "assumptions", and one cannot require "proofs" of a "mathematical rigor". The "Biblical Equations" are "things observed in Nature" (that is, things which either occurred in "Nature" [Jesus' Earthly life, for example], or do occur in "Nature" [the Tropical year, for example]). The implication is straightforward, and shows that your "requirement/challenge" is unfair at the level you present it.


In Christ,

Douglas

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Ryanfire

It's quite amusing how you dance around evidence and proof Douglas.

You are human (or is that a mere assertion?) and therefore you abide by the laws of nature. There is nothing supernatural in your existence, physically, mentally, or emotionally. Do you see magical fairies flying around the sky performing miracles? Hardly..

You cannot know god if you are not god. You cannot know the supernatural if *you are not supernatural*.

Douglas, have you ever experienced the supernatural in the sense you cannot apply any of the laws of nature to describe it? Meaning human behaviour, chemical reactions, stimuli, reason.

Let me guess, you "felt" god.. why? Because your body is just responding to your thoughts, nothing more, but you see it as enlightenment. Can your brain play tricks on you? or are you not in control of your brain.

So.. what exactly is evidence and proof to you? Does proof, evidence, truth, logic, or reason have any meaning in your life?

It seems you have some insecurities with reality in the fact you cannot stand to live in a naturalist world.

You don't need to be saved, you desire it. End of File.

Deal with reality....

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Ryanfire ]</p>

Synaesthesia

Douglas wrote:

Douglas,

You are correct, the standards of scientific rigor are not those of mathematical proofs. In science we need to deal with the implications of other physical theories, we desire parsimony and novelty of prediction. Our observations and predictions need to be comprehensible within the framework of the theory.

Now I want you to be quite clear on this point: Are you suggesting that your theory of biblical equations is not only aminable to scientific investigation, but posessed of greater verisimilitude than other theories?

In that case, I think you would be safe in assuming that interest will naturally focus upon details of how you think your theory could be scientifically formulated.

Although I don’t strictly disagree with this, we must be very careful in what we mean by “assumptions”. If we mean an unmodifiable, axiomatic presuppositions, there isn’t any such thing. If you mean simply that any new theory requires a whole lot of background theories to work, I quite agree. That’s where science and philosophy come in.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

Synaesthesia

Addendum from the mathematically illiterate:

After looking over bit of the previous Biblical equations threads, I cannot see how one could possibly claim that such theories are scientifically justifiable. They are totally explicable as an artifact of cognitive pattern finding just as that image of grandpa in the clouds cannot be justified as scientific evidence for a message from beyond the grave.

Although admitting that his assumptions are arbitrary, Douglas rejects many equally arbitrary assumptions that lead to patterns that contradict his theory. (Even then he can’t escape all such patterns.) This kind of selective thinking strikes me as utterly untenable for any scientific theory.

Heck, I would be exceedingly suprised if Doug (or any of you math folk) could prove that any given simple relation (or date etc.) coud NOT be derived with ‘reasonable’ starting values and a ‘reaonably’ small number of functions to a ‘reaonable’ degree of accuracy!

Is there ANY such number? Gee, that somehow striks me as significant. Can anyone see why?

Douglas J. Bender

Synaesthesia,


Regarding your last post: Hypothetical and unexplained arguments don't count.


In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender

RyanFire,

I see you are a "Visitor", and one who seemingly hasn't "visited" here very often. I'll take it that you haven't read many of my posts here, other than in this thread.

I do not do so, RF. I am merely seeking to clarify exactly what it is that Goliath is requiring of me, and whether or not that "requirement" is fair. I assert that it is not fair, as Synaesthesia has implicitly agreed (assuming the Biblical Equations are actually amenable to scientific inquiry, which, since they depend upon some "Natural observations", they should be).

No mere assertion (though you have to take my word for it). Of course, it is a "mere assertion" on your part that being human means that one must therefore "abide by the laws of nature". Are you claiming to have knowledge of ALL "laws of Nature", and to know for a fact that there are no "superceding" laws to the ones we are currently aware of? Etcetera?

Another "mere assertion".

No, but I've seen parachutists. Does that count? Even if I did, would you grant that I had, if I didn't have video? And given the current ability of computers to generate false "history", would you trust even that?

Right. By the same logic, you cannot know me unless you are me. And you cannot know your spouse unless you are your spouse. Interesting new "law of nature" you've uncovered there, RF.

Hmmmm...So, by the same token, I cannot know (experience?) the military unless I am part of the military? Coooool - I'm immune to bombs and guns, then.

Yes.

Because God touched me? Because He took the time to cast a demon out of my body, while I was alone and driving? Because He loves me and wanted to deliver me from my bondage?

Again, a "mere assertion".

Let me get this straight - my choices are:
1) My brain can play tricks on me
2) I am not in control of my brain.
Sounds kind of like, "Are you a psycopath, or just crazy?" I think I know what you are asking, though, and I would say that it is possible for the brain to "play tricks" on a person's mind (note the distinction, which you implicitly seem to acknowledge) - people who take drugs, or are feverish, experience this. However, this would not explain all that happened to me, whether the night I had the demon cast out, or other "supernatural" experiences I have had.

There are several types of "proof" - the strictly mathematical/logical kind, and those which involve "evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is improper to require of things found via "observation" a purely "mathematical/logical" proof, just as it is improper to use mere "evidence" in a purely "mathematical/logical" proof. Goliath is requiring of me an improper "mixing" of two different "realms".

Sure they do. How could I prove that to you?

You don't know me, and apparently haven't read many of my posts here. You certainly have some presumption to assert such a thing. Since when does belief in the supernatural imply that a person "cannot stand to live in a naturalist world"? Immediately, you completely rule out even the possibility that a person believes in the "supernatural" because they have "proof, evidence,..., or reason" to do so, and that they arrived at their belief using "truth" and "logic". Well, have you PROVEN that there is no such thing as the "supernatural" (i.e., non-physical), or are you just basing these ideas on your FAITH that there is no such thing?

And how would YOU know? For your information, RF, I was an atheist who likely would have fit in this forum quite nicely (except for the foul language and mockery that goes on here) at the time God saved me - I did not "desire" to be saved, and didn't even believe in such things, let alone in the existence of God or the "supernatural". Kind of puts a crimp in your theory about me.

I do. It is you, and all atheists, who do not. Their faith is so strong in "metaphysical naturalism" that they cannot or will not confront the reality that there is more to life and existence than merely the material world.

In Christ,

Douglas

Oolon Colluphid

Ryan_Fire:
It's quite amusing how you dance around evidence and proof Douglas.

Douglas:
I do not do so, RF.

Really? Need I dig up links to some E/C threads, Douglas?

TTFN, Oolon