Nikolai

That would be a great test! Yet if it succeeds there will need to be many repeated tests. Also, the people must not know each other before hand, or else some common knowledge they hold could come out during the high and influence the results.

And, I bet, if the results were insignificant but somwhat positive you will take it as scientists ignoring "weak" data. And if the test completely fails you will declare that God works in mysterious ways and he didn't want us to have definite proof of his existence because he is a big fan of "faith".

Jinto

Here's another way to test God.

Anti-Materialist

You are mistaken. You don't understand my viewpoint at all. I am skeptical of all world views - including yours. I see you guys constantly making the same logical errors you accuse theists of making.

I come from the make-no-assumptions rule of thought. Thus, I keep my thinking fairly logical. I don't know if any of this stuff is true or not - I just think it is fascinating. I think it is tantalizing enough to warrant further investigation.



If the experiment described above failed, then I would draw whatever would be the logical conclusion. If the God voice told the subjects he would pass on the message, and then he passed on an eroneous message, then I think this would constitute clear evidence that the Ketamine experience is just a hallucination.


When presented with a logical argument, I will adopt the view that makes the most sense.



I must also confess that many of the arguments I throw out are just things I say to see how a bunch of skeptics will react to them. Getting people to tear an idea to shreds is the best way to test the idea.


To me, the best argument for the existence of God is the fine tuning argument. I think the weak anthropic principle is a bit nonsensical. If you were strung up by a rope, and a firing squad took a shot at you, and everyone missed and instead they shot through the rope - then it would be quite logical to wonder if there was some design behind the fact that they missed. The fact that you are still around to ponder this question doesn't invalidate the oddness of the coincidence. That is my view of the weak anthropic principle.


All the other bits of evidence are just really interesting. I think the evidence for reincarnation is compelling - but it is not proof. The fact that there are design flaws in reincarnation studies does not dismiss the data, but it does greatly weaken it.


But these things are really really fascinating. I think they are worth the trouble of investigating, in a very relentless and systematic way. If we assume they are false from the beginning, then we will not bother to research them properly.


I could be quite literally classified as an agnostic, because in truth I believe I do not know what is out there. However, I have intuitive concepts of what is out there that feel right. It is my intention to investigate those concepts as thoroughly as possible. If they prove false, I will reject them, no matter how painful it may be.


However - If I went around quoting occam's razor every other sentence, I'd never bother to investigate these things.


You guys think looking for a pink unicorn is silly. And somehow the idea of a pink unicorn seems just about as plausible as the idea of a creator to you. If the whole world went around talking about pink unicorns, then I'd want to investigate them too.


You start with the assumption that the idea of a creator is implausable. I do not. I don't start with assumptions hardly at all. I don't even assume you guys are all really here. I have given lots of thought to the idea that I could be the only person in existence, trapped inside a virtual reality with artificial people.


Of course, I decided that didn't make any sense to me - but my decision was made on an intuitive level. Just as you guys make many of your assumptions on an intuitive level. You just think that everyone else should buy into your assumptions. When people dont buy into your assumptions, you quote occams razor at them as if it were a rule of logic - but it isn't.

The idea that this universe might be created is a very profound concept. It would have great meaning to humanity if evidence to support that idea could be found. I think we should investigate every avenue at our disposal to find what evidence we can.

Jinto

Actually, it would be more logical to run like hell and do your thinking later. However, this isn't a valid analogy, since in this case you have an intelligent purpose behind the firing squad - they are trying to hit you. In the case of the universe, there is (as the model goes), no intelligent being affecting the outcome, and so no reason to hypothesize that a life-bearing universe is any less probable than any other type of universe.

Well we kind of have to, when so many people believe in them and still others take financial advantage of the people who believe in them. After all, how the hell else are we to seperate legitimate psychics from professional con men? It just happens to be the disappointing result that all of them are professional con men.

Not true. Remember, even Scully worked on the X-files. Occam's razor does not mean that you dismiss claims immediately just because they aren't parsimonious, in fact just the opposite. Since it demands that entities must not be multiplied unnessecarily, it follows that if you are going to introduce a new entity that there must be supporting evidence. Therefore, if you suspect that a new theoretical entity exists, it encourages you to find evidence for this claim. If it wasn't for occam's razor (or it's less formal equivalents), I daresay that no one would bother investigating the truth of extraordinary claims, since they would be accepted at face value. You'll note the distinct lack of experimental investigation into the Roman gods, based on the fact that the romans did not adhere to occam's razor. People believed it, therefore it was true, and nobody ever bothered to investigate the mechanisms of these gods to see more about who and what they are.

The only reason why this is not apparent to some people is because when at last invesigation into these "gods" was done, they were found to be natural phenomena! So those that wanted to maintain a theistic viewpoint learned to hate occam's razor, not because it prohibited research of their gods, but because it encouraged it, and they didn't want anyone to see the man behind the curtain. If it's these people that you have gotten your impression about occam's razor from, I'm sorry.

And you'll notice that scientists do invesitgate them - what do you think CSICOP is for?

Actually, I don't start with the assumption that a creator is implausable. However, I have reached the conclusion that it is unnessecary. After all, the universe seems to be doing quite fine on its own. And to invent a creator as an explanation for the universe, while leaving the creator unexplained... I've never seen how that even makes sense to some people.

As for your assumption of virtual reality and artificial people... that's not parsimonious either. If we assume that this universe only exists in the ones and zeroes of some computer system, then not only do we have the theoretical entity of this universe, and it's physical laws, and the people within it, but we also have the entity of the "real" universe, and that universe's physical laws, and the computing system that is simulating this universe. You're multiplying entities unnessecarily, and leaving a big mystery where once there was only a small one. This is one of those places where I get real annoyed... people seem to think that occam's razor would lead one to solipism, when in reality it actually serves to rule it out!

It would seem your intuition is also fond of occam's razor. But seriously, the "everyone makes assumptions, and yours are no more valid than mine" approach of factual relativism has been tried before... and it has never succeded. This is largely because it is essentially a tu quoque fallacy, and as such has no value in logical argumentation.

You might think that one should investigate every avenue at their disposal to investigate the claim, but equally profound is the idea that the universe might not have been consciously created, but rather could simply be. Should this idea not also recieve equal investigation? Especially since we have gone through over ten thousand years with the assumption that God exists. People have only been developing atheistic models of cosmology in the last fifty. Shouldn't we give these models a chance as well, before rejecting them?

ComestibleVenom

You have contradicted yourself within the space of single sentences more times than I care to count.

Logically, the best thing for you to do is blow your brains out with a shotgun. Then you would have no assumptions and then you will make a bit more sense. Logically.

ComestibleVenom

No, it's never worked largely because it's totally contradictory. It's not just a tu quoque fallacy, it requires the utter abandonment of reason.

Anti-Materialist

It is exceedingly difficult to make every sentence, and every concept perfect. I do my best - you'll just have to live with the fact that I cannot sit their and pour over every single word to make sure it is perfect.



This is an assumption that you are starting with. I presume Occam's Razor leads you to start with this assumption. I do not start with this assumption. Prove to me that your starting assumption is the only valid one. :banghead:




Yes, there are very good reasons to hypothesize that a life-bearing universe is less probable than any other type of universe. Life is complex - it requires complexity in order to develop - specifically, it require complex molecules. Had any number of different fundamental constants been different, the universe would not be capable of forming complex molecules.



You are getting nasty. If you want to turn this from a debate into something ugly - go elsewhere. You demonstrate your pathetic lack of self control with comments such as this. Surely you are capable of better behavior than this? Is this the sort of comment that your world view leads you to make? Perhaps you need to rethink your approach to life.


I almost agree, but not completely.
Some of the remote viewing experiments are intriguing. Even Ray Hyman has admitted that they are sufficiently intriguing to warrant further research. But, I would agree that professional psychics are rip offs. Such people must be debunked relentlessly. I support the efforts to do so wholeheartedly.



And this is where I disagree with you. There are some situations where introducing a new entity might make sense for hypothetical reasons, even without supporting evidence. You wouldn't want to introduce the new entity and then say it is definitely there - but you may want to speculate that some new entities could be there, because such speculation could lead to futher investigation, which could find interesting things.

There is nothing to be gained by introducing milk faeries and pink unicorns. However, there is something to be gained by introducing a creator. Please note that introducing the concept of a creator says absolutely nothing about the nature of the creator or creators. I am just saying that accepting the possibility that the universe is created could be very useful.

Here is a specific example of how it could be useful. To me, the universe looks like a playground created for life to thrive in. If I were going to create such a playground, I would want the creatures in it to be able to contact each other when they are sufficently advanced to do so in such a way that they don't slaughter each other. Thus, if I were going to build this playground, I would make it faster than light communication, and faster than light travel possible - so that creatures from one world could contact creatures from another.

I bet you, despite the fact that relativity makes faster than light travel appear impossible, that one day we will find a way to do it. It'll be something sneaky - a way of doing it that does not actually violate relativity.

This is an example of using the possibility of a creator to lead to a useful line of research. Perhaps we could have reached this conclusion without positing the existence of a creator. But so what? That does not change the fact that positing the existence of a creator was useful for me at that moment.

It's this whole concept of what constitutes an unnecessary entity that bugs me. You guys think we shouldn't add an entity if it does not add extra explanatory power to the model. I say that some entities should be considered (not added, just considered as a possibilty) because they will lead us down lines of thought through which we might be able to expand upon our model - even if they do not add extra explanatory power at first.

This is not the same thing as adding in pink unicorns.




Look, I am not saying we shouldn't be skeptical of extraordinary claims. I am just saying that I think people apply occam's razor in ways that limits their imagination, and thus limits their capacity to figure out further details about reality.

In this thread, we have already established that Occam's Razor is useful in certain circumstances - I admitted that like 20 posts ago. My objection is to the way it is used to limit intuitive speculation. Intuitive speculation is crucial in coming up with great ideas.



Oh, I think CSICOP is great! They are an absolutely wonderful organization. Sometimes I think they are illogical in their assertions. Especially when they find a flaw in certain bits of evidence, then turn around and dismiss all of the evidence just because of the flaw. I think there are more intelligent ways to handle flawed evidence.

nevertheless, CSICOP serves a very important purpose in honing human thought.




Well - I agree with you about that. I think we should do our best to figure out everything we can about the creator. I think expanding upon the ketamine talking to God experience is one way to do that. First we need to prove it is valid though - or prove it is invalid. Rather than assuming it is or isn't valid, I think we should just invest the time and money to prove it. That could save a whole lot of effort in the future. Some people are starting to use ketamine to induce NDEs on purpose now - just so they can talk to lost loved ones and settle their own fears about death. Proving the validity or invalidity of this practice would really be a good thing, in my opinion. It really should be testable.





Ah, but I am not doing that. I ask you - what assumptions do you think I am making?




Absolutely we should. I am saying we should give all the models a chance, and investigate all of them, then dismiss them one by one when they turn out to be inconsistent or irrational.

ComestibleVenom

Anti-Materialist,
Quite the contrary, based on recent physical theories, this universe might have been all but inevitable. Your assertion of life's improbability based upon it's complexity is therefore totally unsupported.

Shadowy Man

Here's one:

Phoenixstar

Life is simple we just make it complex.