Skeptical

Thanks, it's good to be back.

I assume the cause is your mind, but I cannot _know_ that is the cause. For all I know, you could be a sophisticated robot from the future. God or Satan or Aliens could be controlling you and the thoughts could originate from them. All I can deal with is what I see in front of me, I cannot experience your mind directly, so I cannot know what your thoughts actually are. Therefore, I cannot determine their utility or worth.

Nothing to refute. I assume you have a mind, but I don't know it for a fact and its not necessary from a practical standpoint what your thoughts are or what the nature of your mind is. I can't know it, so what's going on "in your head" is of no consequence to me. All I'm interested in is your externally observable actions and the results thereof. I am agnostic about your mind. It may or may not exist, but since I cannot deal with it it is unimportant to me whether it exists or not.

I am not a "ufo buff", but I can tell you for a fact that there are a _lot_ of people who believe in aliens and there are thousands of people who not only claim to know there are aliens, but to have actually been abducted by them. A few facts:

-A search on "ufo" on Amazon.com yeilded 549 books
-A search for "alien abduction" yeilded 26 books
-A search on google for "alien+abductions" yielded almost 70,000 hits, including <a href="http://www.abduct.com/contact/contact.htm" target="_blank">this one</a> with numerous stories of "abductees"

"Scriptures" are just stories of supposed eye witnesses. Well, there they are, some complete with supposed scars from aliens and these people didn't live 2,000 years ago. Many are alive right now. You can talk to them in the flesh.

Don't get me wrong, I think alien abductions are nonsense. However, I think you are underplaying the significant number of people who believe in this sort of thing. According to the <a href="http://skepdic.com/aliens.html" target="_blank">skeptics dictionary</a>, 1 out of 3 people believe in alien abductions. That's _abductions_, not just aliens.

I don't want to go down a rathole discussing aliens, so let's just suffice it to say that belief not only in aliens, but full blown abductions is a lot more prevalent than you think, complete with eyewitness stories. ("scriptures")

I wasn't arguing about Jesus, so I'm not sure how that plays into this discussion. If your argument is that you think evidence for Jesus is strong, and this proves there is a God, my argument back would be it proves no such thing. As I argued before, I could just as easily argue that Satan did it, even setting aside the aliens.

I'm not going to get bogged down in a rathole about Christianity either, if you want to discuss that start a thread in BC&A and I'll be happy to participate.

There is _much_ better evidence that alien abductions occur than there are for the NT stories. You can talk to the people right now. They pass lie detectors. The have some physical evidence of trauma. We have none of this for the NT. If you really want to count individual "accounts" as evidence, you should be a hardcore believer in abductions. The only difference is your making an a priori assumption that aliens don't exist.

I don't believe I have ever said any such thing. I have said that anything which isn't empirical cannot be counted as knowledge. That is a far cry from saying everything has to be demonstrated to everyone in every generation. I'm really not sure how you got this idea from my posts?

No, it is a _distinction_ without a _difference_. Saying "god did it" does not answer your _why_ question. All you are positing is one unknown for another. It does not answer the question "but _why_ is it that way". Someone can explain how molecules work, and then someone else can say "but _why_ do they work that way". This is in no way different from someone saying "god causes molecules to work this way" and someone else saying "but _why_ does god make the molecules work that way".

Your just making an epistemological "punt" and saying "see, there is the answer to why: god did it". When I counter and say "but why did god do it that way", your still just saying "because he did", which is still no different from saying "that's just the way it is". Your just inserting God as an intermediate cause. One could just as easily insert "nature" and use the exact same argument. All you are doing is making an a priori assumption that God is a better intermediary than "nature" when they both end up at the same place. We can always continue to ask "why" and there will always eventually be a point which we cannot provide any more information than "that's just the way it is".

I'm really not sure where you got this idea. Recorded history is perfectly empirical. The events that occured and were recorded are there for all to see. If you saying that we cannot know with absolute certainty what happened, this I would grant as I think any historian would. However, the more accounts, the more evidence, the more we can be reasonably sure that we have a generally reliable picture. History is not an exact science, but I don't think I ever claimed that history is worthless, and I certainly don't think that is the case.

First, how all of a sudden did this turn into a bible discussion? I am trying to be civil, but you really have an annoying tendency to change the subject. This is not BC&A and this is not a discussion about the bible. If you want to discuss the bible, start a thread and I promise I will join in. Since I started this thread, I am not going to let the subject get hijacked and I would appreciate it if you would not try to take this discussion off topic.

Second, I'm not going to completely punt, so I'll just say the bible is in a sense historical as the documents are thousands of years old, hence the physical documents themselves are history. If you want to argue about the _content_, I suggest you take a look <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/index.shtml" target="_blank">here</a> and then we can discuss this further _in another thread_ if you wish to do so.

Now, back to the current discussion. You completely bypassed one of my key points. I'll repeat it since you apparently don't think aliens are even a possible cause for anything but Satan is:

"Even if I granted you that you only had to choose between God and Satan, you didn't address at all how you would choose the cause _even between these two_.

If you say that the universe was made by God, I can assure you that I can give you a very reasoned argument as to why the universe was made by Satan. For every cause you claim "God did it", I can say "Satan did it". This is why I don't see what the value is in either of these explanations. The have equal explanatory value and neither one can be eliminated."

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think I could make a good argument that Satan is the more _likely_ cause of the universe than God. In any case, the purpose is not to argue about Satan and God and who created the universe and who didn't, the point is that if you are going to posit some entity which no one living today can produce empirical evidence of, you are left to simply assume the answer you want to be correct.

And no, you cannot say that the OT/NT documents are empirical and they show God did it because I can argue that Satan caused those documents to be written to lead people astray from the true savior of humanity: rationality. See how easy it is to make an argument when I can just posit a non-empirical cause? I can make it responsible for anything I want and I can always make it trump whatever empirical evidence I may happen not to like at the current moment. This is _exactly_ why I don't see how these sorts of arguments can have any practical utility or value in judging the worth of empirical data. I can make the non-empirical causes act any way I choose, so the game is rigged from the start.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

MrKrinkles

Skeptical,

Thanks for making it painfully, explicity obvious why supernatural "explanations" are absolutely worthless.

Brooks

Vanderzyden

Again, let's narrow the discussion. You assume the cause is my mind. On that alone, let me ask a few pointed questions:


-- Of what use is that assumption for you?
-- How is your assumption empirical?
-- Do you act on "for all you know", or the assumptions you make?
-- From your empirical observations, what is the most probable source of the words you are reading right now? How do you arrive at that conclusion, by empirical or non-empirical means?


Note: This short length of my reply is not to avoid the other points you have made, but only to slow down and take this a step at a time.

Vanderzyden

K

Vanderzyden:

Have you posted the extent of your scientific background in some other area. I'm interested to see how close I was.

Starboy

K, he has a BSME, graduated spring of 1995 from University of Houston, Cullen Colledge of Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering.

<a href="http://www.me.uh.edu/alumni/recgrads.html" target="_blank">Recent Grads</a>

Starboy

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

scigirl

But Vanderzyden, Cancer researchers write papers the same exact way!. Incidentally, when did we move E/C to a canyon, because there sure is an echo in here!

If this is your main objection to technical evolution papers, than you also object, by default, to the validity of all other fields of science!

Ok fair enough. But this applies to all science papers. Do you understand that?

I agree that there are things scientists could do better. But...what does this have to do with the validity of the actual science in describing the universe? And what does this have to do with the validity of non-natural knowledge, and how we can obtain it?

If an engineer in your firm was an incompetent goon who couldn't describe how to build a bridge to save his life, does this mean the actual physics behind building bridges is called into question?

Not just naturalistic scientists. All scientists - including the Christian ones. Questioning science is good - as long as you know what you are doing.

As opposed to the soft sciences? What are you talking about? What in the world is a hard science?
Once again you claim this, with absolutely zero evidence. Science itself may have a 'naturalistic' philosophy, but it did so with or without Darwin. What are you talking about?? Examples would be nice.

Why? Prove this. I disagree entirely. Evolution is all about fossils and genes, and it has zero to do with philosophy.

Such as...

And you think this has to do with the actual physics or evolution data? I beg to differ. Evolution has more evidence than gravity, and we are much closer to understanding evolutionary mechanisms than we are gravitational ones, I think!

Why do people reject evoution but not special relativity? Because their bible tells them to, and because people are arrogant (I didn't evolve from no ape, I'm special).

If you still think that most people reject evolution because of the actual data (or lack thereof) than you are naive indeed. You yourself don't seem to have any problem with the data. Here's why I think YOU reject evolution (based on your posts here:

1. You have a problem with the way in which the data was presented (although I still don't understand why you aren't all up in arms about Cancer Research journals).

2. You object to evolution because of some wierd link in your mind between the facts of evolution and this so-called Darwininan philosophy.

3. Mainly though, because your bible tells you to. Right?

scigirl

Starboy

Vander, why do you refer to evolution as Darwinian Philosophy? A philosophy relies on argument to demonstrate validity whereas a science relies on observation and experiment. Why do you think science is a philosophy?

Starboy

Skeptical

The assumption is of use because I don't have to sit around having long pointless discussions about whether anything exists outside of our own minds or that we are "the product of a giants dream" or some other nonsense. It's quite simply easier and more efficient from a practical standpoint to just assume there is a mind behind your words, because even if there's not I can never know it so it's of no use to try and investigate it. If you have no mind, it doesn't matter to me since I can deal with your external actions only.

I have a mind, or at least it certainly seems that I do, so I assume that other humans do as well. I can see their external actions that indicate that they have a mind. If they don't, I really couldn't care less. As I said before, I don't deal with peoples minds, I deal with their external actions, and that's all that matters. If your asking what is the empirical evidence that I base my assumption on, see my earlier answer.

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter a whit to me whether someone has a mind or not, all that matters is the external actions I deal with. This is exactly the kind of conversation that proves my point. Discussing whether other peoples minds exist or not is not only pointless, it is irrelevant.

I act on what I see and experience. The assumption that someone has a mind is irrelevant to the external actions.

I couldn't care less what the source is. My non-empirical experience of my own mind, followed by my empirical observation of my actions would lead me to think that other minds exist, but I cannot _know_ they exist. God or Satan or aliens could be controlling everyone _except me_. However, I cannot know that is or is not the case, and I cannot even really know the source of even my own mind. In theory, the thoughts I'm thinking right now could be the product of some superior intelligence manipulating my neurons at their leisure. They could be manipulating yours. What difference does that make to what I see typed on the screen in front of me? Answer - none.

What's more, I cannot even say _what_ is more probable, I don't have any data to make that determination. I have never experienced God or Satan or aliens, but neither have I directly experienced another mind. They are all, by definition, non-empirical, at least at the current moment. This again comes back to my point about the complete uselessness of having a discussion about this particular topic. It's all meaningless since we cannot experience someone elses' mind and in fact it doesn't matter in any way shape or form that we cannot. If we spent all our time walking around asking each other to prove that we have minds we'd never finish a single conversation, and in the end we'd still be in the same spot we started.

Like I said before, I've had these conversations, plenty of them. They all end in the same spot and they're only utility is that they happen to kill some time while your waiting for the pizza to arrive at 2am when you buzz is wearing off.

If it makes it easier for us to move on from this topic, I'll say that I now assume that aliens are controlling everyone, including myself, sort of like a inter-galactic mental game of rockem' sockem' robots.

Again, it doesn't matter, all I can deal with is external actions. I really hope we can move on from this because I honestly find this particular sub-point rather boring.

Skeptical

BTW, I'd really like to see a response to this comment of mine when you get a chance:

"Even if I granted you that you only had to choose between God and Satan, you didn't address at all how you would choose the cause _even between these two_.

If you say that the universe was made by God, I can assure you that I can give you a very reasoned argument as to why the universe was made by Satan. For every cause you claim "God did it", I can say "Satan did it". This is why I don't see what the value is in either of these explanations. The have equal explanatory value and neither one can be eliminated."

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Scigirl,

Evolution has more evidence than gravity??!!! May I emplore you to re-think what you have written here. You have said yourself that we haven't seen evolution in action. Newton's gravity attained the status of scientific LAW:

force of gravity = G Mm / (d)2

where

G = gravitational constant, 6.672 × 10-11 m3 /(kg sec2)
M = mass 1
m = mass 2
d = distance between the centers of each mass

Note: the gravitational constant is universal, and is incredibly small.

Can you provide me an evolutionist equation?

You have made some good points in other threads, but this is perhaps the most unbelievable thing I have seen anyone write on these boards. But then, I may be misinterpreting. Please explain what you mean.

Do you realize that STR has indeed been rejected, by many philosophers and scientists? STR does not represent the real world. Clocks don't slow down, and reference frames don't compress. There are not infinite numbers of relative reference frames: Black-body "background" microwave radiation serves as the absolute reference frame. There is apparently a movement underway in physics which favors Lorentzian* theories over Einstein's. Also, Einstein's GTR is really an complicated enigmatic theory of gravity, not time relativity. Perhaps Starboy will take a deep breath and affirm this for me!

Vanderzyden

*Note: (19th century dutch physicist Henrik Anton Lorentz)

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>