I’m not talking emotionally, why do you say that? I’m saying that self-inquiry is also a valid form of scientific pursuit, and there exists not a purely material basis for consciousness (well that last sentence is unsubstantiated, but it isn’t emotional).
I don’t need to call this: god, but have done so since you all seem to view god as some specific thing, that it can’t possibly be. At least give the man proper credit, if you’re going to refute it.
I think my supposition is entirely logical, and at least empirically suggested by my (and countless others’ throughout history) experience. We would be so limited if only either black or white evidences were accepted as scientifically plausible. Science needs a certain degree of imagination, dreaming and, yes, emotion, in order to avoid freezing into a fixed set of axioms.

As for intelligent design, I don’t accept it as a theory, because it explains nothing, and claims of a "scientific" theory that explains nothing are ridiculous. But evolution theory, too, has failed to explain to me (so far) the origin of life, it merely describes its progression after the first egg or living cell exists. Even Darwin recognised this limitation of his theory. So I cannot say that Darwin had it all figured out either. What, do you know something that he didn't?

Why can’t, say, consciousness, be a physical force, undetected so far, that attracts matter into specific shapes, say using gravity, making it adhere to specific architectures, specific "ideas" that by evolutionary processes are created and evolved?
This consciousness might be labelled god, or something else, it doesn’t matter, but why can’t it be like any other physical force? “Dumb” in its consequences (no need for an all mighty god, to orchestrate things), but by simple evolutionary processes, bringing forth “the myriad things”? These process would still be mechanical, we just haven’t found the mechanics yet.
What would you believe if tomorrow this “force” was discovered and demonstrated beyond doubt by physical scientists? Would it suddenly become real? Would you still dismiss it as emotional? Like people used to dismiss a round earth, or an helio-centric system, for emotional reasons?
Granted, there may be no evidence to support this hypothesis, but it is as valid an hypothesis as any other. If science only came up with verifiable hypotesis, we wouldn’t go very far, would we? The point about hypothesis, is that they have yet to be demonstrated (or proved wrong). Only further evidence may tell if this is true, or as preposterous as a flat-earth. I don't think any of you are in a position to refute it, no matter how much it bothers you (as in being reacting emotionally against it).

Now what isn’t valid, from my perspective, is to pretend that evolutionary theory, or determinist physics, already explain it all, and don’t question things any further. That to me is precisely the same fault that creationists incur into, and it shows only lack of imagination. Although you may feel safer with your chosen set of beliefs, you can't prevent other people from questioning further, if they don't settle for the same half-baked truths that you do.

Now, was that emotional, or what?

PS: who cares what Richard Dawkins thinks? That type of “literature” is just new-age in reverse, written by unimaginative self-conceited individuals, so I won't buy it, anymore than any channeled material from Kryon, or the latest bouletin from intelligent design headquarters. I kinda like the classics, you know

An intro to logic class will alleviate that misconception.

Not empirically, at best you could claim anecdotally. NO empirical evidence whatsoever has been offered to support your claims.

You are confusing the author with the ideas. So you do not like the author, so what? You cannot refute a sound argument by dismissing the author of the argument (though you do use this ad hominem tactic quite frequently). Why not address reality and the actual arguments offered?

??? You avoid classics and make the Deepak Chopra claims repeatedly... If Deepakesque is not "new age" then what on earth could be?

This post was last modified: 01-25-2007 12:50 AM by TXStorm.

PS: who cares what Richard Dawkins thinks? That type of “literature” is just new-age in reverse, written by unimaginative self-conceited individuals, so I won't buy it, anymore than any channeled material from Kryon, or the latest bouletin from intelligent design headquarters. I kinda like the classics, you know

Here, I have to disagree completely. What you're saying is too similar to the "atheism requires faith, too" claim, which is completely wrong - much I don't need "faith" not to believe in Odin or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I won't take anything Dawkins says on "faith", but reading what he writes, and thinking about it, I find myself agreeing with virtually all of it. I've seen he talk, too, in YouTube videos, and he's actually a very humble person - when he doesn't know something, he readily admits it to an entire audience. And "unimaginative", too often, means simply "restricted to reality"...

I haven’t changed one semidemiquaver of it. It just seems that you tend to read my words better when I say something that adheres more to your own convictions.

It is not private, it is not mine, it just hasn’t been published in Nature (yet). A lot of rubbish has, though, over the times, but surely you don’t consider it to be true, then?

Indeed, but I don’t care if you do or not. You, instead, seem to care that I don’t.

I’m running around like crazy trying to find the place you’ve proven all these things… Cut me out of my misery, and, pray tell, show-me where!

Indeed, that’s their point

I am not separated from reality. I am part of it, don’t know about you. If you think you can separate yourself from reality to observe it, you don’t know the very least about modern physics. Otherwise you’d know it can’t be done.

This is hopeless…

You mean your X = not X stuff? Could you explain all that to me again, like I was a two year old? I cannot follow you, man, and I would only try harder if I thought you were on to something. You’re just a reverse-believer, but what I said about pseudo-skepticism being reverse blind-faith, still applies.

And you never addressed any of “my” quantum paradoxes, either. At least they make some sense.

That.
I never was one to take other peoples ideas, revolutionary or conservative, at plain face value. If I reason you’re saying non-sense, another million years of this won’t make me swallow it better.
I’m beyond hope.

This post was last modified: 01-25-2007 01:28 AM by Pedro Batista.

So your own personal colon gazing is somehow not private and not yours? Recall that thus far all you have relied upon is the claim that if we all "look inside" we can see "god" as you have seen "him." Clearly this is private, purely subjective, and purely yours alone.

Not at all. I could not possibly care any less what you choose to feel or not. I was proving objectively that your argument is completely without merit by demonstrating that your very argument using exactly the same premises could "prove" in an identical way, that no gods are possible. The fact that the same argument can lead to contradictory conclusions is sufficient to demonstrate that the argument is unsound and invalid.

Actually if you would read the posts you would find that in fact those have all been addressed. They necessitate that you first adopt the directly contradiction to your conclusion, by assuming that 1. Reality actually exists, and 2. That we know it, which means that necessarily your conclusion is UNSUPPORTED. You cannot derive X from Not X. What this means is that the same claim cannot be both true and false given the same conditions including temporal conditions.

Well basic respect for others requires that you not assume ill intent or completely ignore what the other has actually said when you are making accusations about what they have said. That you are not willing to allow that others are honest and mean what they say is simply a barrier for you to honest civil discourse, as well as to learning in general. No one is suggesting that you take the statements of others on faith (unlike how you assert that reality cannot exist and a "god" must, but offer only faith), but only that you show the most basic level of respect for others and refrain from personal attacks, actually read what is written, and drop the red herrings.

Basic respect for others also means not assuming, as you continue to do, that your own ideas are infinitely superior to that of any other, and that you not adopt the attitude which underlies your entire position, that when reality and your claims are in conflict, it is reality that is mistaken. Or to put it another way, that you do not simply stipulate that your position is unfalsifiable because it is verboten to count anything as evidence against your position.

Since you eliminate any comparison to reality by stipulation, what then are we to use to determine the truth of your claims? So far you have offered only your claims themselves, which means that of course those same claims are completely seperate from reality and unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

Pedro B, if evolution has not shown you how life could come around then you do not know enough about it. The Blind Watchmaker will clear up any issues you have with evolution, honestly the only reason it's still a theory is because we don't have fossil evidence for every step.

Secondarily Richard Dawkings is not only a well studied biologist, but his books are less what he thinks and more an argument put forth for whatever the book's subject. Yes his books contain his opinions, but he isn't Dan Brown, he presents facts, the reason he's doing well is because he does it in a way that makes it accessible to people who aren't biologists.

What he means, and I think you know full well that he does, that to study reality we must be objective, as I stated previously, there can not be the 'self' in the study of reality, to understand reality we must distance ourselves. Facts are all that matter when studying reality.

Also, to help this along, could you, Pedro B possibly restate your beliefs in a ordered manner, I've picked up fragments here and there but my understanding is limited at this point.

OK, I rest my case. Sorry if I was out of line or something. Wish you all sincerily well.

Just a clarification on the Dawkins thing: I have nothing against the man himself, and I do agree to a great extent to what he says (after all, I’m mostly against religion and for evolution, myself). But his ideas are sometimes over-simplistic, and arrogant in their reductionism. That’s just my opinion.
But he thinks (and very sanely so, I add) that god, or any form of transcendence, is a scientific hypothesis, just like any other, and he’s a great supporter of my species so how could I have something against him? I’m just not buying his books …