Jump to content

Phi for All

Moderators
  • Posts

    23484
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    167

Everything posted by Phi for All

  1. What does this have to do with their journalistic integrity? They weren't the ones doing secret tapes or wire taps. And Juan Williams made remarks that brought his integrity into question, was fired by NPR for it, and is now with Fox, where questionable integrity must be OK. None of this about pieces written and aired on NPR. None of this has anything to do with what I said, so I have to ask why you bring it up? Is this an attempt at guilt by association? That's a big part of what's wrong these days. People listen to pundits saying things they already agree with and want to hear, rather than journalists who try to bring a story to the people with as little special slant as possible. I'm sure there are many regulations which need to be adjusted. I'm also sure there are many that keep my drinking water and air cleaner for me, so forgive me if I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. Because the baby is going to want to drink and breath too when he grows up. You prefer to look at it as "taking wealth from private sector". I prefer to look at it as creating a resource pool to share things we all deserve. It should be a benefit living in a prosperous society with a high and growing technological level. I can understand why a wealthy person who owns his own pool doesn't want his tax money to pay for a community pool. He and his kids will probably never go there. But I can see why building a community pool is a good thing for the community, and sometimes you just have to think that way when we're all jammed in together like this. And I can understand why a politician who needs to be seen as environmentally friendly decides to kill two birds by tossing his campaign friends at ADM a bone with legislation that ethanol additives made from corn be mandated for use with gasoline. I think this is a case where Big Agra beat Big Oil in the special interest race. But I see no benefit from it. It seems a stupid use of our resources.
  2. We're on the same page here. I guess I just took exception to you saying: When I said this on the first page: I think what tends to happen is that proving God's existence/non-existence gets muddled with disproving things attributed to God. Science isn't meant for the former but does a very good job with the latter.
  3. Except "upgrade" is misleading. It implies that one form is "better" than another overall, and further that there is a "best" form. But essentially each generation provides opportunities for changes that may lead to more successful humans.
  4. Except that we did that on the first page of the thread. This particular discussion is not about the existence of God, or even about who is right or wrong. It's about the justifications for belief in God. There really can be no right or wrong answer, but we can point out the weak and strong points about any justification. And science and God don't have to be completely incompatible (well, OK, not the Abrahamic God). What if I hypothesize that God exists but is manifested mostly in a higher dimension, in a Calibi-Yau manifold created at the moment of the Big Bang. The part of Him that exists in the first three spatial dimensions look like rocks. He moves v-e-r-y slowly, and most of what He does isn't attributable to Him because we can't perceive the dimensions He's working from. Unfortunately, I can't go any further with the hypothesis because I have no predictive testing available at our present level of knowledge. The higher dimensions of M-theory could explain God with a smaller canonical bundle than Christianity does.
  5. I disagree. It comes in pretty steep, then levels out a bit before the first skip, and climbs after it hits more than an unpowered object should be able to. It continues and almost seems to speed up on the ascent before coming back down for the final smash. It acts like a frisbee would if skipped along the ground. If the frisbee got some extra spin going after the initial skip.
  6. Remember, this is the religion section of Science Forums. You can't make a claim like "God can be visible" without a testable, repeatable experiment to provide evidence. I have no problem with your faith in His existence, but when you say He is part of the natural universe, then science can say there has never been a testable, repeatable observation of Him. So when can I see Him? To be visible in science, you must be able to predict when I'll be able to see Him. Prove that Jesus was a deity; I believe that's the hard part. Sophocles was just a playwright and I have no cause to doubt that. And yet I remain unconvinced. The natural reasoning is simpler and doesn't require all the hoop-jumping and paradoxical contortions required for an omnipotent Abrahamic god. No they don't. You claimed, "There is good evidence that miracles have occurred, and miracles are possible only if he exists." Your conclusion doesn't follow your hypothesis as it should in deductive reasoning. Instead, your argument (that miracles have occurred) relies on its own proposition, making it circular reasoning. Miracles CAN have other explanations, so it doesn't follow that God exists because of them. None of them can't be explained by natural means. And your example is from a site that has ample reason to lean heavily towards miraculous cures. We're talking about a world with billions of people with a modern recording of events going back at least a couple of hundred years. Bizarre things are going to occur with those kinds of numbers behind them. How many times do you hear about people in perfect health suddenly keel over at the age of 22? Do you attribute those to God as well? It can be argued that all experiences teach us something. To reach down with a heavenly finger and save/cure/curse/kill some guy is a denial of the process of free will. God would be changing the course of what the man experienced, making all his choices worthless. I thought God said He wasn't going to do that kind of thing anymore. So illness and suffering is an earthly punishment that God gives us, but He can cure us of the illness He gave us if it serves a higher purpose? OK, thanks for sharing. I have a problem with the idea that a god would bother with us individually. I could see a higher power deciding to start the chemical process of life on at least one planet that was cooling after the hot, dense universe suddenly expanded. Such a god would be patient enough to let evolution and free will take its course.
  7. Same can, really, since the methods by which we receive information about government and food supplying corporations seems tainted by the difference between journalism and marketing. Subsidized public media at least has the profit angle removed. I trust the journalistic integrity of NPR more than I do Fox News. I think there are some things that are in conflict with motives involving profit. News should be as presented with as few special interests as possible. I don't see how that can happen when your boss also happens to own the company you want to do the investigative report on. I believe in a fair market and its ability to weather most economies, but I feel that corporations have too much influence on political and economic processes. It tips the scales too much in their favor and when it comes to food, water and air regulations, I don't trust a pure profit angle to keep the market fair.
  8. It depends on the type of cancer involved, but many tumors regress naturally on their own. One study of mammography showed that 22% of all breast cancer cases underwent spontaneous regression (Per-Henrik Zahl; Jan Mæhlen; H. Gilbert Welch: The Natural History of Invasive Breast Cancers Detected by Screening Mammography, Arch. Intern Med., Vol 168 (NO. 21), Nov 24, 2008). Even if the type of cancer the man at your church had was more like 1 in 1000, that still means spontaneous regression is a probable event. No need for anything miraculous. Depression can cause physical weakness. Lifting that depression through a show of friendship and support can lend strength and determination to just about anyone. A combination of physical and psychological stimuli can easily be the answer here. Again, no need to jump from rational explanations to individual divine intervention. Part of what I can't comprehend about stuff like this is how you can rationalize Christian doctrine that gives mankind free will and yet you accept that God would intervene in matters like these. Why would He break His own rule to heal one person while millions suffer elsewhere even though people prayed for them too? Please don't tell me that your church is special because you believe in the true way....
  9. Belief? This is a science forum. Testing and sharing your results and conclusions are what counts here. Explain this please. A true TOE would be able to predict the outcome of any experiment. I guess that would include when grandma's tic will act up again. Your ratios are inaccurate. Please share. This is a discussion forum and right now we have nothing to discuss except a claim. False dilemma. There is also detached skepticism. Scientific theories don't spring up overnight, or even after 5 years. Thousands of experiments and millions of man-hours go into fine scientific theories. Let's call this the Hypothesis of Everything until we actually get to hear about it.
  10. My point was that media consolidation under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows these behemoth corporations to own media outlets. Before that, to own television, radio and newspapers, that had to be your only business. Now, Disney can own ABC. This assures that Disney's brand image can be manipulated at will. Bain Capital owns Clear Channel Radio. The fact that Bain also owns Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, ToysRUs and many other consumer companies seems, to me, to be in conflict with consumer interests. Will you ever hear anything negative about those companies on a Clear Channel news broadcast? Not if they're like Fox News, who kept their US listeners in the dark about their European scandal for months. Add to the fact that Bain was founded by none other than presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and I'd say you have some really dreadful manipulations going on, none of which reflect the American spirit most of these politicians and corporations like to drape themselves with (and yes, while using overseas positioning to raise profits and avoid taxes, cutting US jobs in private and gov't sectors).
  11. Phi for All

    A question

    Genetically, a human fetus should be considered human for classification purposes (say, as opposed to a canine fetus, which would be considered canine). For any other purpose you would have to define further what it is to be human. That would be more in the realm of philosophy, religion or politics, and simple genetics really can't be used to answer those kinds of complex questions.
  12. Well, you're talking about different things here. I have no problem with wealth, or wealthy people. I do think that corporations have been given too much power in the US. Mitt Romney claims that "corporations are people". Corporations are made of people, they serve people but they should not be considered people with the same rights under the 14th amendment. But a lot of effort has gone into creating corporate personhood and imo it has overshadowed the power and political process of the people and the free market. Corporations have too much political clout which allows them to circumvent smart regulations, they have more money than some small nations, and every president from Reagan to Bush to Clinton has worked to give them control of the media as well. You can control just about anything if you control both Congress and the media. As far as the Exxon/Apple argument goes, Apple doesn't get subsidies from the federal government. These are good alternatives. I would add hemp, which has other uses and grows just about anywhere with little impact on the soil. We'll probably never get it, because the products made from it like fabric, paper, oil, and yes, food, would be too inexpensive and durable if large-scale production were to be invested in. Hemp seeds are more durable and digestible than soy beans and have almost the same nutritional value. [1]
  13. I understand your point now. And sure, I think the mandates to use corn as a biofuel are insane, for the reasons others have stated. It's not sustainable, and without subsidies driving it, it's not even profitable. I agree that the regulation requiring ethanol needs to be repealed. There are better fuel additives that don't use food crops and if we're going to subsidize anything, I'd rather see research done into alternatives. The problem isn't regulation, it's how the regs were manipulated to use ethanol rather than something that makes more sense.
  14. To simplify things, let's call everything that only a supernatural, omnipotent being could do a "miracle", or "miraculous". And to begin with, until we determine there is no other explanation, let's not call anything else that. I argued with a family member once who insisted that a woman who survived a plane crash on Christmas Eve with only a broken collar bone after falling 10,000 feet was an example of a miracle. That she was the sole survivor and also managed, at the age of 17, to survive long enough to be rescued from the Peruvian jungle was supposed to be further proof. [1] There are many natural explanations for an incident like this. She was still buckled into her seat which slowed her descent and provided a cushion on landing. The rainforest trees also provide a way to slow descent. And the girl had been taught some survival skills by her father so once she landed she was able to make her way to safety. My relative argued that the hand of God was at work here, but I pointed out that it was lightning that struck the plane in the first place, and if it truly was a miracle, why the broken collarbone? Wouldn't an omnipotent, perfect God be able to do that? And I'm not saying that it would have proven divine intervention if she had been completely unharmed; there have been incidences where people survive things like this completely unscathed. But I would like to hear other examples of "miracles", as long as this is part of what constitutes a justification for the existence of God as the OP is asking for.
  15. I'm not so sure about this argument. When gas was up much higher 2 years ago, it prompted a flurry of development into alternatives. I think a 45 cent/gallon spike right now would result in more interest, something the oil companies seem determined to stall. The farmers are selling their corn for the most money. Cut the subsidies for inefficient corn to ethanol production and there will be more corn for food. While you're at it, cut the subsidies for expensive US sugar and perhaps the land will be more productive for food crops. The US can import foreign sugar, which is half the price, so the consumer benefits. The manufacturers of sweet products can go back to using real sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup, so there will be more benefits to consumers, manufacturers, and even more corn to use as real food.
  16. If we're talking about the Abrahamic god, He makes a choice to remain outside the observable universe. He no longer appears in any form to mankind. This makes him supernatural as far as science is concerned. Also, the Abrahamic god is supposedly omnipotent, implying that he can supersede His own physical laws. This is also something that makes Him supernatural, and therefore outside of the purview of science. You define miracles as something only God can provide, and then you say there is evidence that miracles have happened, so God must exist. That is circular logic. You need to give some examples of what you call miracles, and then we can see if science can explain them. Science can't be used to determine if the Abrahamic god exists, but it can be used to explain everything I've ever heard described as a miracle. Please share. And I would never condescend by responding that you haven't thought hard enough. That would be rude and there's no need for that in a friendly discussion.
  17. If you define God as an omnipotent being that can't be observed, then science is not a methodology you can use on Him. If something is supernatural, you can't use natural means to verify its existence. It sounds like you're defining the term "miracles" in a way that lets you close the loop on a circular logic fallacy. I've never heard of anything that seemed miraculous that couldn't be explained in natural terms.
  18. Welcome to the forums!

  19. Welcome to the forums!

  20. Why would I assume that? As a non-indigenous species, am I spoiling virgin Earth by my examination? Or do you mean that my examinations so far show that these advancing humans have been "devastators" so they would most likely continue this methodology off-world? For simplicity, I suggest "we" and "our" and "us" should refer to the ET scientists we are pretending to be. "They" and "them" are the Earth humans we are observing. Agreed? That said, the Earth humans have the ability to mass-produce many "tools" (I'll use this as a broad term to mean anything that is used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose, so that a house is a tool for shelter, an automobile is a tool for travel, and clothing is a tool for protection), but they do so as a means of commerce rather than out of concern or affection for their species. I only meant to use the concept of advancing intelligence leading to technological migration as a means for me, as an ET scientist, to set humans apart from the other Earth species. I think it would be difficult not to draw some similarities between my species of galactic travelers and the potential displayed by the Earth humans in this regard. It's not terribly important for this exercise but I felt it should be mentioned. "They" seem to lack a global awareness. Though they can travel and communicate globally, their are few global processes that govern how such things as water and air quality are maintained.
  21. As an ET scientist, wouldn't I have to credit the humans with an advancing intelligence that gives them the potential to be similar me in the future? And I mean similar in that they could develop technology that would let them leave the planet. Emotional affinity aside, I think being able to move off-world would make me classify humans as being unique amongst the other inhabitants of Earth.
  22. ! Moderator Note We prefer to have discussions visible to all to amplify the potential help. No private emails or phone conversations, please.
  23. Accepted without question? Then it wouldn't be science. As Cap'n points out, the fallacy here is a type of false attribution. You are applying the attributes of bacteria and their resource systems to humans and their resource systems and forming a conclusion based on that.
  24. I don't see this working either: PfA: "I want you to eat this ice cream." JC: "Why?" PfA: "No reason." JC: "Then I'll pass, thank you." PfA: "Why not? I know you're quite partial to ice cream." JC: "Because it's creepy that you 'want' me to eat it. What's wrong with it?" PfA: "Nothing's wrong with it. Stop acting like it's poisoned! Just eat it because you like it and I insisted." JC: "FOAD." Another alternative is to trick the person into eating the salad, but that's not very civilized since you think it might be poisoned.
  25. As Cap'n Refsmmat mentioned, we have had a number of mods, myself included, slow down on their time spent here. There are many reasons but no excuses. I fervently believe that anyone who comes here, to Science Forums, wants to apply scientific methodology to every argument, whether it's in the hard sciences or in Politics or even Religion. It's a way to ensure that the ground beneath you is solid enough to support the weight of your ideas. This has always been a problem when applying science to something that relies on faith. Science can refute most claims made by religion when such methods are applicable. As soon as religion claims things outside the natural universe, it becomes supernatural and science should no longer be interested.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.