Sam Harris (an atheist) says that God is possible/inevitable

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

I wonder PGJ, if some of the difficulty and the hostility may lie in your phrasing. It is sometimes difficult to follow and this may have misled some members to misintrepret your words. If I may give an example:

I this sentence, the phrase "we may highly concern evidence" is not grammatical. It is therefore difficult to understand. I think you have used it before and on those occassions I did not know what you meant by it. Now, because you have confirmed my overall understanding of your straightforward idea I believe you mean by it "we focus on evidence", or "we may make use of evidence [not belief]".

Just something for you to consider.

You are perhaps right, I could use expressions, that are better processed by many beings.

As such, in my interactions with this thread, along with hundreds of others, I have come to use expressions that are better understood by many, while still expressing the same evidence.

 

FOOTNOTE:

Notably, "We may highly concern evidence." is grammatically correct. (Check it on https://www.scribens.com/)

It is typical English structure, meaning simply that we may prioritize scientific evidence.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Thorham said:

Square wheels that work actually exist: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=SQUARE+SHARK+WHEELS

They're a kind of skateboard wheel. The link above links to some youtube search results. Check it out, I'm not joking.

How do square wheels relate to the original post?

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[beecee]

15 hours ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

How does a being (i.e. myself) that disregards the very concept of belief, supposedly engage in belief (given that belief is optional, and scientifically shown to contrast science?)

I believe you are totally wrong, despite your own beliefs that you are right. Getting down to the nitty gritty and at the risk of offending some philosophers, philosophy while being at its basic level, the foundation on which science is built, has had its day. Practical sciences like cosmology rule our understandings at this time, based mostly on what we observe and the results of our experiments. Physics and cosmology seems to have made philosophy redundant.  I will refer you to the following to elaborate further on what I am trying to say.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html

https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjkkJYQnZtY

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

Finally...

Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) English philosopher, mathematician.

 

Does that explain what I think about what you think? In that your philosophical stance on thinking is crazy?

The same obviously goes for our friend called Sam.

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by beecee

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I believe you are totally wrong, despite your own beliefs that you are right. Getting down to the nitty gritty and at the risk of offending some philosophers, philosophy while being at its basic level, the foundation on which science is built, has had its day. Practical sciences like cosmology rule our understandings at this time, based mostly on what we observe and the results of our experiments. Physics and cosmology seems to have made philosophy redundant.  I will refer you to the following to elaborate further on what I am trying to say.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html

https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjkkJYQnZtY

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

Finally...

Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) English philosopher, mathematician.

 

Does that explain what I think about what you think? In that your philosophical stance on thinking is crazy?

The same obviously goes for our friend called Sam.

 

On the contrary, one need not omniscience, to largely concern evidence (i.e. do scientific thinking) instead of especially ignoring evidence (i.e. believe).

Could you elabourate with respect to Sam Harris?

Edited September 1, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

29 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

No more than I can elaborate on your own rather weird philosophical musings.

Rather than musings, they were evidenced expressions, and such scientific evidence persists whether or not you select to acknowledge such.

The reality is that there is no event for which one must largely ignore evidence (i.e. believe) instead of especially concerning evidence (i.e. do scientific thinking).

 

FOOTNOTE:

You had earlier lamented that due to the incidence of our non-omniscience, we must believe. 

This is false, that we are not omniscient, does not necessitate that we must believe (i.e. especially ignore evidence), instead of do scientific thinking.

One can employ a manner of thinking that especially concerns evidence, which contrasts belief by definition and research. (where knowing all things is not a requirement for such a manner of thought)

Edited September 1, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[Thorham]

6 hours ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

How do square wheels relate to the original post?

They don't, but does that really matter in a thread like this?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

12 minutes ago, Thorham said:

They don't, but does that really matter in a thread like this?

The original post persists as science permits; for science enables that models are updated as time passes.

In matters of science, why bother to express inconsequential, irrelevant anecdotes? 

Edited September 1, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan

[beecee]

2 hours ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Rather than musings, they were evidenced expressions, and such scientific evidence persists whether or not you select to acknowledge such.

The reality is that there is no event for which one must largely ignore evidence (i.e. believe) instead of especially concerning evidence (i.e. do scientific thinking).

 

FOOTNOTE:

You had earlier lamented that due to the incidence of our non-omniscience, we must believe. 

This is false, that we are not omniscient, does not necessitate that we must believe (i.e. especially ignore evidence), instead of do scientific thinking.

One can employ a manner of thinking that especially concerns evidence, which contrasts belief by definition and research. (where knowing all things is not a requirement for such a manner of thought)

No, just as I said, nothing but philosophical musings, and fairy tale ones at that.

[DrKrettin]

9 hours ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

 "We may highly concern evidence." is grammatically correct. (Check it on https://www.scribens.com/)

It is typical English structure, meaning simply that we may prioritize scientific evidence

 

No it does not, it is totally meaningless, like Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

[Area54]

48 minutes ago, beecee said:

No, just as I said, nothing but philosophical musings, and fairy tale ones at that.

I am puzzled by this comment. If you consider that ProgramGodJordan's remarks in that post are nothing but fairy tale philosophical musings then you think that each of these statements is false

• The universe is indifferent to ones incredulity.
• Evidence that exists continues to exist even when it is ignored.
• Phenomena can all be examined by the scientific method

All I have done is to render PGJ's remarks concisely From what I have noted of your posts in other threads I would have imagined you thought these statements to be true, yet here you are describing them as fairytale, philosophical musings. What gives?

3 hours ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

You are perhaps right, I could use expressions, that are better processed by many beings.

Unfortunately this is another exmple of problematic phrasing.This statement could mean:

• I could use expressions that have been previously used and thereby refined by many other people.
• I could use original expressions that many other people would understand despite their originality

As such, in my interactions with this thread, along with hundreds of others, I have come to use expressions that are better understood by many, while still expressing the same evidence.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt the expressions you are choosing are "better understood by many". I repeat my suspicion that a significant part of the hostility you have been experiencing is due to the awkwardness and consequent ambiguity of your sentence construction and idiosynchratic phrasing.

 

Notably, "We may highly concern evidence." is grammatically correct. (Check it on 

https://www.scribens.com/)

It is typical English structure, meaning simply that we may prioritize scientific evidence.

Noun (subject) + verb + adverb + verb + noun (object).

A correct version of this would be "The dog could quickly eat meat."  An incorrect version would be "The dog could quickly subscribe petitions."

The website is superficially correct. The algorithm used has, probably, looked at sentence structure in this way.

[seriously disabled]

If there is a God then why doesn't he help people who are homeless, very sick and struggling to survive on this planet?

Many people are struggling on this planet and if there was a God who loves us very much and is also very capable then he surely will not let people suffer, struggle and die like that. 

Many people are dying every day from various illnesses so where is God?

Another question is: Why would a God who loves each of us very much and who is also very powerful condemn some of us to eternal torture in Hell?

Hell, both on earth and in the afterlife should not exist at all if God was really very loving and very merciful

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell

If religion has any merit then it surely should be able to provide answers to these existential questions.

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by seriously disabled

[Itoero]

6 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

If there is a God then why doesn't he help people who are homeless, very sick and struggling to survive on this planet?

Many people are struggling on this planet and if there was a God who loves us very much and is also very capable then he surely will not let people suffer, struggle and die like that. 

Many people are dying every day from various illnesses so where is God?

If religion has any merit then it surely should be able to provide answers to these existential questions.

 

If there is a god then it's not a personal god but then it's imo an impersonal force. This idea that if there is a god, it should help people, is because people ascribe human traits to god...which does not make sense.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

1 hour ago, DrKrettin said:

No it does not, it is totally meaningless, like Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

Don't you know the meanings of the word concern, highly, and science?

39 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

If there is a God then why doesn't he help people who are homeless, very sick and struggling to survive on this planet?

Many people are struggling on this planet and if there was a God who loves us very much and is also very capable then he surely will not let people suffer, struggle and die like that. 

Many people are dying every day from various illnesses so where is God?

Another question is: Why would a God who loves each of us very much and who is also very powerful condemn some of us to eternal torture in Hell?

Hell, both on earth and in the afterlife should not exist at all if God was really very loving and very merciful

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell

If religion has any merit then it surely should be able to provide answers to these existential questions.

 

I am atheistic, and lack belief in God or gods. 

That said, of what relevance is your response, w.r.t. the Op?

[Manticore]

2 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Don't you know the meanings of the word concern, highly, and science?

He does - you, however appear not to.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

23 minutes ago, Itoero said:

If there is a god then it's not a personal god but then it's imo an impersonal force. This idea that if there is a god, it should help people, is because people ascribe human traits to god...which does not make sense.

Reminds me of some words said to me in the distant past: "Maybe our misery and or joy, and our cosmos as a whole, is merely entainment, as a game much like gta, created by intelligent entities".

[Area54]

10 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Don't you know the meanings of the word concern, highly, and science?

You are on a loser here. The sentence construction you have used, in combination with those words, does not make sense. Insisting it does is simply antagonising readers and distracting attention from your central points. Please accept this and move on.

[Ten oz]

If everything we "believe" to be trure about the universe were false that alone wouldn't be a evidence of god. Proof of god isn't in criticism of other things. People take this appraoch too often. An exapmle would be Football fans who exercise their love of the Cowboys by overly critiquing the Eagles  and Giants without acknowledging or really even commenting much on the Cowboys themselve. The goal isn't to necessarily convice others their team (Cowboys) are great but rather it is prevent a superior view towards other teams. Debating how terrible other footbal teams are doesn't actually make the Cowboys any better or worst. Debating the application of belief in science doesn't make god any more or less real.

[Itoero]

15 minutes ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Reminds me of some words said to me in the distant past: "Maybe our misery and or joy, and our cosmos as a whole, is merely entainment, as a game much like gta, created by intelligent entities".

Many people believe we live in a kind of simulation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis   I think it's very likely the holographic principle. is correct.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle Even if this principle is correct, it does not explain the origin of the universe. This frightens me, you can always ask: 'And where does that comes from?'  There is an infinite amount of possibilities for the origin of the universe.

[beecee]

8 hours ago, Area54 said:

I am puzzled by this comment. If you consider that ProgramGodJordan's remarks in that post are nothing but fairy tale philosophical musings then you think that each of these statements is false

• The universe is indifferent to ones incredulity.
• Evidence that exists continues to exist even when it is ignored.
• Phenomena can all be examined by the scientific method

All I have done is to render PGJ's remarks concisely From what I have noted of your posts in other threads I would have imagined you thought these statements to be true, yet here you are describing them as fairytale, philosophical musings. What gives?

Unfortunately this is another exmple of problematic phrasing.This statement could mean:

• I could use expressions that have been previously used and thereby refined by many other people.
• I could use original expressions that many other people would understand despite their originality

The gist of the OP seems to be that any belief is essentially wrong or invalid: I find that rather weird  to put it mildly. I believe and accept the scientific method: I base that belief on observation and history. How can one lack belief in all things?                  

Quote

 

 PGJ said.....

(1) I am an atheist.(2) Beyond atheism, I lack belief in all things, and so I had come to invent a paradigm called 'non-beliefism'; so not surprisingly, I lack belief in all things, including God or Gods, as Sam Harris likewise demonstrates.(3) God is observable in a scientific context, see source.  As such, "God" as observable in the scientific context presented, is compatible with atheism.

 

• Quote

   

  • You said...........
  • The universe is indifferent to ones incredulity.
  • Evidence that exists continues to exist even when it is ignored.
  • Phenomena can all be examined by the scientific method

   

  All three are of course correct, and I'm at a loss to understand what you are actually trying to propose.

6 hours ago, Eise said:

You are just plainly wrong. Krauss and you have just no idea what philosophy is today. Read the articles I linked.

I did somewhere else. It is not the first time PGJ is confusing discussions by redefining words. Philosophy tries to bring intellectual clarity. PGJ is obviously not interested in that, so there is nothing to do for me here.

I don't believe I am wrong, and far more importantly and far more qualified then I, I do not accept that Krauss or Hawking are wrong. The 20th century has seen cosmology and astronomy come along in leaps and bounds, as our technology enables us to see further and further....We have deduced via observational evidence that the universe is expanding...we have discovered the CMBR  and through tiny variations in that otherwise constant temperature, deduced the formation of galaxies...we can reasonably go back in time to t+10-43 seconds and deduce the evolution of space and time,(spacetime) and project a trillion years into the future with reasonable confidence and see the demise of the universe as we know it today. We understand these things due to observational and experimental data. And of course I have not yet mentioned quantum physics and the predictive powers that we have at our disposal through that.

Professor Krauss's book, "A Universe from Nothing" illustrates how we can even go beyond that t+10-43 seconds within reason.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

here is another that I have posted before.....

https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/    

A Universe from Nothing

by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by beecee

[Strange]

17 hours ago, ProgrammingGodJordan said:

Notably, "We may highly concern evidence." is grammatically correct. (Check it on https://www.scribens.com/)

It is typical English structure, meaning simply that we may prioritize scientific evidence.

It makes zero sense to me. Which meaning of concern (as a transitive verb) do you think you are using? 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concern 

None of them seem appropriate in this construct.

Or perhaps you meant "We may be highly concerned with the evidence".

Edited September 1, 2017 by Strange

[Area54]

27 minutes ago, beecee said:

The gist of the OP seems to be that any belief is essentially wrong or invalid: I find that rather weird  to put it mildly. I believe and accept the scientific method: I base that belief on observation and history. How can one lack belief in all things?                  

• All three are of course correct, and I'm at a loss to understand what you are actually trying to propose.

I read, I think on a forum, an observation regarding evolution that I have since used myself.

I don't believe in evolution I accept evolution as the best current explanation for a wide range of observations.

This is a valid sense of the word "belief". It involves the notion that belief requires a measure of faith. It is faith based, not evidence based. The OP is simply asserting that faith is an invalid basis for ones world view. It is not the only sense in which belief can be used, but it is sound. I have also confirmed, in an earlier exchange with PGJ, that this is how he is using it.

Essentially, PGJ is promoting the concept of ultra-scepticism. The problem is he has difficulty coherently framing his posts and has been seriously misread by most members, including myself, until recently.

Now as to the three statements: you have agreed they are correct, but they are directly derived from the post by PGJ that you characterised as fairytale, philosophical musings. Try re-reading it in the light of what I have said.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

It makes zero sense to me. Which meaning of concern (as a transitive verb) do you think you are using? 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concern 

None of them seem appropriate in this construct.

Or perhaps you meant "We may be highly concerned with the evidence".

We've already estbalished what he means. "We should concern ourselves with (focus on) evidence (not faith based, fanciful beliefs)."

 

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I read, I think on a forum, an observation regarding evolution that I have since used myself.

I don't believe in evolution I accept evolution as the best current explanation for a wide range of observations.

This is a valid sense of the word "belief". It involves the notion that belief requires a measure of faith. It is faith based, not evidence based. The OP is simply asserting that faith is an invalid basis for ones world view. It is not the only sense in which belief can be used, but it is sound. I have also confirmed, in an earlier exchange with PGJ, that this is how he is using it.

Essentially, PGJ is promoting the concept of ultra-scepticism. The problem is he has difficulty coherently framing his posts and has been seriously misread by most members, including myself, until recently.

Now as to the three statements: you have agreed they are correct, but they are directly derived from the post by PGJ that you characterised as fairytale, philosophical musings. Try re-reading it in the light of what I have said.

Ultra-scepticism, seems a nice way of putting it. Again, my statement re fairy tales refers to the apparent anti belief that he proposes, which in my view is contradicted every day by every person on this planet...at least from my layman's position. Let me add also for your clarification, that I also have a certain faith: As a retired Maintenance Fitter and Turner, I have faith that my local GP will direct me to whatever cure that ails me...I also have faith that cosmology today, as accepted by the professionals like Carroll, De-Grasse Tyson, Suskind and the many professional greats of the past, are infinitely more likely to be correct, then the local Minister, preaching fire and brimstone on a Sunday. As a lay person, I have faith in plenty, but that faith or belief is not blindly accepted, and is always open to change, as new observations and experiments dictate, and I am able to move on if required. Everyone on Earth has some belief...everyone on Earth has some faith.

[Area54]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

I have faith that my local GP will direct me to whatever cure that ails me.

I have no such faith. My experience, direct and indirect, suggests that my local GP will do a passable job of identifying my ailment, if it is a reasonably common one. Faith is not involved. Evidence and experience are.

Today, I had faith that Kyle Edmund would defeat the Canadian wunderkind in the US Open. However, an in depth analysis, based upon two years of closely following professional tennis made me accept that he was very likely to lose. Spoiler Alert. Once again faith was trumped by good data and logical analysis.

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I have no such faith. My experience, direct and indirect, suggests that my local GP will do a passable job of identifying my ailment, if it is a reasonably common one. Faith is not involved. Evidence and experience are.

I have faith that if my GP has a problem treating whatever ails me, he'll direct me to a specialist or a hospital for further examination....at least that's how it works in my country. My faith in my GP and whatever specialist or hospital is involved stems from the fact that those are the ones qualified in that particular area of expertise. Yes, sometimes in some cases such faith can be misplaced and proven to be in error: Then of course, I will change my local GP. 

[Area54]

That's not faith. That's acceptance of a probability based upon experience.

You and PGJ are saying the same thing. You are just using different words to express it.

[beecee]

53 minutes ago, Area54 said:

That's not faith. That's acceptance of a probability based upon experience.

You and PGJ are saying the same thing. You are just using different words to express it.

Of course it is: It is faith based on trust and confidence in someone or something in line with accumulated evidence, rather then of course, faith based on spiritual conviction and lacking in any proof or evidence.

You are simply trying to split hairs.

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by beecee