Philosophy Now Forum

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:
And the difference is major. To me existence is a phenomena. I see no reason to believe it is conscious or has any kind of intelligence at all.

And you won't; not until you want to.

And here we move to new territory. Where does want come in? A hypothesis a a possibility derived from reason. If your God is a hypothesis, you must have a valid hypothesis for you assumption that it has consciousness or intelligence. If your wanting it to happen would make it happen, then we enter areas which are not governed by the laws of science. I have no reason to believe such areas exist. I cannot create a desire to wish such areas exist.

also, my hypothesis is pretty consistent with observed reality so I have no reason to discard it so far. If I see an inconsistency which tells me to drop the hypothesis I will. But I have no reason to believe your hypothesis and I cannot create a desire to believe it since I don't see any reason to believe it.

Reflex wrote:There is no line of demarcation between the micro and the macro: it's a continuum. Intelligence in the latter implies intelligence in the former, though hardly in the same sense a human being is intelligent. "The rule of science" is merely the habit of God and the set of classical laws is the average.

Now your hypothesis suddenly becomes a proven conclusion. You have not given any supporting evidence which can lead to the conclusion, "There is no line of demarcation between the micro and the macro: it's a continuum. Intelligence in the latter implies intelligence in the former, though hardly in the same sense a human being is intelligent." You have not given any evidence to support your statement that micro and macro both have intelligence.

There is nothing to support your statement that " the rules of science is merely the habit of God". You have not given any properties of God. There is no reason to assume that the rules of science is merely the habit of God, since you have not given any comprehensive list of the habits of God with evidence to support the claim that those are indeed the habits of God.

Reflex wrote:And I'm not interested in possibilities? What I'm not interested in is being limited to the already known. I've read many books regarding your hypothesis, and although I do not dispute the facts, I find their conclusions wanting -- too dull and dry.

Of course you are and that is why we are discussing it. And what conclusion are you talking about? And what does dull and dry have to do with anything? A conclusion is a conclusion (if I have made one, that is). Conclusions are not governed by what one wants. They are governed by what they are. Your not liking a conclusion or finding it too dull and dry does not mean that the conclusion changes to your like disregarding all facts and evidence to the contrary.

Reflex wrote:You see no connection between a hypothesis and the substance of things hoped for?

What has hope got to do with it? Expected, sure.

Reflex wrote:Science resisted the Big Bang because they had faith in the steady-state.

[/quote][/quote]
"In January 1933, the Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.""

I will not address the rest of your allegations against physicists since I am not one, have no inclination to support them and see no connection between why they did or did not resist the big bang theory with the present discussion we are having. If the point you are trying to make is that physicists can be wrong, I agree completely with you. That is why even the big bang theory is still a hypothesis. Until it is proven to be a fact, we can only call it a hypothesis.

I am also not addressing the pointless barb you made at the end. This has been a pretty civil discussion so far. Let us try and keep it that way.

Sorry, sthitapragya. But there's just too much nonsense in that post. I can't it seriously enough to respond.

Reflex wrote:Sorry, sthitapragya. But there's just too much nonsense in that post. I can't it seriously enough to respond.

That's the most disgusting and cowardly cop out I have ever come across in my entire life. If it was too much nonsense you just should have ignored the post. The fact that you needed to say something means you have no answers. What a chickenshit you are. You don't have a polite bone in you so it was definitely not out of politeness.

Now don't expect any reply from me either. I know for a fact, that you will run away when you don't have answers.

Actually that is not the most disgusting and cowardly cop out I have come across. I have seen little kids do it in school. Never ever a grown man.

Reflex wrote:Notwithstanding their primitive nature, Neanderthals could think because they had a conceptual frame or model in which to think. Interestingly (or pathetically), atheists here do not think that's important.

How do you know what Neanderthals thought? What is your conceptual framework other than 'Everything I can't explain, I will attribute to god'?

Reflex wrote:Sorry, sthitapragya. But there's just too much nonsense in that post. I can't it seriously enough to respond.

Is this how you respond to the best argued and thought out post of the day?

Is it that you are failing in basic comprehension. Or are you just a fool?

The reflex is a lonely child
Who's waiting by the park
The reflex is a door to finding
Treasure in the dark
And watching over lucky clover
Isn't that bizarre
Every little thing the reflex does
Leaves you answered with a question mark

So why don't you use it?
Try not to bruise it?
Buy time don't lose it

Leave yourself alone, or you will bruise it. Get your hands off your cock and grab your socks. Masturbation is not answer you meed to get out more, and look outward.

Reflex wrote:Did you see the word "interpenetration"?

Do you not understand what the Noumenon is meant to 'describe'?

Of course. I also agree that we could be a brain in a vat.

I don't, it'd just be too complicated, you might as well just sim the whole thing. So yes we could also be in a Ancestor Sim but this is the point, we could be any number if things and all of them are just made up.

Just for the record, how many times do I have to say reality is indefinite? Anything is possible.

No its not, there are things that are impossible, the logical contradictions as applied to things.

Yes....and?

Okay, you'll have to tell me what exactly the point of your 'God' is then? A so far it looks like you agree that 'it' could just be a non-conscious calculating space that has a purpose not connected with what you call being or 'what is'?

At this point, it seems you are desperately clinging to straws in order to preserve your current belief system -- kinda like what you do when you ask silly questions that I subsequently ignore.

Although they may seem silly to you try answering them, it is the polite thing to do or doesn't your 'God' advocate such things.

This is funny!

Have you ever seen a chicken run around after its head had bee cut off? I have, and that's what my critics' behavior looks like. The only difference is that the chicken had enough sense to run up against a fence and die, while the critics persist in running up against the same fence time after time.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Reflex wrote:Sorry, sthitapragya. But there's just too much nonsense in that post. I can't it seriously enough to respond.

Is this how you respond to the best argued and thought out post of the day?

That's your idea of a well-argued and thought-out post? I simply didn't want to embarrass the guy.

A hypothesis [is] a possibility derived from reason.

Yes, but it also derived from purpose and hope (both of which are decidedly unscientific motives). It is also conditioned by the cultural environment, prior experience and a host of other influence too numerous to list. To say "a hypothesis [is] a possibility derived from reason" and leave it that is childishly naive.

The author also said, "my hypothesis is pretty consistent with observed reality so I have no reason to discard it so far" after I explicitly said there is no reason to do so, that I agreed but simply went further. Do you call that a "thought-out" comment?

Do you want me to go on? Okay. Here's another:

You have not given any supporting evidence which can lead to the conclusion, "There is no line of demarcation between the micro and the macro: it's a continuum.

Maybe the author didn't get the message, but dualism is dead and there's plenty of science to back it up.

I can go on, but what would be the point?

Reflex wrote: This is funny!

Have you ever seen a chicken run around after its head had bee cut off? I have, and that's what my critics' behavior looks like. The only difference is that the chicken had enough sense to run up against a fence and die, while the critics persist in running up against the same fence time after time.

For you to have 'critics' you yourself have to have some kind of notion or argument to offer. None is yet forthcoming that qualifies to be called by these words.

Reflex wrote:
I can go on, but what would be the point?

This is the only thing you have said that makes sense. Yes, you do go on and on and on, and NO there is not point to your mumbling bumbling nonsense.

Do you ever have anything intelligent or relevant to say, Hobbes, or are you just a troll?

Reflex wrote: This is funny!

Have you ever seen a chicken run around after its head had bee cut off? I have, and that's what my critics' behavior looks like. The only difference is that the chicken had enough sense to run up against a fence and die, while the critics persist in running up against the same fence time after time.

So what you are saying is that you are as thick as a fence.

Like all the American theists who have been visiting here recently you have a total aversion to sentences ending with question marks, why is that?

Drawing a blank when it comes to something relevant to say?

Nope, I think I've asked some relevant questions and raised a few valid points about what you've said but it's difficult as like most theists here you tend not to actually say anything about what you believe this 'God' is or does or what led you to believe in 'it', always vague.

By the by, and as an example of how theists appear to avoid sentences ending with question marks, you've still not said what it is you actually do when you self-consciously disbelieve in Santa and Superman? Whether you were an ex-theist atheist or an atheist atheist? What exactly the point or purpose of your 'God' is? And that so far it looks like you agree that 'it' could just be a non-conscious calculating space that has a purpose not connected with what you call being or 'what is'?