Part 2 of Scientific Evidence of God

One, do you understand the word "had" is a word that is past-tense? Why didn't you quote the entire paragraph? Hmm, I wonder... Could it because it ends in this way:

"In more recent polls conducted at various quantum mechanics conferences, varying results have been found."?

Even if the Copenhagen Interpretation was accepted by every scientist, that doesn't make your interpretation of what the CI says correct. So, two, do you want to address the fact that your claim that a conscious observer is necessary is not a part of the CI?

 

Normal standards: Logic, empirical evidence. Who established these standards? Numerous philosophers, scientists, clergy, and laymen over thousands of years.

Nobody is obligating you to do anything, including post on this forum. But this kind of avoidance just makes you look like a liar and an arse.

 

All right, well, I did ask you if you believed in an all-knowing god, and you didnt answer. I guess that will be a no, though.

 

"normal (ˈnɔːməl) adj1. usual; regular; common; typical: "
Do you see that word "common" in the definition of normal? If you do, and if you comprehend the meaning of that term, then you should realize that "scientific" removes the standard from the category of 'normal' or 'common'. Get a grip on yourself and smell the reality of life that not everyone is trapped in that box of scientific jargon.

Ahhh... but those that work everyday in that field are specialists which again removes them from the standard of 'normal' or 'common'.

Nope! keywords being (as in your opening line) "normal standards".

That is your opinion based on the fact that you have been unsuccessful in altering my belief in God. You have been and are continuing to demonstrate your inability to provide any evidence or argument that will compel my mind to accept what you present as true.

On the contrary. My input presents to you and others an opportunity to show PROOF of the many claims and assertions that are being made on a daily basis. Unfortunately for you and some others, you have been batting a zero. (I am pretty certain that you can comprehend the meaning of "batting a zero").

 

Provide PROOF of this claim.

 

As usual, nothing will every satisfy you. Instead you would rather play semantic games.

I will stick by my terms: 'normal standards' = accepted scientific evidence that has been well tested by many individuals.

And that matters how? Does that change the fact that Evolution happens? No it doesn't. Regardless, your mind has shut out this evidence that 'specialist' (your words not mine) has offered to the general public. Instead of even trying to understand it, you would rather play silly little semantic games like "they are specialist and removes them from the standard of normalcy"

My supposed 'inability to provide any evidence' is an absurd opinion based on the fact your mind is closed to any all evidence that contradicts your 'god'. You have demonstrated this time and time again.

Once again, this is an absurd opinion that is based on your mind being closed to any and all evidence that may contradicts your 'god'.

However, since other people read this forum, myself and other will continuously provide evidence for a naturally occurring universe, while you cannot provide one iota of evidence for your 'god'. As more peoples see the evidence for a naturally occurring universe, and there is none for this 'god', more and more people will become atheists. I applaud you to keep your mind closed. You are helping us out more than you can imagine.

 

And where is there a law, code, rule, regulation, statute, TOS, or other mandate which requires each and every man, woman and child to accept those man made ideologies as true? Also your use of the word 'normal' (common) removes all of those entities that you listed from the 'normal'/'common' category because of their specialization in particular fields of study. Normal people are not involved in such things.

Are you calling me a "liar" or an "arse"?

 

I do know a few scientists that I would describe as 'abnormal', but I don't think its a job requirement.

 

You're not getting it.

Quote from the link provided earlier:

However, the fine-tuning of carbon is even responsible for nature’s ability to tune itself to any degree. As professor Alister McGrath has pointed out:

"[The entire biological] evolutionary process depends upon the unusual chemistry of carbon, which allows it to bond to itself, as well as other elements, creating highly complex molecules that are stable over prevailing terrestrial temperatures, and are capable of conveying genetic information (especially DNA). […] Whereas it might be argued that nature creates its own fine-tuning, this can only be done if the primordial constituents of the universe are such that an evolutionary process can be initiated. The unique chemistry of carbon is the ultimate foundation of the capacity of nature to tune itself."

Evidence?

You didn't understand my point. I am not saying we should accept the reality of God because the idea is popular or because many people hold a certain opinion. I am saying we shouldn't discard the testimony of billions who pray and think they have encountered God.

Many of the accounts are similar.

Why are you sure these concepts are "entirely subjective".

 

It is not quite that simple. Observation in the scientific sense means using energy in some form to make the measurements/observation which indeed makes the changes. It is not quite like watching a bird fly or other simplistic concepts.

 

With this quote:

You do a pretty dam good job of it yourself w/o GFP's help.

 

Such may be as opinions go.

 

Then you do have a reading comprehension problem. I read that entire quote and nowhere in that quote did I find the words "arse" or "liar". Various schools do have remedial reading programs available.

 

Every time you ask this stupid question, I tell you that no such thing exists. I don't know why you're pretending like this is some kind of smart question. What would it matter if a law required it?

What are you trying to say here? Logic and empiricism are used in everyday life.

They aren't involved in thinking logically or using surrounding evidence to draw conclusions?

No, I'm saying your posts make you look like one.

 

If no such mandate exists, then why do you and others insist that others use this thing called logic?

Are they really? Does the common person think in such terms as "Well this is the most logical thing to do" after analyzing all the variables involved in analytical logic? does a common person say to him or her self "Well this is an empirical thing therefore it must be real"?

there is no mandate which says that they are required to do so.. so if some do (and that would only be some as the vast majority do not) it is due to their being trained to think in such terms.

Then all you are doing is posting an unproven opinion which borders on slander, harrassment, character assassination.

 

Because it's useful. Do I really need to explain to you the benefits of using logic?

What does it matter if the common person thinks in those specific terms? You can use logic and empiricism without saying to yourself "Wow, I'm thinking logical or empirically!" in the same way that I can use mathematics without thinking "Oh gosh, I'm doing abstract addition in my head!".

Prove that they do it only because they're trained to. I contend that they do so because empiricism and logic are useful.

As do many of your posts. Welcome to the Internet.

 

More like useless when addressing me...Those benefits you speak about must be pretty flimsy, because your choice system of logic is incapable of compelling my mind to accept what you present as true.

To that individual person it could have an affect upon him or her as an individual, but in no way affects other people as long as other people do not attempt to force that person to change his or her use or non use of such terminology. That is why I say that the claims you and others make about Christians being illogical or irrational or even stupid or ignorant really means nothing except when in a forum with rules barring such conduct.

Are you now saying that a person inherently has the capacity of using logic? If you are and a person decides to not use logic, then it would be a choice made by that person,,, not because he/she is ignorant or stupid. According to this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic , logic is a man-made product. Because the mind of man is flawed, then the products of the mind of man are flawed. Therefore logic is flawed.

Show PROOF of claim.

 

Useless when addressing you? Any sort of method of convincing you, it doesn't matter what it is. If you told me that you didn't believe fish existed and I proceeded to hit you in the face with a fresh trout, I doubt you'd change your tune on fish existence.

That isn't true at all. That's how YOU react to logic and empiricism; it doesn't affect your beliefs. To say in a blanket statement that logical arguments and empirical evidence don't affect other people is just silly. It does.

No, it means the exact same thing. Why would it mean something different in a place where such conduct is banned?

In the same way a person inherently has the capacity to use math.

I would argue that choice would certainly be stupid.

What's funny is that those last two lines are a LOGICAL ARGUMENT. It isn't a sound logical argument, but it still is logic.

I don't know what proof is to you, so I won't because it's a waste of time.

 

Within all probability, if you were to hit me in the face with a trout, I would do my best to hit you in the face with a bigger catfish... BTW: They have some big ones down here in Florida.

You have essentially said that my claim does not compel your mind to accept it as true. I can live with that ... you are free to accept or reject whatever you need to accept of reject... So why is it so bad for me to reject the things that you and others are claiming when what you are claiming does not compel my mind to accept what you are claiming as true?

Well, in a place where such conduct is banned, the offending person can be punished (how great or small the punishment is irrelevant as it would be a form of punishment).

Then it is possible for a person to use advanced mathematics when catching a ball that is traveling through the air without first having been formally educated in such advanced mathematics? Do you have any proof of claim?

Of course I am forced to acknowledge that your statement above is just opinion.

To call it 'logic' when at the same time say that it is essentially illogical, makes no sense.

'Evidence or argument that compels my mind to accept either the evidence or the argument or both as true.

 

When did I say it was bad? I'm just criticizing your avoidance of fleshing out, or inability to flesh out, what is deficient with an argument or evidence beyond just saying "it doesn't compel me".

And how does where somebody says something affect what was actually said?

Any proof of what claim? Your strawman argument? No, I don't have proof of your strawman argument. I try not to accede to idiocy.

Who is forcing you?

I should have said that the last two lines were an attempt at a logical argument. You failed miserably. But, I find it ironic from somebody who says that logic in everyday life is "useless".

And what form would the evidence or argument necessarily have to be in for you to compel your mind?

 

Did I say that you said it was 'bad'? No! I merely asked you a question. Are you experiencing a guilt complex? Why bother with needless rhetoric... when a straight forward declaration will suffice? You have not presented any thing that compels my mind to accept what you say as true.

No-one to my knowledge has made such a claim. Read my signature line.

Your claim that a person has the inherent capacity to do math. So you then resort of personal attacks slanderous labeling.

My conscience.

Again now you are expressing another personal opinion and being that you changed the wording it indicates that you are uncertain.

Any form; however note: It would not be me that compels my mind, it would have to be the form of evidence or argument that compels my mind.

 

You certainly implied it... by asking me why I thought it was bad.

You did: "That is why I say that the claims you and others make about Christians being illogical or irrational or even stupid or ignorant really means nothing except when in a forum with rules barring such conduct."

That claim holds the same value whether it was said in a regulated forum or not.

Calling your strawman argument idiotic isn't a personal attack, nor is it slander. Yes, a person has an inherent capacity to do math. How that translates into a person being able to do advanced mathematics on the fly without being taught advanced mathematics is beyond me. Perhaps you can relate to me how you came up with that silly strawman.

I'm expressing a personal opinion that you tried to form a logical argument? No... it's an observation.

No, it indicates that you nitpicked what I said, so I made it more clear to you what I was saying.

That's like answering that you just want a ball that you can throw, I give you a ball, and then you tell me it isn't the right kind of ball.

 

Faulty interpretation on your part.

Your question was "And how does where somebody says something affect what was actually said?"
Now look at my statement which you quoted and look at the answer which you quoted. What was said in the scenario that was presented had no affect on what was said, but can have an affect on both the speaker/writer and the reader/listener. Please pay attention to what is being posted.

Wrong again. Some people outside a forum are not violent people and will allow something to go unattended. On the other hand, some other people could resort to violence or depending on the statement made, could potentially seek legal redress. So again, it is the people that are affected, not what was said.

Any remark/declaration made by a person comes from the intellectual property list within that person. Therefore, calling his/her personal intellectual property 'idiotic' is making a personal attack on that person.

What mathematics are involved in the detection, tracking, setting or establishing a trajectory, finding an intercept point after calculating a necessary speed required for such intercept? That is how the advanced mathematics "on the fly" gets integrated with your simple call of mathematics.

Just did, immediately above. Therefore, it is not a 'silly strawman'.

It is an observation wherein you made a faulty conclusion.

Another faulty conclusion based on presumption.

Oh well, that would be a problem of yours. Throw the right ball, and I might accept it. Bad analogy on your part. Just because something is offered does not mandate an acceptance of that offering.