Science/Environment Gary Ablett disputes evolution

[Sloth]

In what? The imaginary universe?

Umm what?

 

[Pie eyed]

You cant be an Atheistic Agnostic. Its an oxymoron.

There is a distinction between atheism and agnosticisms.
You can be an agnostic with atheist views and or an agnostic with theist views, which is what I said. The only conflict come when a third party is imposing their take on it on to another who can hold a different view.

The term agnostic was coined by Huxley as means of describing

our modern definition of 'scientist' more than anything else.

and has various interpretations floating around depending on the who is doing the interpreting.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Theoretical_atheism


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

There are actually a raft of descriptive "isms' which are all highly subjective no matter what the generally held interpretations would suggest.

To my way of thinking you either believe in a god or gods of some kind (theist), believe their are no gods (atheist) or you are not sure either way, there being no evidence either way. (Agnostic)

Almost everyone is an agnostic (in the modern sense of the word) since none of us have any evidence, proof, or other tangible means of giving knowledge regarding any of the various versions of god that the masses currently believe in or have believed in the past. Some will claim they have proof.

Everyone is either a theist or an atheist. If you answer the question, "Do you believe in god?" with an affirmative, then you are a theist. If your answer is "no" or "I don't know" then you are an atheist due to your lack of an affirmative belief.

 

[Pie eyed]

In what? The imaginary universe?

We should just preface every reference to anything with "imaginary" if that would make it simpler.

For instance if I imagined I picked up an imaginary rock and imagined I threw it into the imaginary atmosphere in an upward direction. I imagine when it fell due to imaginary Gravity and hit my imaginary head, imaginary blood would in some cases come from the imaginary contusion.

Now if I throw my imaginary God in the same imaginary way and the same imaginary coming together of God and head came to pass, not only would there be no imaginary blood but no imaginary contusion.

You could imagine the blood and contusion, thus making mine a wrong Imagining. Imagine you have in fact already imagined the "missing blood" while reading this.

Makes for a pretty long winded, pointless, and speculative discussion really which is I imagine the point of most of fringe philosophy around speculative existence being constantly dragged into every discussion.

I take the Ignostic view (in that I ignore it in the absence of any evidence or falsifiability) on this phenomena and see it as a ploy for disrupting discussion.

 

[Rockford]

In a Universe that might not even exist.

True.

One that you accept on faith.

No, one that I observe. Whether I'm a brain in a jar or not, I have my observations. I don't care whether it exists or not, I observe it so that's what I'm working with I have "faith" in my observations. That's all any of us has. Having "Faith" in something I can't observe is a different prospect though. All that's left is arguing over the semantics of the word faith.

If God did exist (and BTW, I don't think he does) and he didn't want to be found or discovered, wouldn't he have the power to fool you?

This doesn't 'disprove' God. Actually you are trying to use reason to disprove god. Its not going to work. Its never going to work. You cant Falsify god. He exists only on faith. Reason aint gonna cut it.

I'm not trying to disprove God. I'm just stating that I can't observe any evidence of a God.

My being able to observe evidence that disputes Creationism and my being able to observe evidence that supports Evolution is why I accept the theory of Evolution and dispute the theory of Creationism. Again, it doesn't matter if I'm in the matrix, a brain in a jar, or any other potential model of the Universe, I'm working with what I can observe.

 

[Mean Muggin]

At first I dismissed Biocentrism as a "God Complex" and refused to take the notion seriously. But it does make you think, and I'm actually starting to think it's a plausible concept.

Wally Carter posted something interesting on the Infinity thread in reference to biocentrism and the collective projection of reality:

In the 1920's Buck Rogers was a character who had adventures to the moon and space travel etc, which at the time was considered impossible, but decades later it became a reality.

Wally expressed that this had something to do with everyones collective consciousness conjuring up this event as the Buck Rogers stories stimulated their imagination into making it a reality.

The problem with Biocentrism for mine is that it has an answer for everything, but it damn well intrigues me.

 

[Malifice]

It's not. There are two parts to these labels. The first is whether you believe that a god exists, that is theist/ atheist. The second part is whether you believe that the evidence shows it. So an atheist agnostic believes that there is no god, but that it can't be proved. A strong atheist believes that there is no god and that it can be shown.

An Athiest (by any definition) believes there are/is no God(s) right?

They specifically exclude Divinity. No God full stop.

However an Agnostic beleives there is no way of knowing for sure what is going on. There could be Gods or a God, but there might not be. No one can ever know for sure.

How do can you possibly reconsile those two positions?

a) One beleives 100% in no God(s). (Atheist)

b) The other believes that no one can know about God(s) for 100% sure. (Agnostic)

They are LOGICALLY mutually exclusive.

 

[Malifice]

Umm what?

You're accepting the existence of the Universe (that you cant prove exists or even if it does exist, in what form it exists) on blind faith.

You are then attempting to measure and experiment with 'things' in this 'universe' using reason, logic and deduction.

Basically, Science is doomed from the start.

The three steps of Science:

a) Accept that you exist (reason - 100% logical).
b) Accept that the universe exists (Faith only. No way you can be sure)
c) Start experimenting with this 'universe', Propose falsificable Scientific theory. (reason)

See how any Science relies on faith?

Its as vulnerable to arguments that attack 'Faith' as any religion is.

 

[Malifice]

The problem with Biocentrism for mine is that it has an answer for everything, but it damn well intrigues me.

Yeah, me too.

Its really counter intuitive (why so many have problems with it IMO), but it does seem to be the most plausable explanation of the universe ive encountered so far.

Neatly deals with some of the biggest problems facing 'acceptance' of the outside universe.

Not 100% sold by any means. But it does make you think.

 

[Contra Mundum]

An Athiest (by any definition) believes there are/is no God(s) right?

They specifically exclude Divinity. No God full stop.

However an Agnostic beleives there is no way of knowing for sure what is going on. There could be Gods or a God, but there might not be. No one can ever know for sure.

How do can you possibly reconsile those two positions?

a) One beleives 100% in no God(s). (Atheist)

b) The other believes that no one can know about God(s) for 100% sure. (Agnostic)

They are LOGICALLY mutually exclusive.

Not to Christian Mystics like Meister Eckhart who said "God is no-thing". There is a whole stream of "God without being" theology which does not recognise the idea of the "personhood of God". If you take the idea that "
God is Love" to its logical extension then you don't have to believe in a "God" to have a rich spiritual life

 

[Malifice]

Makes for a pretty long winded, pointless, and speculative discussion really which is I imagine the point of most of fringe philosophy around speculative existence being constantly dragged into every discussion.

Fringe Philosophy?

You consider Plato, Socrates and Descartes (amongst many others) 'fringe'?

 

[Malifice]

Not to Christian Mystics like Meister Eckhart who said "God is no-thing". There is a whole stream of "God without being" theology which does not recognise the idea of the "personhood of God". If you take the idea that "
God is Love" to its logical extension then you don't have to believe in a "God" to have a rich spiritual life

A Christian Mystic is no more of an 'Agnostic' than an Atheist.

Instead they are (unsurprisingly)... a Christian Mystic.

An Animist also doesnt beleive in God. Soesnt make them Athiest either.

Makes them an Animist.

An Agnostic beleives that there is no way to ever know for sure.

The Agnostic position is such: "There could be a God or Gods, or there could not. It could be even be the Force. Or any one of countless things going on. Maybe when you're dead youre just dead."

 

[Malifice]

No, one that I observe. Whether I'm a brain in a jar or not, I have my observations.

Yes but how do you know what you are observing is real? You know you are real. Cogito Ergo Sum.

But how do you know the things you are aboserving are really there. Not just electronic signals wired into the brain in the jar?

You never can really know. You have to accept everything (aside from yourself or course) on faith.

I'm not trying to disprove God. I'm just stating that I can't observe any evidence of a God.

'God' is not falsifiable. Either his existence, or lack thereof. If it were possible this debate would have ended years ago!

For example, If God existed he would be allpowerful right? Thus it would be quite within his power to hide any evidence of his existence from you.

How could you ever know?

My being able to observe evidence that disputes Creationism and my being able to observe evidence that supports Evolution is why I accept the theory of Evolution and dispute the theory of Creationism. Again, it doesn't matter if I'm in the matrix, a brain in a jar, or any other potential model of the Universe, I'm working with what I can observe.

In a Universe you accept on Faith.

 

[Pie eyed]

An Athiest (by any definition) believes there are/is no God(s) right?

They specifically exclude Divinity. No God full stop.

However an Agnostic beleives there is no way of knowing for sure what is going on. There could be Gods or a God, but there might not be. No one can ever know for sure.

How do can you possibly reconsile those two positions?

a) One beleives 100% in no God(s). (Atheist)

b) The other believes that no one can know about God(s) for 100% sure. (Agnostic)

They are LOGICALLY mutually exclusive.

An Atheist believes that there is/are no god or gods.
An Agnostics by definition believes there is no evidence of God or Gods and no way of proving it's/they're existence.
A Theist believes that there is/are god or gods.

There is no mutual exclusivity. An Atheist can believe there is no god and believe there is no evidence or any way to prove or disprove his existence.

Even a Theist can believe in god and also believe there is no evidence or way to prove his existence.

Agnosticism is about evidence and provability.

Gnosticism (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know. For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, "one who lacks knowledge") is someone who makes no such claim.
Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist). Other ways in which the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist and theist can be combined are discussed below.
Typically, the gnostic's assertion of knowledge is esoteric and may well be attributed to divine revelation. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god's existence is available to anyone, although rarely through empirical, scientific evidence.
Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an "untheist" or "antitheist", perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a gnostic atheist who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.
While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence.

 

[Pie eyed]

Fringe Philosophy?

You consider Plato, Socrates and Descartes (amongst many others) 'fringe'?

It depends if you take all their individual philosophies as equally valid or you're just picking out the bits that suit and al agree with what you feel is correct. It's a matter of taking from it what you want.

Plato and Socrates were at odds regarding slavery but agreed on other issues.

Was one of them wrong? On which issue?
Or were they just putting it out there.

The latter.

Just like everyone giving an opinion.

 

[Malifice]

An Atheist believes that there is/are no god or gods.
An Agnostics by definition believes there is no evidence of God or Gods and no way of proving it's/they're existence.
A Theist believes that there is/are god or gods.

There is no mutual exclusivity. An Atheist can believe there is no god and believe there is no evidence or any way to prove or disprove his existence.

No, youre missing the pint. They are not logically compatable.

Reconcile these two statements (logically):

a) I believe Cats do not exist.

b) I also believe that I can never know if Cats exist or not.

They are incompatable statements.

 

[Malifice]

It depends if you take all their individual philosophies as equally valid or you're just picking out the bits that suit and al agree with what you feel is correct. It's a matter of taking from it what you want.

Plato and Socrates were at odds regarding slavery but agreed on other issues.

Was one of them wrong? On which issue?
Or were they just putting it out there.

The latter.

Just like everyone giving an opinion.

Dude.

There is very broad consensus in the Scientific and Philosophy community that the existence of the Universe and things in it, is rationally unknowable.

Been that way since Socrates.

The proposition that the existence of the 'self' is the only 100% rational thing one can ever really know is not 'new' nor is it really contentious.

If you are saying you can prove Descartes and Plato wrong, Id love to know how.

You would make a million in academic literature and be a Philosophy God if you could do it as well.

 

[Rockford]

Yes but how do you know what you are observing is real? You know you are real. Cogito Ergo Sum.

But how do you know the things you are aboserving are really there. Not just electronic signals wired into the brain in the jar?

My observations are a product of my consciousness. So my observations are real. They could be electronic signals wired to the brain in the jar but it doesn't change that they are my observations. As I said, I have "faith" in my observations, not that in what I'm observing is "real", but in that I have them. That's all that matters to me and it is all I have (and any of us have, assuming any of you exist ) so it is all I am willing to use.

'God' is not falsifiable. Either his existence, or lack thereof. If it were possible this debate would have ended years ago!

This debate is a different debate to that which the typical theist presents, and certainly the debate the typical Creationist presents, and their debate should've ended years ago. Their debate isn't based on a biocentric model of the Universe.

For example, If God existed he would be allpowerful right? Thus it would be quite within his power to hide any evidence of his existence from you.

How could you ever know?

I couldn't. So why create the concept of God in the first place?

I couldn't ever know if I was a brain in a jar either, but there's no religion which has committed atrocities against people who don't believe that we're brains in jars. And no brain in jar religion which pushes an agenda to have brain in jar theory taught in schools.

 

[Pie eyed]

No, youre missing the pint. They are not logically compatable.

Reconcile these two statements (logically):

a) I believe Cats do not exist.

b) I also believe that I can never know if Cats exist or not.

They are incompatable statements.

You have manipulated the concept and meaning of Agnostic to suit your argument. Even in it's manipulated form the statement is compatible.

You believe there are no Cats yet you also you believe you can never know whether Cats exis or not. believe and know are different words with different meanings.


I believe lots of things I don't know as do most humans.


The second line should read;

b) I believe that I can never prove of provide evidence that Cats exist or not.

Totally compatible.

 

[Malifice]

My observations are a product of my consciousness. So my observations are real. They could be electronic signals wired to the brain in the jar but it doesn't change that they are my observations. As I said, I have "faith" in my observations, not that in what I'm observing is "real", but in that I have them. That's all that matters to me and it is all I have (and any of us have, assuming any of you exist ) so it is all I am willing to use.

And thats all ive been trying to say (for around 10 pages or so!)

We need faith to accept the universe and our observations of it.

Ultimately (from that point onwards) 'Science' is as vulnerable as Religion.

This debate is a different debate to that which the typical theist presents, and certainly the debate the typical Creationist presents, and their debate should've ended years ago. Their debate isn't based on a biocentric model of the Universe.

My only point is that Science is (ultimately) as futile as Religion.

I guess both could be right and both could be wrong. There is no way to ever be able to prove it either way.

Faith gets in the way for both sides.

I couldn't. So why create the concept of God in the first place?

Why create the concept of a 'Universe'?

I couldn't ever know if I was a brain in a jar either, but there's no religion which has committed atrocities against people who don't believe that we're brains in jars. And no brain in jar religion which pushes an agenda to have brain in jar theory taught in schools.

This is a different argument entirely.

FWIW 'Science' created the Machine gun, Nerve Gas and the A bomb, so I reckon its outstipped Religion in its capacity to kill in the short age of Scientific discovery!

 

[Pie eyed]

Dude.

There is very broad consensus in the Scientific and Philosophy community that the existence of the Universe and things in it, is rationally unknowable.

Been that way since Socrates.

The proposition that the existence of the 'self' is the only 100% rational thing one can ever really know is not 'new' nor is it really contentious.

If you are saying you can prove Descartes and Plato wrong, Id love to know how.

You would make a million in academic literature and be a Philosophy God if you could do it as well.

Plato advocated slavery.....was he wrong?
Of course not as he was advocating it philosophically.
Philosophy is not a limited list of known and respected Philosophers.
Everyone who ponders a question is a philosopher.
Nor is every word of Plato, Descartes, Socrates or any other philosopher of renown a gem of realisation. Mao, Hitler, were they not philosophers?

My point is that philosophy is merely a tool and a very blunt tool at that. For every philosophy worth credence there would be thousands worth nothing.

Much of the time it simply confuses the issue as you can support nearly any point of view with reams of philosophical outpourings. The reason being it is just opinion.

 

[Malifice]

You have manipulated the concept and meaning of Agnostic to suit your argument. Even in it's manipulated form the statement is compatible.

I havent twisted anything. The two positions are mutually exclusive.

If proof of Gods existence is a requirement for an Agnostic to be an Agnostic Theist, then surely every Agnsotic is an Agnostic Atheist currently as no such proof exits.

Its just like being an Agnostic Christian. Or a Muslim Bhuddist. Or an Atheist Jew. You cant (logically) do it.

Doesnt stop you from calling youjrself whatever you like however.

Such as the 90% majority of people who identify as Christians in this country (yet arent). Or they are, and are all going to Hell.

I believe lots of things I don't know as do most humans.

Thats called 'faith'.

Funnily enough this is the whole point of this thred.

 

[Malifice]

My point is that philosophy is merely a tool and a very blunt tool at that. For every philosophy worth credence there would be thousands worth nothing.

Much of the time it simply confuses the issue as you can support nearly any point of view with reams of philosophical outpourings. The reason being it is just opinion.

These paragraphs is so full of wrong they defy belief.

You realise Science is a Philosophy right? As is Religion?

 

[Chief]

A person might hold a position where he weighs the odds of the existence of the Jewish God at about (for example) 50%, and the balance of the doubt is on the side of there being no God at all. The Hindu, Greek, Norse or African gods get no look in.

That sort of person you might call an Agnostic Jew.

Fair enough?

 

[Chief]

These paragraphs is so full of wrong they defy belief.

You realise Science is a Philosophy right? As is Religion?

You realise this is a race car right?

As is this?

 

[Malifice]

A person might hold a position where he weighs the odds of the existence of the Jewish God at about (for example) 50%, and the balance of the doubt is on the side of there being no God at all. The Hindu, Greek, Norse or African gods get no look in.

That sort of person you might call an Agnostic Jew.

Fair enough?

A precondition to being a Jew is the belief in the Jewish God. Just like one cant be a Christina and deny the existence of Christ. Or even be unsure of his existence.

In your example above the person does not believe in this god. He is also committing the mortal sin of Idolatry.

He certainly isnt getting into heaven upon death according to the Torah.

Like I said he can call himself whatever he wants. A Jedi even. Doesnt make him right however. Or his position logical.