tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post319211172519696008..comments2024-03-29T01:14:19.030-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-53089353662862537662016-10-12T07:08:50.297-07:002016-10-12T07:08:50.297-07:00define proofdefine proofJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-11311799944443199902016-10-12T05:05:18.008-07:002016-10-12T05:05:18.008-07:00So you are saying you have proof that MEs are caus...So you are saying you have proof that MEs are caused by <i>something</i> outside the natural universe?<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-54124965201630705472016-10-12T00:35:23.631-07:002016-10-12T00:35:23.631-07:00Right, so when you said "The tie breakers pro...Right, so when you said "The tie breakers prove it can't be" you meant in your opinion. I am getting used to this hyperbole.<br /><br /><b>they don't have to propve the existence of God directly to prove that It's not just a naturalistic cause by itself.</b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-90652098061215371612016-10-11T10:24:46.638-07:002016-10-11T10:24:46.638-07:00In addition to explaining thing it really explains...<i>In addition to explaining thing it really explains it was also used to explaimn thing it really didn't explain but it was all they had,then they discovered science. God is still imn snow flakes. science has not God disproving validity.</i><br /><br />The problem for religion is that all the things it can still explain, it trots out the same the same explanation that it did for all the things science can explain better. And that makes a lot of people wonder if religion can actually explain anything.<br /><br />I guess that is something you could tell us. What does religion explain? You have just stated you believe it really does explain some things, how about a couple of examples?<br /><br />Please do not just say what it explanations, but outline the explanation too. It is one thing to say that religion explains why we are here, quite another to present that explanation.<br /><br />And if you are up to it, give some reason why we should think the explanation is right.<br /><br /><i>I feel that God is either the strong force or at least exerts the strong force so he's inanimately involved with everything at once without being creation itself,</i><br /><br />Thank is frankly bizarre. Why the strong force, and not gravity?<br /><br /><i>that's part of your them vs us mentality. That's a phony and self aggrandizing way to look at thin"winner" if everyone came to believe a lie in science's name I see that as humanity's loss. Knowledge is about truth not about empire,</i><br /><br />Most of science is not about that. Most of science does not give two hoots about religion. However, if you trawl the internet looking for articles where scientists slag off religion, I suppose you could get that impression.<br /><br />Of course knowledge is about truth. Science is well supported by evidence. A scientific explanation gets adopted because we have good reason to think it is right.<br /><br />Can the same be said of your religious explanations? We shall see when you present them.<br /><br /><i>doubingi t "naturalistic" is meaningless here because you use that term with reference to the flase concept of SN, God is SN nothing else is,</i><br /><br />I used "naturalistic" to contrast with God. Something outside our universe, but lacking all the qualities generally associated with God, such as purpose, love and goodness.<br /><br /><i>I am warranted imn believing they are experiences of God's presence</i><br /><br />Right, so when you said "The tie breakers <b>prove</b> it can't be" you meant in your opinion. I am getting used to this hyperbole.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-65854433916245703422016-10-11T08:46:45.482-07:002016-10-11T08:46:45.482-07:00Meta:That is exactly the point. The unnaturally an...<b>Meta:</b><i>That is exactly the point. The unnaturally anti-religious Brits are pitting two forms of knowledge against each other even though they don't compete. It is only an historical accident that religion and science can be opposed this way. Religion came first and was used to explain everything because they had not yet discovered segmentation of knowledge. Now we know about that so there's no reason to see them competing. Only the hyper anti-religious Brits who hate nuns and want to destroy religion.(yes I say that party tounge in cheek)</i><br /><br />So originally religion explained everything, now it explains much less. That is exactly the retreat the article talks about. Centuries ago, God could be seen in snowflakes and rainbows, now he hides away in so-called mystical experiences that most people never actually experience.<br /><br /><b>In addition to explaining thing it really explains it was also used to explaimn thing it really didn't explain but it was all they had,then they discovered science. God is still imn snow flakes. science has not God disproving validity. I feel that God is either the strong force or at least exerts the strong force so he's inanimately involved with everything at once without being creation itself,</b><br /><br /><br />You do not see that as a retreat because you are looking at religion after the retreat had happened. Sure it is not a retreat now. Now it is religion cowering in the basement, licking its wounds.<br /><br /><b>that's part of your them vs us mentality. That's a phony and self aggrandizing way to look at thin"winner" if everyone came to believe a lie in science's name I see that as humanity's loss. Knowledge is about truth not about empire,</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Meta:</b><i>I am not arguing with scientists but with atheists who think science is part of atheism</i><br /><br />Do you know any who do that? Or can we chalk this up to hyperbole again.<br /><br /><b>you mean other than you? lot's of atheists I have seen express such things</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Meta:</b><i>Not if God is real., Science does nothing to suggest God is not real.</i><br /><br />Sure. But what it does do is strip away all the reason we used to have for thinking he is real.<br /><br /><br /><b>No. I just it doesn't. what it does is eliminate a reason you see as the only reason,you can only understand reasons science implies.you can't see a non scientific reason as valid or important I do., I'm not into scientism,</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Meta:</b><i>God doesn't have origin because he's eternal. God is eternal because he's the standard the basis of reality. he is the origin of all things thus has no origin himself. he's off scale.</i><br /><br />And the entirely naturalistic, non-intelligent thing that actually engendered the universe does not have an origin because it is eternal. It is eternal because it is the standard the basis of reality. It is the origin of all things thus has no origin itself. It is off scale.<br /><br /><br /><b>doubingi t "naturalistic" is meaningless here because you use that term with reference to the flase concept of SN, God is SN nothing else is,</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Meta:</b><i>It can't be.that is want my book is about, The tie breakers prove it can't be.I disprove alternative causes in the book. Nor is the phrase unintelligent" meaningful. Thoughtful it's true God couldn't have an IQ it couldn't be measured but it's uncertain what you mean by the phrase, I suspect you mane non-aware not knowing that is false</i><br /><br />So to be clear, you are saying you can prove MEs come from God? This is not hyperbole, right? This is not merely a warrant to believe it, but actual proof?<br /><br /><br /><b>I am warranted imn believing they are experiences of God's presence</b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13132794744683347582016-10-11T05:06:24.357-07:002016-10-11T05:06:24.357-07:00That is exactly the point. The unnaturally anti-re...<i>That is exactly the point. The unnaturally anti-religious Brits are pitting two forms of knowledge against each other even though they don't compete. It is only an historical accident that religion and science can be opposed this way. Religion came first and was used to explain everything because they had not yet discovered segmentation of knowledge. Now we know about that so there's no reason to see them competing. Only the hyper anti-religious Brits who hate nuns and want to destroy religion.(yes I say that party tounge in cheek)</i><br /><br />So originally religion explained everything, now it explains much less. That is exactly the retreat the article talks about. Centuries ago, God could be seen in snowflakes and rainbows, now he hides away in so-called mystical experiences that most people never actually experience.<br /><br />You do not see that as a retreat because you are looking at religion after the retreat had happened. Sure it is not a retreat <i>now</i>. Now it is religion cowering in the basement, licking its wounds.<br /><br /><i>I am not arguing with scientists but with atheists who think science is part of atheism</i><br /><br />Do you know any who do that? Or can we chalk this up to hyperbole again.<br /><br /><i>Not if God is real., Science does nothing to suggest God is not real.</i><br /><br />Sure. But what it does do is strip away all the reason we used to have for thinking he <i>is</i> real.<br /><br /><i>God doesn't have origin because he's eternal. God is eternal because he's the standard the basis of reality. he is the origin of all things thus has no origin himself. he's off scale.</i><br /><br />And the entirely naturalistic, non-intelligent thing that actually engendered the universe does not have an origin because it is eternal. It is eternal because it is the standard the basis of reality. It is the origin of all things thus has no origin itself. It is off scale.<br /><br /><i>It can't be.that is want my book is about, The tie breakers prove it can't be.I disprove alternative causes in the book</i><br /><br />So to be clear, you are saying you can <b>prove</b> MEs come from God? This is not hyperbole, right? This is not merely a warrant to believe it, but actual proof?<br /><br />PixieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58742424176187423302016-10-11T03:29:40.495-07:002016-10-11T03:29:40.495-07:00MetaYou are only looking at it that way because fu...<b>Meta</b><i>You are only looking at it that way because fundies made such a big deal out of creationism. In Darwin's own day there were ministers who said that his theory proves Genesis and that's it';s in line with the Bible.It's only giving up ground if you think that is its proper ground, I don't.</i><br /><br />That is not quite the point. At one time religion "explained" all the strange stuff, from why are we here to what is lightning via why are there rainbows. Nowadays science dores it so much better. Religion has lost that territory, and the the respect that goes with it.<br /><br /><br /><b>That is exactly the point. The unnaturally anti-religious Brits are pitting two forms of knowledge against each other even though they don't compete. It is only an historical accident that religion and science can be opposed this way. Religion came first and was used to explain everything because they had not yet discovered segmentation of knowledge. Now we know about that so there's no reason to see them competing. Only the hyper anti-religious Brits who hate nuns and want to destroy religion.(yes I say that party tounge in cheek)</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Meta</b><i>Darwin did not invent evolution because he wished to destroy Christianity.</i><br /><br />Of course not, and the article specifically says that. Virtually no scientist wants to destroy Christianity, they want to do good science. They go where the evidence leads.<br /><br /><b>I am not arguing with scientists but with atheists who think science is part of atheism</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Meta</b><i>That's BS. Evolution does not explain where the universe came from It doesn't explain how live began, theories are not proof--even aside from that fine tuning also means you can't explain the success or evolution without an anthropic bias.</i><br /><br />Not sure what you are saying about fine-tuning, but evolution explained a huge amount about the world, and especially about its complexity. No, it does not explain where the universe comes from and nor does it explain abiogensis, but suddenly it was reasonable to suppose these things could be explained with having to invoke God.<br /><br /><b>Not if God is real., Science does nothing to suggest God is not real. There is no reason<br /> to assume that, God is still real and so it's not as though we can explain him away.</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Worth pointing out that religion cannot explain where God comes from - or at least any explanation can as readily be applied to a non-intelligent universe generator.<br /><br /><b>God doesn't have origin because he's eternal. God is eternal because he's the standard the basis of reality. he is the origin of all things thus has no origin himself. he's off scale.</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Meta</b><i>yes ME means we don't need to mess with origins in order to have a reason to believe in God, Scioenitism can only understand science oriented reasons, but we don;'t don;t nee that,</i><br /><br />Atheists see it a different way. We think that there is no reason to believe in God, given MEs can be explained in other ways.<br /><br /><br /><b>It can't be.that is want my book is about, The tie breakers prove it can't be.I disprove alternative causes in the book</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Meta</b><i>obviously a hyperbolic statement: you science guys need to learn literary devices</i><br /><br />Right. When you say he worships science, that is a literary device, and yet when I say the guy who runs a blog and forum on this stuff, oh and has published a book too, has an axe to grind, then it is taken literally. If I say there is a beam in your eye, it is a metaphorical beam.<br /><br /><b>your hatred of religion is so deep you have forgotten religion ks not the only ax or the only that clouds your objectivity. Blackemore is not objective in his hatred of religion it's not as though not literally worshipping science makes him objective or means he has no ax to grind.</b><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-23652978387806906902016-10-10T13:47:07.502-07:002016-10-10T13:47:07.502-07:00You are only looking at it that way because fundie...<br /><i>You are only looking at it that way because fundies made such a big deal out of creationism. In Darwin's own day there were ministers who said that his theory proves Genesis and that's it';s in line with the Bible.It's only giving up ground if you think that is its proper ground, I don't.</i><br /><br />That is not quite the point. At one time religion "explained" all the strange stuff, from why are we here to what is lightning via why are there rainbows. Nowadays science dores it so much better. Religion has lost that territory, and the the respect that goes with it.<br /><br /><i>Darwin did not invent evolution because he wished to destroy Christianity.</i><br /><br />Of course not, and the article specifically says that. Virtually no scientist wants to destroy Christianity, they want to do good science. They go where the evidence leads.<br /><br /><i>That's BS. Evolution does not explain where the universe came from It doesn't explain how live began, theories are not proof--even aside from that fine tuning also means you can't explain the success or evolution without an anthropic bias.</i><br /><br />Not sure what you are saying about fine-tuning, but evolution explained a huge amount about the world, and especially about its complexity. No, it does not explain where the universe comes from and nor does it explain abiogensis, but suddenly it was reasonable to suppose these things could be explained with having to invoke God.<br /><br />Worth pointing out that religion cannot explain where God comes from - or at least any explanation can as readily be applied to a non-intelligent universe generator.<br /><br /><i>yes ME means we don't need to mess with origins in order to have a reason to believe in God, Scioenitism can only understand science oriented reasons, but we don;'t don;t nee that,</i><br /><br />Atheists see it a different way. We think that there is no reason to believe in God, given MEs can be explained in other ways.<br /><br /><i>obviously a hyperbolic statement: you science guys need to learn literary devices</i><br /><br />Right. When you say he worships science, that is a literary device, and yet when I say the guy who runs a blog and forum on this stuff, oh and has published a book too, has an axe to grind, then it is taken literally. If I say there is a beam in your eye, it is a metaphorical beam.<br /><br />PixieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-60137990626140577862016-10-10T09:25:40.795-07:002016-10-10T09:25:40.795-07:00thanks for your comments Px
Okay, I see what you...thanks for your comments Px<br /><br /><br />Okay, I see what you are saying, but I am not sure that really addresses the point. Sure, modern religion has distanced itself from creationism and all that stuff, but by doing so it is giving up on more and more territory to science.<br /><br /><b>You are only looking at it that way because fundies made such a big deal out of creationism. In Darwin's own day there were ministers who said that his theory proves Genesis and that's it';s in line with the Bible.It's only giving up ground if you think that is its proper ground, I don't. Darwin did not invent evolution because he wished to destroy Christianity.</b><br /><br /><br />You intimate that life was [i]not[/i] a mystery that implied spiritual magic. Is that a serious claim on your part? I appreciate you do not hold to that, but I think it pretty certain that religion has made that claim, and for many it still does.<br /><br /><b>Merta:</b>What really strikes me as amateurish in Blakemore's thinking is his assertion that Darwin destroyed the reason to believe in God:<br /><br /><br /><br />Before Darwin, there was no explanation as to how mankind came about other than God did it. That made being an atheist very tricky. Suddenly that is explained. We do not need God to explain why mankind is here; science can do that. So yes, Darwin destroyed the necessity of believing in God. Sure, you have your mystical experiences, but even you admit they are merely a warrant for belief, not a necessity.<br /><br /><b>That's BS. Evolution does not explain where the universe came from It doesn't explain how live began, theories are not proof--even aside from that fine tuning also means you can't explain the success or evolution without an anthropic bias.<br /><br />yes ME means we don't need to mess with origins in order to have a reason to believe in God, Scioenitism can only understand science oriented reasons, but we don;'t don;t nee that,</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Meta:</b>He defines anything that is a scientific advancement as a victory over religion weather it disproves anything or not.<br /><br />No he does not.<br /><br /><b>yes he does he essentially said it</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Meta</b>I am sure the Christian filed mice are snug in their pretend sanctuary where they refuse to worship science as he does.<br /><br />What do you think "worship" is? Do you worship "God"? Do you really think this guy worships science in an analogous manner?<br /><br /><br /><b>obviously a hyperbolic statement: you science guys need to learn literary devices</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Meta</b>So He's admitted that he doesn't' understand the basis for religious thinking but we are still supposed to assume he's right about it being disproved by these things that he can't prove are disproofs?<br /><br />In reality, he is a lot less dogmatic in the article that you would have us think. But hey, you have an axe to grind.<br /><br /><b>I don't so</b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40927557077242978212016-10-10T08:09:16.030-07:002016-10-10T08:09:16.030-07:00... he says the relationship bewteen religion and ...<i>... he says the relationship bewteen religion and science as "a ches match." It's adversarial, it's a combat. Thus advances in science are automatically viewed as detraction for religion. He intimates this when he says that the discoveries of Watson and Crick were a defeat for religion because previously life was a mystery that implied spiritual magic. So this guy is not on bard with understanding religion in modern terms. He wants to see it as some long ago thing that scinece is beating up on. ...</i><br /><br />Okay, I see what you are saying, but I am not sure that really addresses the point. Sure, modern religion has distanced itself from creationism and all that stuff, but by doing so it is giving up on more and more territory to science.<br /><br />You intimate that life was [i]not[/i] a mystery that implied spiritual magic. Is that a serious claim on your part? I appreciate you do not hold to that, but I think it pretty certain that religion has made that claim, and for many it still does.<br /><br /><i>What really strikes me as amaturish in Blakemore's thinking is his assertion that Darwin destoryed the reason to believe in God:</i><br /><br />Before Darwin, there was no explanation as to how mankind came about other than God did it. That made being an atheist very tricky. Suddenly that is explained. We do not need God to explain why mankind is here; science can do that. So yes, Darwin destroyed the necessity of believing in God. Sure, you have your mystical experiences, but even you admit they are merely a warrant for belief, not a necessity.<br /><br /><i>He defines anything that is a scientific advancement as a victory over religion weather it disproves anything or not.</i><br /><br />No he does not.<br /><br /><i>I am sure the Christian filed mice are snug in their pretend sanctuary where they refuse to worship scinece as he does.</i><br /><br />What do you think "worship" is? Do you worship "God"? Do you really think this guy worships science in an analogous manner?<br /><br /><i>So He's admitted that he doesn't' understand the basis for religious thinking but we are still supposed to assume he's right about it being disproved by these things that he can't prove are disproofs?</i><br /><br />In reality, he is a lot less dogmatic in the article that you would have us think. But hey, you have an axe to grind.<br /><br />PixieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com