A discussion on life (Scientific, not philosophical)
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
but I've heard you discuss evolution and it's very obvious that you don't understand it.
Well, that's possible. But, if so, it is obviously poorly presented in the mainstream media, because I've read a lot about it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Sceptics are the only ones willing to accept that they may be wrong.
Rubbish. I'm sorry, but that's just rarely true. In my experience, it's almost never true.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote: Sceptics are the only ones willing to accept that they may be wrong. Rubbish. I'm sorry, but that's just rarely true. In my experience, it's almost never true.
:^) Is it smell of skepticism... irony... and hypocrisy.
-
I upvoted you. Not because I agree, but because I respect your right to have a contrary opinion to me. That others downvoted rather than argue seem a little unfair, so have a bonus upvote! :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
*grin* thanks.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
therefore an infinite number of planets does not prove it is likely that there's life on any of them.
With infinite number of planets it's guaranteed that there is a planet with intelligent life which has another Christian Graus, but unlike Earth's CG, alien one is capable of using computers.
ROTFL !!! 5
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Evolution is defined as being a change in allele frequency over time. To not believe in it requires a complete rejection of the entire field of biology.
Just because I don't believe in spontaneous existence of life, doesn't mean I don't believe in some forms of evolution, that is, the ones that are provable and visibly occur. I may have said otherwise at some point, it's a field I've been reading on, precisely so that my views could be challenged and change if they needed to.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, in my experience it is.
LOL. Well, I'm sure you're open to being proven wrong, on your terms. That is, if someone comes along and presents a God that fits with what you think would be reasonable, that you'd have no choice but to accept it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Just because I don't believe in spontaneous existence of life
Which isn't evolution . . .
Christian Graus wrote:
doesn't mean I don't believe in some forms of evolution, that is, the ones that are provable and visibly occur.
So called 'macroevolution' follows inevitably from 'microevolution', and it is readily demonstrable.
Christian Graus wrote:
That is, if someone comes along and presents a God that fits with what you think would be reasonable, that you'd have no choice but to accept it.
No, I wouldn't believe it. Simply posing hypothetical entities is not enough - that's the point.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote: Sceptics are the only ones willing to accept that they may be wrong. Rubbish. I'm sorry, but that's just rarely true. In my experience, it's almost never true.
:^) Is it smell of skepticism... irony... and hypocrisy.
I agree - it's quite hypocritical for 'skeptics' to hold others to standards they cannot adhere to. But, it's just human nature, I guess. Like I said, the guy who runs the magazine of the skeptics association ( and I'm not claiming that skeptics are an organised body ), is very fair and reasonable, I've been reading his books and enjoying them, even when I disagree. But a lot of people just seem to take the most basic position, and a basic understanding of Occam's Razor, and they wield it to support their own views, often irrationally.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
I'd say it's rather safe to assume that she does not, because that assumption does not conflict with any observed phenomena.
And if God was as distant, as enigmatic and as unreachable as the pink unicorn, you'd have a point.
harold aptroot wrote:
It was never about "the simplest explanation", but rather "the simplest of two explanation that could both be correct".
OK, that's fair. But, my point is, there was a time when Occam's Razor would have been applied, such as what happened to Gallileo, and the more complex explanation was found in time to be correct. That was my point.
harold aptroot wrote:
but there has been a great history of things being blamed on god where the real (simpler, no god) cause was found later.
Well, no. As I said, that depends entirely on your definition of 'simpler'. It's simpler now because we KNOW the earth is round, and that the sky is full of stars. It's simple only in hindsight.
harold aptroot wrote:
As to god being illogical and unobservable.. that's just evading the problem in a way that IPU does.
I never said that. I said His logic doesn't have to be ours. He is certainly observable.
harold aptroot wrote:
I'm beginning to hope that someone finds proof that god does exist, that would be the only way to solve the problem for good. I would be surprised, though.
Like I said, edging towards the soapbox, but, God proves Himself to the individual, not on 60 Minutes. He DOES do it in ways He defines, not in weird and wonderful ways like 'I prayed and then I found my keys'.
harold aptroot wrote:
Also if he is so illogical and if he "purposefully does Not do what you would have expected", then why do you suppose he created life?
He's perfectly logical. It's just that we sometimes don't get it, usually through a myopic viewpoint. That is, the people who claim He is illogical do so b/c He didn't do things in the way they would have liked.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
"Simpler" is in this case "without unobserved magical beings" Galileo's solution was actually simpler, since it didn't require Venus to have a weird orbit. Could I get god to prove his existence to me? How?
Christian Graus wrote:
He's perfectly logical. It's just that we sometimes don't get it, usually through a myopic viewpoint. That is, the people who claim He is illogical do so b/c He didn't do things in the way they would have liked.
I don't get any of this. What god does makes sense simply because it was god who did it? Heretics are wrong by default? What is it that you're saying here?
Christian Graus wrote:
And if God was as distant, as enigmatic and as unreachable as the pink unicorn, you'd have a point.
But he isn't? Explain? I'm not a hardcore atheist like my father, so you might still convince me.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Just because I don't believe in spontaneous existence of life
Which isn't evolution . . .
Christian Graus wrote:
doesn't mean I don't believe in some forms of evolution, that is, the ones that are provable and visibly occur.
So called 'macroevolution' follows inevitably from 'microevolution', and it is readily demonstrable.
Christian Graus wrote:
That is, if someone comes along and presents a God that fits with what you think would be reasonable, that you'd have no choice but to accept it.
No, I wouldn't believe it. Simply posing hypothetical entities is not enough - that's the point.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Which isn't evolution . . .
Well, it is, in the sense that some sort of single cells protozoa is presumed to have evolved into all life around us.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, I wouldn't believe it. Simply posing hypothetical entities is not enough - that's the point.
And yet, presenting you with personal proof is also not enough, you'd rather reject as illogical what you refuse to test for yourself. Is that scientific ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not really. I am saying you need to be open to the possibility, sure.
I am open to the possibility.
Christian Graus wrote:
The non existence of a God who does things by your agenda, or mine, is not the same as there not being any God at all.
I'm not saying that god doesn't exist - I'm saying that belief without good evidence is irrational.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
belief without good evidence is irrational.
Belief: I believe that Salma Hayek would make tonight a spectacular one for me. Good evidence: I can't gather it since the judge signed the restraining order. Question: Does this mean that my belief in the wonder of Salma Hayek is irrational?
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
The "pain and suffering" argument has never been a good one for there being no god. The question is whether it's reasonable or not to believe in god, since god is essentially unfalsifiable, and I maintain that it isn't. The choice is apparently whether or not to believe in an undetectable entity that chooses to conduct its affairs only in ways that don't require its existence.
As I mentioned before, the argument made me remember about this mail and so I posted it. By the way, I am also a firm believer of Science and don't believe anything illogical. But I do believe that there is some power governing the universe and I call that power "THE GOD".
..Go Green..
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Which isn't evolution . . .
Well, it is, in the sense that some sort of single cells protozoa is presumed to have evolved into all life around us.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, I wouldn't believe it. Simply posing hypothetical entities is not enough - that's the point.
And yet, presenting you with personal proof is also not enough, you'd rather reject as illogical what you refuse to test for yourself. Is that scientific ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, it is, in the sense that some sort of single cells protozoa is presumed to have evolved into all life around us.
But where did the protozoan come from? That's what I took as your meaning.
Christian Graus wrote:
And yet, presenting you with personal proof is also not enough, you'd rather reject as illogical what you refuse to test for yourself. Is that scientific ?
Yes. The scientific method tries its utmost to remove the observer from the observation. Saying that an experiment will only work if the observer wants it to work hard enough is cringe-worthy.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm saying that belief without good evidence is irrational.
And I've said there is evidence, and the conversation stopped there.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
And I've said there is evidence, and the conversation stopped there.
Hey, I've already said that your evidence isn't really evidence at all.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Do you expect that life will be found elsewhere within our lives, and do you agree that it will be The Greatest Discovery Ever?
No and no. The Greatest Discovery Ever will be finding intelligent life right here on planet earth. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
No and no. The Greatest Discovery Ever will be finding intelligent life right here on planet earth in the programming forums.
FTFY
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Which isn't evolution . . .
Well, it is, in the sense that some sort of single cells protozoa is presumed to have evolved into all life around us.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, I wouldn't believe it. Simply posing hypothetical entities is not enough - that's the point.
And yet, presenting you with personal proof is also not enough, you'd rather reject as illogical what you refuse to test for yourself. Is that scientific ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
belief without good evidence is irrational.
Belief: I believe that Salma Hayek would make tonight a spectacular one for me. Good evidence: I can't gather it since the judge signed the restraining order. Question: Does this mean that my belief in the wonder of Salma Hayek is irrational?
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
This post highlights a comparatively recurrent problem for me: you've marked it as a joke. Does this mean that I can respond seriously, or should my reply also be a joke, or should I not reply at all? :confused: Please help me . . . :( ;P
-
I agree - it's quite hypocritical for 'skeptics' to hold others to standards they cannot adhere to. But, it's just human nature, I guess. Like I said, the guy who runs the magazine of the skeptics association ( and I'm not claiming that skeptics are an organised body ), is very fair and reasonable, I've been reading his books and enjoying them, even when I disagree. But a lot of people just seem to take the most basic position, and a basic understanding of Occam's Razor, and they wield it to support their own views, often irrationally.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
it's quite hypocritical for 'skeptics' to hold others to standards they cannot adhere to
What standards? :confused:
-
This post highlights a comparatively recurrent problem for me: you've marked it as a joke. Does this mean that I can respond seriously, or should my reply also be a joke, or should I not reply at all? :confused: Please help me . . . :( ;P
Take your pick. I really don't care whether or not your reply is humorous. We've strayed into religion into the Lounge, and that's something that should normally be avoided.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
And I've said there is evidence, and the conversation stopped there.
Hey, I've already said that your evidence isn't really evidence at all.
Yes, and you can feel good that people vote you a 5 for saying it - rejection of God based on refusing to investigate is, after all, what most people do. But, don't tell me you're open to being proven wrong and I am not, that's just plainly not true. I read books on evolution, and have changed some of my views. When did you last read the Bible ? You're welcome to your beliefs, and I respect your right to hold them. Just don't make the mistake of trying to take the high moral ground on this.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, it is, in the sense that some sort of single cells protozoa is presumed to have evolved into all life around us.
But where did the protozoan come from? That's what I took as your meaning.
Christian Graus wrote:
And yet, presenting you with personal proof is also not enough, you'd rather reject as illogical what you refuse to test for yourself. Is that scientific ?
Yes. The scientific method tries its utmost to remove the observer from the observation. Saying that an experiment will only work if the observer wants it to work hard enough is cringe-worthy.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But where did the protozoan come from? That's what I took as your meaning.
You are correct, I'm just saying, the two ideas are generally presented together, and it's assumed that rejecting or accepting one means accepting or rejecting the other.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The scientific method tries its utmost to remove the observer from the observation. Saying that an experiment will only work if the observer wants it to work hard enough is cringe-worthy.
So, again, there can't be a God because He won't obey your wishes. If He did, would He still be God ? It would surely be more cringeworthy if I suggested you observe the experience of others in my church, but not try to experience it for yourself ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But where did the protozoan come from? That's what I took as your meaning.
You are correct, I'm just saying, the two ideas are generally presented together, and it's assumed that rejecting or accepting one means accepting or rejecting the other.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The scientific method tries its utmost to remove the observer from the observation. Saying that an experiment will only work if the observer wants it to work hard enough is cringe-worthy.
So, again, there can't be a God because He won't obey your wishes. If He did, would He still be God ? It would surely be more cringeworthy if I suggested you observe the experience of others in my church, but not try to experience it for yourself ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
the two ideas are generally presented together
By creationists.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, again, there can't be a God because He won't obey your wishes.
Where did you get this from? :omg:
-
I upvoted you. Not because I agree, but because I respect your right to have a contrary opinion to me. That others downvoted rather than argue seem a little unfair, so have a bonus upvote! :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave