Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:When talking with people like Christians who believe that the universe and life within are miracles in and of themselves, then it really is an uphill battle trying to change views as to whether the miraculous can or does happen in life, whatever one means by such.

For me the fact I presently exist and the world I experience is held together running stable and predictable such that the Sun rose again this morning, such to me is nothing short of miraculous.

Either people see significance in such thereby allowing the possibility of the "miraculous", or they see nothing that significant at all and being born into their surroundings they just accept the brute fact of it all, nothing more, nothing less.

What makes you think those are the two and only two possibilities?

I'm a dichotimistist because either/or makes life decisions much more easy.
Can you think of a third?

Avoiding your topic drift, Audie notes that neither of your guesses was much good,
and that no verbal sleight of hand, howevrr transparent and inept, will make one of them correct.

For those who didn't know, Audie works for the law firm, Duck, Dodge, and Hyde.

Whenever a post addressed to her goes beyond the scientific, she begins to duck, dodge, or hide.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:When talking with people like Christians who believe that the universe and life within are miracles in and of themselves, then it really is an uphill battle trying to change views as to whether the miraculous can or does happen in life, whatever one means by such.

For me the fact I presently exist and the world I experience is held together running stable and predictable such that the Sun rose again this morning, such to me is nothing short of miraculous.

Either people see significance in such thereby allowing the possibility of the "miraculous", or they see nothing that significant at all and being born into their surroundings they just accept the brute fact of it all, nothing more, nothing less.

What makes you think those are the two and only two possibilities?

I'm a dichotimistist because either/or makes life decisions much more easy.
Can you think of a third?

Avoiding your topic drift, Audie notes that neither of your guesses was much good,
and that no verbal sleight of hand, howevrr transparent and inept, will make one of them correct.

Geesh, I was actually trying to impart understanding why it'd be difficult to make us see "the light of day" with regards to the non-miraculous. It just isn't going to happen because our starting points are diametrically opposed.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:When talking with people like Christians who believe that the universe and life within are miracles in and of themselves, then it really is an uphill battle trying to change views as to whether the miraculous can or does happen in life, whatever one means by such.

For me the fact I presently exist and the world I experience is held together running stable and predictable such that the Sun rose again this morning, such to me is nothing short of miraculous.

Either people see significance in such thereby allowing the possibility of the "miraculous", or they see nothing that significant at all and being born into their surroundings they just accept the brute fact of it all, nothing more, nothing less.

What makes you think those are the two and only two possibilities?

I'm a dichotimistist because either/or makes life decisions much more easy.
Can you think of a third?

Avoiding your topic drift, Audie notes that neither of your guesses was much good,
and that no verbal sleight of hand, howevrr transparent and inept, will make one of them correct.

For those who didn't know, Audie works for the law firm, Duck, Dodge, and Hyde.

Whenever a post addressed to her goes beyond the scientific, she begins to duck, dodge, or hide.

You are so full of crap.

Anyway, it is Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:When talking with people like Christians who believe that the universe and life within are miracles in and of themselves, then it really is an uphill battle trying to change views as to whether the miraculous can or does happen in life, whatever one means by such.

For me the fact I presently exist and the world I experience is held together running stable and predictable such that the Sun rose again this morning, such to me is nothing short of miraculous.

Either people see significance in such thereby allowing the possibility of the "miraculous", or they see nothing that significant at all and being born into their surroundings they just accept the brute fact of it all, nothing more, nothing less.

What makes you think those are the two and only two possibilities?

I'm a dichotimistist because either/or makes life decisions much more easy.
Can you think of a third?

Avoiding your topic drift, Audie notes that neither of your guesses was much good,
and that no verbal sleight of hand, howevrr transparent and inept, will make one of them correct.

Geesh, I was actually trying to impart understanding why it'd be difficult to make us see "the light of day" with regards to the non-miraculous. It just isn't going to happen because our starting points are diametrically opposed.

Oh, you are just duckin' and dodgin'

We are actually further apart, I dinnt know you were attempting that nor was I trying to let you see any light if day.

But yeah, starting points are nothing alike.

For one, to me, "seeing" god in what is about you is really just seeing into
a mirror you project between you and what is acgually there.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

What makes you think those are the two and only two possibilities?

I'm a dichotimistist because either/or makes life decisions much more easy.
Can you think of a third?

Avoiding your topic drift, Audie notes that neither of your guesses was much good,
and that no verbal sleight of hand, howevrr transparent and inept, will make one of them correct.

Geesh, I was actually trying to impart understanding why it'd be difficult to make us see "the light of day" with regards to the non-miraculous. It just isn't going to happen because our starting points are diametrically opposed.

Oh, you are just duckin' and dodgin'

We are actually further apart, I dinnt know you were attempting that nor was I trying to let you see any light if day.

But yeah, starting points are nothing alike.

For one, to me, "seeing" god in what is about you is really just seeing into
a mirror you project between you and what is acgually there.

Exactly, so given the starting points are nothing alike, then really it's kind of pointless tackling the symptoms of such in Christian people. I'm just seeing it through your eyes, placing myself in your frustration here debating miracles.

When a person foundationally sees the universe and life itself as a miracle, then obviously they'll have a view of the world that more or less allow "miracles". Some Christians overly so, it doesn't leave my attention to the point of being kookish. Then some overly charismatic types will fall for your Benny Hinn "snake oils".

Then there are another category of Christians, who wouldn't accept such at all unless thoroughly put to the test. They have what I consider to be a healthy skepticism, yet do remain open to the possibility of miracles because their starting point allows for such.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:
I'm a dichotimistist because either/or makes life decisions much more easy.
Can you think of a third?

Avoiding your topic drift, Audie notes that neither of your guesses was much good,
and that no verbal sleight of hand, howevrr transparent and inept, will make one of them correct.

Geesh, I was actually trying to impart understanding why it'd be difficult to make us see "the light of day" with regards to the non-miraculous. It just isn't going to happen because our starting points are diametrically opposed.

Oh, you are just duckin' and dodgin'

We are actually further apart, I dinnt know you were attempting that nor was I trying to let you see any light if day.

But yeah, starting points are nothing alike.

For one, to me, "seeing" god in what is about you is really just seeing into
a mirror you project between you and what is acgually there.

Exactly, so given the starting points are nothing alike, then really it's kind of pointless tackling the symptoms of such in Christian people. I'm just seeing it through your eyes, placing myself in your frustration here debating miracles.

When a person foundationally sees the universe and life itself as a miracle, then obviously they'll have a view of the world that more or less allow "miracles". Some Christians overly so, it doesn't leave my attention to the point of being kookish. Then some overly charismatic types will fall for your Benny Hinn "snake oils".

Then there are another category of Christians, who wouldn't accept such at all unless thoroughly put to the test. They have what I consider to be a healthy skepticism, yet do remain open to the possibility of miracles because their starting point allows for such.

Is that the long way of saying that confirmation bias on the part of credulous people leads to beliefs that are really quite outlandish?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:
Avoiding your topic drift, Audie notes that neither of your guesses was much good,
and that no verbal sleight of hand, howevrr transparent and inept, will make one of them correct.

Geesh, I was actually trying to impart understanding why it'd be difficult to make us see "the light of day" with regards to the non-miraculous. It just isn't going to happen because our starting points are diametrically opposed.

Oh, you are just duckin' and dodgin'

We are actually further apart, I dinnt know you were attempting that nor was I trying to let you see any light if day.

But yeah, starting points are nothing alike.

For one, to me, "seeing" god in what is about you is really just seeing into
a mirror you project between you and what is acgually there.

Exactly, so given the starting points are nothing alike, then really it's kind of pointless tackling the symptoms of such in Christian people. I'm just seeing it through your eyes, placing myself in your frustration here debating miracles.

When a person foundationally sees the universe and life itself as a miracle, then obviously they'll have a view of the world that more or less allow "miracles". Some Christians overly so, it doesn't leave my attention to the point of being kookish. Then some overly charismatic types will fall for your Benny Hinn "snake oils".

Then there are another category of Christians, who wouldn't accept such at all unless thoroughly put to the test. They have what I consider to be a healthy skepticism, yet do remain open to the possibility of miracles because their starting point allows for such.

Is that the long way of saying that confirmation bias on the part of credulous people leads to beliefs that are really quite outlandish?

Of course, that is true. Equally, there's a type of innocence don't you think, naivety to such, sense of adventure? They'd be more likely fun to be around, I'd probably find myself laughing more with such than a boring stick in the mud.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Geesh, I was actually trying to impart understanding why it'd be difficult to make us see "the light of day" with regards to the non-miraculous. It just isn't going to happen because our starting points are diametrically opposed.

Oh, you are just duckin' and dodgin'

We are actually further apart, I dinnt know you were attempting that nor was I trying to let you see any light if day.

But yeah, starting points are nothing alike.

For one, to me, "seeing" god in what is about you is really just seeing into
a mirror you project between you and what is acgually there.

Exactly, so given the starting points are nothing alike, then really it's kind of pointless tackling the symptoms of such in Christian people. I'm just seeing it through your eyes, placing myself in your frustration here debating miracles.

When a person foundationally sees the universe and life itself as a miracle, then obviously they'll have a view of the world that more or less allow "miracles". Some Christians overly so, it doesn't leave my attention to the point of being kookish. Then some overly charismatic types will fall for your Benny Hinn "snake oils".

Then there are another category of Christians, who wouldn't accept such at all unless thoroughly put to the test. They have what I consider to be a healthy skepticism, yet do remain open to the possibility of miracles because their starting point allows for such.

Is that the long way of saying that confirmation bias on the part of credulous people leads to beliefs that are really quite outlandish?

Of course, that is true. Equally, there's a type of innocence don't you think, naivety to such, sense of adventure? They'd be more likely fun to be around, I'd probably find myself laughing more with such than a boring stick in the mud.

Say something that I can argue with.

Say something that I can argue with.

Ok, but you did tell me to.

1) You believe in stuff too, like either the universe popping into existence, multiverse or the like which has no tangible evidence for. That counts as credulous in my books.

2) I'm right about God and you're wrong.

Kurieuo wrote:

Say something that I can argue with.

Ok, but you did tell me to.

1) You believe in stuff too, like either the universe popping into existence, multiverse or the like which has no tangible evidence for. That counts as credulous in my books.

2) I'm right about God and you're wrong.

Bo-ring

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Say something that I can argue with.

Ok, but you did tell me to.

1) You believe in stuff too, like either the universe popping into existence, multiverse or the like which has no tangible evidence for. That counts as credulous in my books.

2) I'm right about God and you're wrong.

Bo-ring

Audie, if I may, I wonder what philosophical implications you see regarding the origin of the universe, which although not strictly speaking relevant to evolution focusses material/theistic thought. Mainstream science, I think, simply doesn't go there, saying that we can follow the expansion of the universe backwards just so far and no further, at which point we can only express ignorance. Others, mathematicians mostly, have been exploring variations on numerous universes all appearing at once, or appearing out of each other, or some kind of cyclic inflation and deflation which had no beginning. Without pressing you to defend any of these to the hilt, do you incline towards any of them, or are you content with what we can know for sure?

hughfarey wrote:Audie, if I may, I wonder what philosophical implications you see regarding the origin of the universe, which although not strictly speaking relevant to evolution focusses material/theistic thought.

Binary-wise, I suppose either something we'd call "god' is behind it, or, not.
That may or may not make any difference, to us anyway.

Mainstream science,

I think a person might be a bit careful with that term "mainstream science".
As contrasted with what? "Mainstream" is a term much used in such as creosites, tabloids, UFO and other such irresponsible fringe sources.

Why do you use it?

I think, simply doesn't go there, saying that we can follow the expansion of the universe backwards just so far and no further, at which point we can only express ignorance.

Like the children's' game of asking "why" 2 or 3 times in a row. Taking a bit of a long view here, humans have been around for a very long time, and in that time its only been the last hundred and some years that anything very fundamental and sophisticated-or seemingly so-has been learned about such things.

Of course you soon arrive at ignorance in any inquiry.

Others, mathematicians mostly, have been exploring variations on numerous universes all appearing at once, or appearing out of each other, or some kind of cyclic inflation and deflation which had no beginning.

Yes, I read an interesting book somewhat over my head, on that. Physics gets so mind boggling that one is apt to back away from it.

Without pressing you to defend any of these to the hilt, do you incline towards any of them, or are you content with what we can know for sure?

[/quote]

I offer no defense or explanation of theoretical astrophysics. I am not a mathematical thinker. I kind of liked the idea that our universe is but one of an infinite number constantly coming into existence, and behind it all is nothing but math.

Content..

It is a bit like asking if I am content being a female living in the 21st
century. Or with the colour of the sky. Its just how things are.

Could you identify something that is known for sure?

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote: Mainstream science,

I think a person might be a bit careful with that term "mainstream science". As contrasted with what? "Mainstream" is a term much used in such as creosites, tabloids, UFO and other such irresponsible fringe sources.

I think it is sometimes important to distinguish between the conventional, dull, well-established and coherent world most scientists dwell in, and the imaginative, exciting, largely speculative and often incoherent world of the scientific fringe.

hughfarey wrote: I think, simply doesn't go there, saying that we can follow the expansion of the universe backwards just so far and no further, at which point we can only express ignorance.

Audie wrote:Like the children's' game of asking "why" 2 or 3 times in a row. Taking a bit of a long view here, humans have been around for a very long time, and in that time its only been the last hundred and some years that anything very fundamental and sophisticated-or seemingly so-has been learned about such things. Of course you soon arrive at ignorance in any inquiry.

You do indeed, and then what? Sit around at the edge wondering what might happen beyond, or leave it and go and find something else to think about? Both equally reasonable, just demonstrating a difference in attitude.

Audie wrote:I offer no defense or explanation of theoretical astrophysics. I am not a mathematical thinker. I kind of liked the idea that our universe is but one of an infinite number constantly coming into existence, and behind it all is nothing but math.

Fair enough. To what extent do you think "math" can actually do things, rather than describe things that are being done?

Audie wrote:Content.. It is a bit like asking if I am content being a female living in the 21st century. Or with the colour of the sky. Its just how things are. Could you identify something that is known for sure?

Perhaps it was a clumsy form of words. I suppose I just wondered what kind of speculation about the origin of the universe you incline towards, or if you don't really incline to any of them. I think your answer about math might have answered that.