(October 10, 2013 at 6:42 am)Lion IRC Wrote: (...)we think we DO know.

Yes, that has some track record...

(October 10, 2013 at 6:52 am)LastPoet Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 6:42 am)Lion IRC Wrote: (...)we think we DO know.

Yes, that has some track record...

Yes, they are in the same group that thinks Elvis is still alive and working at a laundromat in Pasadena. Except the Elvis is alive crowd is a whole lot nicer and more "Christlike."

(October 10, 2013 at 6:42 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 6:36 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Science is the product of mind/consciousness.
How about you start with simple single cell abiogenesis FIRST.
Then you can have a crack at explaining how consciousness arose.

So I have to account for literally everything in the universe that led up to the modern scientific method before I can use the scientific method? The one that is useful in that it has the ability to explain those things? You can't honestly be that stupid.

But, I'll tell you what: you explain to me how god created everything, and then you can have a crack at using the intelligence you think he gave you to communicate with me sufficient to ask me a question. I mean, it's only fair, under your logic.

God is conscious, intelligent "mind".

Information is only perceived by minds.

If we perceive information, design, intent, free will, scientific methods which conform to a SYSTEM that makes epistemic 'sense', then either we ARE God or we are LIKE God.

You say information is 'accidental' or an illusion and that fine tuning is just some massive trompe l'oeil but we see both chaos AND order. We can discern the laws of nature (which make science possible) AND we can see/imagine alternatives where those laws break down or defy intuition.

God can invoke a singularity like something out of nothing quicker than you can say "quantum weirdness". And the beauty of The God Conclusion is that we aren't left wondering why or being forced to invoke "gaps reasoning" by way of words like...mutation, spontaneous, random, dark energy, multiverse, uncertainty principle,.

(October 10, 2013 at 7:10 am)Lion IRC Wrote: God can invoke a singularity like something out of nothing quicker than you can say "quantum weirdness". And the beauty of The God Conclusion is that we aren't left wondering why or being forced to invoke "gaps reasoning" by way of words like...mutation, spontaneous, random, dark energy, multiverse, uncertainty principle,.

So, like Sword of Christ, your position boils down to "I don't understand things any better than you do, but I want an answer, so I'm going to pretend."

There's nothing beautiful about a comfortable lie, Lion. There's nothing elegant or correct about simplistic answers to complex problems simply to avoid dealing with uncertainty. You've come into this science thing and completely misunderstood the basic premise.

It's not "let's have an answer." It's "let's find the correct answer."

Let me put it another way: "The beauty of the Space Leprechauns answer is that we aren't left wondering why..."

Wondering isn't a bad thing. Not knowing isn't a weakness. Lying to yourself and others is, though.

Hi Lion

1) A singularity isn't 'something out of nothing'. Get a textbook.

2) The whole purpose of having a null hypothesis is so that candidate explanations can be properly tested against a defined standard. It's serves to make the whole process robust. Again - kindly go and learn about proper scientific methods if you can't see how that's preferable to just saying "I know how it all came about Goddiddit phew now I feel better". Stop being silly.

I mean, by all means propose the god idea as a H1 hypothesis, and provide evidence to support it. Why are the theists in this thread so reluctant to do that? Surely, if it's true beyond doubt as you seem to think it is, then you'll have no difficulty providing evidence that a daft atheist on the internet such as me will be unable to evade?

Or is the problem that you have no evidence?

(October 10, 2013 at 6:42 am)Lion IRC Wrote: How does the group that says...we don't know,
serve us better than the group which says...we think we DO know.

You're seriously asking that question?

We don't know what causes X so we're going to assume that it was Y, regardless of the evidence to back that up? Saying "I don't know" is the first step to intelletual integrity.

Please don't tell me you actually espouse that position, Lion. You seem like a pretty smart guy, in all honesty.

(October 10, 2013 at 7:20 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 6:42 am)Lion IRC Wrote: How does the group that says...we don't know,
serve us better than the group which says...we think we DO know.

You're seriously asking that question?

We don't know what causes X so we're going to assume that it was Y, regardless of the evidence to back that up? Saying "I don't know" is the first step to intelletual integrity.

Please don't tell me you actually espouse that position, Lion. You seem like a pretty smart guy, in all honesty.

The null hypothesis is not always we do not know.

Life forms with vast complexity exist. They came into being somehow.

The vast complexity of life means someone with vast intelligence and power created life, aka God the Creator. That is very much in keeping with scientific observation of intelligent design.

So the null hypothesis, H0, is that God created all things.

Your hypothesis, H1, is that the vast complexity of life came into being without intelligence, a very radical theory since there is no evidence for it.

P(H1) = 0 or approximately 0 based on simple statistics.

(October 10, 2013 at 7:40 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: The null hypothesis is not always we do not know.

But it's never "godidit."

Quote:The vast complexity of life means someone with vast intelligence and power created life, aka God the Creator. That is very much in keeping with scientific observation of intelligent design.

"Scientific observation," and "intelligent design" are complete opposites. Which is why you're so recalcitrant to mention any of these findings and the people who wrote them.

... Or debate about it fairly.

Quote:So the null hypothesis, H0, is that God created all things.

Oh, just fuck off, you idiot. It's so clear you don't understand science in the slightest.

(October 10, 2013 at 7:40 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 7:20 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: You're seriously asking that question?

We don't know what causes X so we're going to assume that it was Y, regardless of the evidence to back that up? Saying "I don't know" is the first step to intelletual integrity.

Please don't tell me you actually espouse that position, Lion. You seem like a pretty smart guy, in all honesty.

The null hypothesis is not always we do not know.

When you're approaching the topic from complete ignorance, yes it is. guessing is just that; guessing. Depending on the topic at hand, there is a statistical probabilty you are 100% correct. However, given the almost infinite chances that you are wrong, the probability is somwhere close to 0%.

(October 10, 2013 at 7:40 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Life forms with vast complexity exist. They came into being somehow.

Somehow. I agree.

(October 10, 2013 at 7:40 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: The vast complexity of life means someone with vast intelligence and power created life, aka God the Creator. That is very much in keeping with scientific observation of intelligent design.

FALSE.

There, you've just done it! You've made an assertion based on nothing but an argument from ignorance fallacy. Congratulations on proving my point.

(October 10, 2013 at 7:40 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: So the null hypothesis, H0, is that God created all things.

Only if you're insane, Grace. You're not insane, are you?

Don't answer that.

(October 10, 2013 at 7:40 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Your hypothesis, H1, is that the vast complexity of life came into being without intelligence, a very radical theory since there is no evidence for it.

P(H1) = 0 or approximately 0 based on simple statistics.

Don't me LOL. 'Simple statistics'?

You're dealing with something that is anything but simple, and casually dismissing it as though someone were asking you to point to the number 1 on a piece of paper that has a large '1' in font size 1000. 'Radical theory'? More or less radical than your particular version of whatever god it is you worship beginning everything? You're making me LOL, Grace. I warned you not to do that.

and, FYI, my null hypothesis is that 'we don't know'. There could well indeed be something that seeded life. I haven't rejected that outright. But I reject your claims based on no evidence aside mere assertions and arguments from ignorance on your part.

Do you get the difference? Probably not. What year in school are you in?

The point at which Grace fails to acknowledge that the god hypothesis is a candidate H1, and not an H0 as he/she claims, is the point at which we've won.

Better luck next time Gracie. You look foolish at the moment.