God Became a Mirage

[Kyuuketsuki]

No, all that being an atheist means is that you don't believe in god or gods ... EVERYTHING else is negotiable.

That's what I said

Maybe you should try saying it clearer?

Some theists maybe and all (without exception) do not put their religious belief through an acceptable formalised system of peer review.

I don't accept YOUR acceptable system.

You would ask a group of non scientists to be a peer review group for science? Of course you wouldn't. that would be ridiculous. Apply the same logic to your statement please.

OK ... let me try and explain peer review to you.

Science fully supports the critical examination of all scientific theories (even the want to be one) all the time. This is done via a process called "peer review" which ALL that scientific papers must go through before they are published and is performed (and often administered) by scientists with relevant qualifications and a great deal of experience. This process is does not (as some would us believe) hobble the search for knowledge but in fact opens up the whole of modern natural philosophy to all of the scientists all of the time. By the very act of publishing ones work others are made aware of it and a given generalisation is brought into an arena where it can be tested by them. Peer-review is essentially a formalised version of scientific challenge and the difference that process makes is immense ... everything every scientist does (or group of scientists do) is checked (peer-reviewed) by others. That doesn't mean mistakes can't happen, frauds can't be perpetrated but it does mean that such mistakes (purposeful or otherwise) will one day, almost certainly, be uncovered and reversed and also ensures that the research that does get published is of a high standard and represents our best current understanding of the phenomena being discussed. Some people are fond of highlighting what they see as the mistakes of science (creationists, for instance, are fond of pointing out examples such as Piltdown man, Nebraska Man and others) but in reality such examples are more notable for the fact that scientists (not those related to the critics) later uncovered the fraud or flaw and can thus be seen as an example of science doing exactly what science should ... self-correcting. It is also the reason why pseudo-scientific material does not tend to get published in reputable scientific journals ... it simply isn't of a high enough standard and pseudo-scientists typically prefer to appeal to like minded theistic individuals and to "common sense" style reasoning in the general population. Though such critics claim otherwise the real reason their material doesn't get published in reputable scientific journals is because if they attempted to do so their claims would be ripped to shreds so quickly that it would hardly have been worth applying their twisted reasoning to paper. The reason that pseudo-science "theories" do not typically appear in scientific literature is for the very same reason that astrology, parapsychology, ghosts, the lost of Atlantis, little green men in flying saucers and other similar crackpot "theories" don't appear.

OK ... there are other aspects to it but that's essentially how scientific peer-review journals work, by making all of science open to all of science ALL the time and it does this through thousands upon thousands of scientific journals such as the more general ones, "Science" & "Nature" and countless numbers of other more specialised ones such as:

AUTONOMIC NEUROSCIENCE-BASIC & CLINICAL
AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ECOTOXICOLOGY
ACS CHEMICAL BIOLOGY

Now please note those are just three of 558 journals listen under the Biological Abstracts for, now pay attention please, the letter A ... can you envisage just how many more there are ... I'm talking serious, scientific journals.

Now please, if you would be so good, describe to me these claimed religious peer-reviewed journals you refer to, please explain the process by which they are peer-reviewed, please explain how it all fits in with a set of varied cults all of whom are basically at philosophical war with each other (inasmuch as all of them believe themselves to be the chosen religion and none of them believe the others are). Please explain this to me.

OK, so you maintain you have predictive dreams. Care to test that claim? Make a prediction ... something that is beyond the normal ability of humans to rationally anticipate future events.

I have absolutely no control over these dreams. Like I said, these dreams are all personal. It's not like a plane is going to crash or anything external to my personal experience. That's just how it is.

In other word, not to put too fine a point on it, you're bullshitting! Just like any other supernatural flake you simply reinterpret your dream rubbish to become something else AFTER THE FACT.

I thought as much.

So where's your god again?

Like I said above, it's ridiculous to evaluate something using the completely wrong tool. Your foundational premise is flawed.

In other words, "Oh no it isn't [sticks fingers in ears] La la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la!"

Colour me impressed ... oh, I'm sorry ... I'm not, not in the slightest!

If all observable aspects of God exist outside of the universe then it is, by definition, supernatural and can have no impact on the universe or anything within it and, as such, science can safely discard it.

This doesn't follow. If God is supernatural or outside this universe, why can't he interact with this universe?

Because, if that universe is everything that can be observed (potentially or otherwise) and it is by definition, no information can pass across the boundary of that universe.

Why should God's nature and our nature be mutually exclusive? Our nature can't detect his so therefore his nature can't detect ours. That sounds like playground logic. ???

ROFLMFAO ... will you just take a step back and look at yourself? I'm using playground logic? You're deluded!

Science meets it's end point, our nature. To theorise outside this limitation is beyond science. Science fails.

Science has never been established to have any limits except by current levels of technology and the ability to resolve finely enough ... whi the hell do you think you are, Michael Behe?

Fail. Try again.

You have some nerve to post crap like you just did and then tell me I failed ... sorry but you're an idiot if you think that.

Kyu