God is completely inadequate to explain anything whatsoever

[Whateverist]

INB4 "You don't know what you're talking about! God is a necessary being! Bla, bla, bla!"

Necessary you say?  Well that's different then.  I must be mistaken then.  

[Drich]

In the article "Brains Wide Shut" published in a collection of them appearing in the book The Brain, Patricia Churchland disparages Daniel Dennet's book Consciousness Explained for adequately explaining nothing about consciousness.  She argues there are four criteria for pronouncing a theory of consciousness as adequate.  Such a theory must explain the main properties in sufficient detail to satisfy four conditions:

1)  we understand how macro events emerge from the properties and the organization of the micro events;

2)  novel phenomena can be predicted;

3)  the system can be manipulated;

4)  and it is clear at what level of brain organization the phenomenon resides.

So it occurred to me that of all the things God has been alleged to explain, I wonder how nearly adequate Churchland would find any such explanation.  Regarding the creation of the cosmos, what level of God's properties and organization are thought to account for it?  Regarding supernatural manipulation reported in miracles, can this God theory predict when new instances will occur?  Regarding the vouchsafing of objective moral values, what aspect precisely of God's organization explains such a thing?

The irony...

You do understand that science in it's completely understanding of the literal macro verse (the cosmos/universe/dimensonal theory) none of it jives or rather the same rules in the macro-verse do not apply in the micro verse. Meaning the rules governing the physics of planetary alignment and even the big bang are completely wrong when applied to micro bodies and phenoma. in otherwords the laws and throeys governing the big stuff, does not work when descrbing stuff on a micro level.

Now given 'science' in ability to reconcile change on it's very own macro level in relation to event changes on a micro level I ask you the same question. Why turn to science when looking for the solution for the "hard problem?"

Consciousness has the reputation of being the "hard problem", but compared to Christian god theory it is simple.  Leastwise the way forward to an adequate theory is not problematic.  Neuroscience will simply continue to unravel the brains complexity until something satisfying emerges.

So science will keep guessing and at some point in eternity future you faith tells you science will get it right.

Riddle me this. how is faith in that science will at some point find it's way, but the Same faith in God is pointless?

No pathway toward an adequate God theory seems possible where its advocates start out assuming the ways of God are beyond their powers.

Glob..
Just because in the beginning God's ways are beyond your ways why oh why would you assume that you would never be able to understand anything more than what you do now? Oh. that's right because 'science' feigns absolute knowledge right now. (meaning until the next throey comes along)

 In place of theory, Christians just advocate compliance with the organizing principles of religion.

Certain sects may do this, but in general we have been called/required to learn as much as we can about God. we do this by A/S/K. Petitioning the Holy SPirit for knowledge and wisdom, we seek for answers and truth in the bible and we repeat this till God grants us what we want.

 But then the ends of religion never were to explain origins or morality or the supernatural.  The ends of religion have always been appeasement.

Religion may not explain these thing but the bible does indeed go into depth.

[Anomalocaris]

In the article "Brains Wide Shut" published in a collection of them appearing in the book The Brain, Patricia Churchland disparages Daniel Dennet's book Consciousness Explained for adequately explaining nothing about consciousness.  She argues there are four criteria for pronouncing a theory of consciousness as adequate.  Such a theory must explain the main properties in sufficient detail to satisfy four conditions:

1)  we understand how macro events emerge from the properties and the organization of the micro events;

2)  novel phenomena can be predicted;

3)  the system can be manipulated;

4)  and it is clear at what level of brain organization the phenomenon resides.

So it occurred to me that of all the things God has been alleged to explain, I wonder how nearly adequate Churchland would find any such explanation.  Regarding the creation of the cosmos, what level of God's properties and organization are thought to account for it?  Regarding supernatural manipulation reported in miracles, can this God theory predict when new instances will occur?  Regarding the vouchsafing of objective moral values, what aspect precisely of God's organization explains such a thing?

Consciousness has the reputation of being the "hard problem", but compared to Christian god theory it is simple.  Leastwise the way forward to an adequate theory is not problematic.  Neuroscience will simply continue to unravel the brains complexity until something satisfying emerges.  No pathway toward an adequate God theory seems possible where its advocates start out assuming the ways of God are beyond their powers.  In place of theory, Christians just advocate compliance with the organizing principles of religion.  But then the ends of religion never were to explain origins or morality or the supernatural.  The ends of religion have always been appeasement.

No kidding, if “god” was actually a reasonable explanation, then it would have been too complex an explanation for anyone dumb enough to be a Christian to be comfortable with.

[Minimalist]

Riddle me this. how is faith in that science will at some point find it's way, but the Same faith in God is pointless?

Because "god" is a fantasy you silly twat.

[Whateverist]

The irony...

You do understand that science in it's completely understanding of the literal macro verse (the cosmos/universe/dimensonal theory) none of it jives or rather the same rules in the macro-verse do not apply in the micro verse. Meaning the rules governing the physics of planetary alignment and even the big bang are completely wrong when applied to micro bodies and phenoma. in otherwords the laws and throeys governing the big stuff, does not work when descrbing stuff on a micro level.

Now given 'science' in ability to reconcile change on it's very own macro level in relation to event changes on a micro level I ask you the same question. Why turn to science when looking for the solution for the "hard problem?"

No one understands everything by way of science, but what we do know about the earth and life we owe to science.  No one understands anything about the earth or life who relies on the bible or a/s/k'ing.  People can very well decide what matters to them without consulting science, but then how one feels about things is not what the hard problem is about.

Science obviously is appropriate to understanding consciousness because no consciousness has ever been encountered outside of a living being, and out of all the live, conscious beings on this planet only we seem to be able to talk about what we experience.  So examining the living bodies of human beings using all the tools available to science is very promising though far from a trivial task.  Most of what is known about the brain's role in consciousness have come from examining injuries to the brain and the effects on behavior/experience of those individuals.  If you're interested there is a lot of research available.

Consciousness has the reputation of being the "hard problem", but compared to Christian god theory it is simple.  Leastwise the way forward to an adequate theory is not problematic.  Neuroscience will simply continue to unravel the brains complexity until something satisfying emerges.

So science will keep guessing and at some point in eternity future you faith tells you science will get it right.

Riddle me this. how is faith in that science will at some point find it's way, but the Same faith in God is pointless?

Nope, science isn't in the business of guessing.  While I do rely on faith in a great deal of personal matters, I have none at all in science.  I merely recognize science for the splendid tool it is as witnessed by its many achievements, as well by understanding how it works.  I suppose you're suggesting that hypotheses formed for the purpose of testing are 'guesses' or else that the theories formed on the basis of all the results of those tests are 'guesses'.  If so, you are being willfully ignorant and there is no point in wasting my time with you.

No pathway toward an adequate God theory seems possible where its advocates start out assuming the ways of God are beyond their powers.

Glob..
Just because in the beginning God's ways are beyond your ways why oh why would you assume that you would never be able to understand anything more than what you do now? Oh. that's right because 'science' feigns absolute knowledge right now. (meaning until the next throey comes along)

Science does not feign absolute knowledge and if you insist on saying this kind of nonsense there is no point in discussing anything with you.  Science is supreme where testable knowledge is concerned.  The hard problem of consciousness has already shown itself amenable to incremental progress by way of applying the scientific method.  By contrast, faith in God will never yield any progress toward solving that problem because religion, unlike science, is not relevant to it.

 In place of theory, Christians just advocate compliance with the organizing principles of religion.

Certain sects may do this, but in general we have been called/required to learn as much as we can about God. we do this by A/S/K. Petitioning the Holy SPirit for knowledge and wisdom, we seek for answers and truth in the bible and we repeat this till God grants us what we want.

I accept that you have found this method relevant to you for clarifying your values and personal belief.  I recognize reflection has a useful method for such things, and even in science inspiration sometimes plays a roll by granting insight into possibilities which can then be tested.  James Watson is said to have stumbled upon the double helix form of DNA by dreaming of a spiral staircase which let to he and Crick receiving Nobel prizes.  But if they had not connected the dream to the structure of DNA and found ways to confirm it by testing, it would not be accepted now.

 But then the ends of religion never were to explain origins or morality or the supernatural.  The ends of religion have always been appeasement.

Religion may not explain these thing but the bible does indeed go into depth.

The bible is a rambling conglomeration of a great many things which has never been of any interest to me.  But if you think there are answers to important empirical questions to be found there, do not expect to gain any credit for the discovery unless and until you are able to confirm those answers by testing them, and reconciling them to what else is known in whatever field of study they might belong.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Mary Magdalene. 

Boru

[Drich]

No one understands everything by way of science, but what we do know about the earth and life we owe to science.

If I said the same about God you would be mocking me right now. Science is aloof to the vast majority of this planet's goings on's.
if you think not, then are we in a period of global warming or cooling? "Scientist can not agree so they use the term 'climate change." Is there a hole in the Ozone? what caused it? What repaired it if anything?

 No one understands anything about the earth or life who relies on the bible or a/s/k'ing.

 So to can it be said that no one knows the rules and requirements of obtaining boy scout merit badges when only using the bible. Why? because like 'science' the boy scouts are an exclusive club with it's own charter and rules apart from the bible. You are making an unfair comparison. As the bible was never meant to be read as a scientific tome. That said, one may ask Can the bible be reconciled with anything and everything science says by simply A/S/King? absolutely. I was given to an explanation that took all of 10 mins to process and completely understand. And I have changed nothing actually written in the bible nor in science. All I have done was take away the traditional reading of Genesis 1-3 and the whole of Genesis will fit any scientific theory.

People can very well decide what matters to them without consulting science, but then how one feels about things is not what the hard problem is about.

You missed my original point. You used a book concerning conscientiousness to judge God, and I was pointing out that is you use this very same measure against your science it fails in the same way God does.  Your above statement seems to indicate you issed the whole point that your measure of God via the conscientiousness argument was a fools errand as it does not support anything but the authors own world view.

Science obviously is appropriate to understanding consciousness because no consciousness has ever been encountered outside of a living being, and out of all the live, conscious beings on this planet only we seem to be able to talk about what we experience.

 But again 'science' can not explain consciousness it only observes it. to 'explain it' would allow one to reproduce it. at best we can mimic it.

So examining the living bodies of human beings using all the tools available to science is very promising though far from a trivial task.  Most of what is known about the brain's role in consciousness have come from examining injuries to the brain and the effects on behavior/experience of those individuals.  If you're interested there is a lot of research available.

again you describe observation. The bible can also be used as a tool of observing conscientiousness, but you judged it inadequate because it can not explain it to a scientific standard. but, again the point you miss neither can science!!!

So science will keep guessing and at some point in eternity future you faith tells you science will get it right.

Riddle me this. how is faith in that science will at some point find it's way, but the Same faith in God is pointless?

Nope, science isn't in the business of guessing.

Not deeply familiar with the term "theory or hypothesis are you?" Science uses these terms to fool people like you that the smartest of the smart are doing little more than guessing. and because they are guessing it takes FAITH to accept these guesses/hypothsis as 'scientific theory or facts." The Same FAITH it takes to accept what God has said in the bible.

All things being equal why is your 'faith' any more valid that the faith of a believer?

 While I do rely on faith in a great deal of personal matters, I have none at all in science.  I merely recognize science for the splendid tool it is as witnessed by its many achievements, as well by understanding how it works

Here's the thing though.. "Science" is divided into 2 fields practical and theoretical. Now don't get me wrong. I have made a very good living for myself and my employees exploiting practical science, as practical science is what makes your fridge work your cell phone transmit data and you car to start and run. That is not the 'science' of Darwin. that is not the 'science' paleontology, or achology or even astrology let alone the fringe science that competes with God. Meaning the 'science' you all reference to try and claim origins ext..

.  I suppose you're suggesting that hypotheses formed for the purpose of testing are 'guesses' or else that the theories formed on the basis of all the results of those tests are 'guesses'.  If so, you are being willfully ignorant and there is no point in wasting my time with you.

Are those guess ever over turned or found wrong?

Again practical science needs no faith.
Theoretical science is ALL FAITH

You all have been fooled into thinking they are the same.

Science does not feign absolute knowledge and if you insist on saying this kind of nonsense there is no point in discussing anything with you.

 That's bullshit. Do you even know of a secondary theory to explain the fossil records that is not or even opposite to Darwinism?
Why? because Darwinism is the most popular 'science has adopted it as being the only possible theory and as such no other theories are taught. I know of several cmpeting theories that explain the same fossil record in three different ways.

Science is supreme where testable knowledge is concerned.

In a 3 dimensional world I agree, but if you add time, science is worthless. or even if you take one of the three dimensions and put it out of reach (like from here to the nearest black hole) science becomes a guessing game. (or are you not aware of the other explanations to black holes?) The problem with God is at the very least Jesus belongs to time and as such becomes a guessing game to the worshipers of science, but yet that will never be admitted. So the brand of 'science' will be postured as absolute truth, and those trained to process infor though the channels f science will see it as such.

 The hard problem of consciousness has already shown itself amenable to incremental progress by way of applying the scientific method.  By contrast, faith in God will never yield any progress toward solving that problem because religion, unlike science, is not relevant to it.

That is like saying "ice breakers gum is the only gum to have flavor crystals." Do you get it? What are flavor crystals? the are little chunks of candied peppermint. Now is it impossible for other gum to have candied peppermint in it? In truth? no. will 'ice breakers allow anyone else to call their candied peppermint flavor crystals? No. Nothing outside the realm of ice breakers gum can be considered a 'flavor crystal.' Like wise in science they have a whole host of copyrighted terms that will not span the gap back to koine' Greek.

Now that said can the Koine' Greek be used to break those terms down to their roots ( like candied peppermint) and find parallels in the bible? Absolutely. will it go in depth as 'science's flavor crystals?" no.

Now take that a step further and have someone train/indoctrinated to only look for the 'flavor crystal terms' or terms only used by science and cut them loose on a koine Greek book. And nothing of value will be discerned from the book that originated in a different time and language. You guys don't even get how biased your arguments are. You are all hammers looking for nails, with no idea that there are other ways to faster material together.

Certain sects may do this, but in general we have been called/required to learn as much as we can about God. we do this by A/S/K. Petitioning the Holy SPirit for knowledge and wisdom, we seek for answers and truth in the bible and we repeat this till God grants us what we want.

I accept that you have found this method relevant to you for clarifying your values and personal belief.  I recognize reflection has a useful method for such things, and even in science inspiration sometimes plays a roll by granting insight into possibilities which can then be tested.  James Watson is said to have stumbled upon the double helix form of DNA by dreaming of a spiral staircase which let to he and Crick receiving Nobel prizes.  But if they had not connected the dream to the structure of DNA and found ways to confirm it by testing, it would not be accepted now.

Religion may not explain these thing but the bible does indeed go into depth.

The bible is a rambling conglomeration of a great many things which has never been of any interest to me.  But if you think there are answers to important empirical questions to be found there, do not expect to gain any credit for the discovery unless and until you are able to confirm those answers by testing them, and reconciling them to what else is known in whatever field of study they might belong.
[/quote]

The bible is the key to life's greatest questions. Who we are, why we are here where we are going. If you are enraptured with the flora on the sides of the road then I can see why the bible/God have very little use in your life.

[vorlon13]

Stephen Hawking applied quantum mechanics to black holes. It's how they evaporate (slowly).

Hawking is even able to explain the spectra of his Hawking Radiation as being related to the mass of the black hole.


The most massive objects detected in the universe are subject to quantum mechanical annihilation !!!


(science orgasm)

[Minimalist]

If I said the same about God you would be mocking me right now.

Right.  Because "god" is your delusion, fool.

[Whateverist]

Science obviously is appropriate to understanding consciousness because no consciousness has ever been encountered outside of a living being, and out of all the live, conscious beings on this planet only we seem to be able to talk about what we experience.

 But again 'science' can not explain consciousness it only observes it. to 'explain it' would allow one to reproduce it. at best we can mimic it.

I'm still working my way through your response but this is the first part where it appears you both understood my statement and I am understanding yours. Before this part I fear we are talking past each other.

Anyhow the article I quoted gave four criteria by which we should judge an adequate theory of consciousness:

1) we understand how macro events emerge from the properties and the organization of the micro events;

2) novel phenomena can be predicted;

3) the system can be manipulated;

4) and it is clear at what level of brain organization the phenomenon resides.

Being able to reproduce it is not on the list. Being able to create a thing from scratch isn't a requirement for understand much about life so I don't see why it should be a criteria where consciousness is concerned. She does mention being able to manipulate and predict responses, but that is a far different matter than creating consciousness in the lab. Hell we can't even produce more than the components of life in a lab currently. I'm pretty sure that can be done. Not so sure about consciousness, leastwise not of our type. (I personally think AI will never do so.)

---

So science will keep guessing and at some point in eternity future you faith tells you science will get it right.

Riddle me this. how is faith in that science will at some point find it's way, but the Same faith in God is pointless?

Nope, science isn't in the business of guessing.

Not deeply familiar with the term "theory or hypothesis are you?" Science uses these terms to fool people like you that the smartest of the smart are doing little more than guessing. and because they are guessing it takes FAITH to accept these guesses/hypothsis as 'scientific theory or facts." The Same FAITH it takes to accept what God has said in the bible.

All things being equal why is your 'faith' any more valid that the faith of a believer?

Side note:

---

My gawd but your quotes are a rat's nest to untangle. And please don't write conscientiousness if what you means is consciousness; that's really bogging me down.

---

Anyhow, the part I bolded is just a gratuitous slander of scientists' intentions which you cannot possibly know. Or else you think this is just an unintended outcome of their work. Either way it is a false equivocation to suggest that the testing of hypotheses and the building of the best explanatory theories which best account for all the accumulated observations (i.e., science) is every bit as dependent on guessing and blind faith as reading the bible and then chatting with God in prayer to be sure you have understood correctly. There are absolutely no checks to keep you from deluding yourself while A/S/K.'ing whereas peer review will keep the incompetent scientist in check.

Go A/S/K God about this and see if He can straighten you out on this point. If He sides with you, then seriously ask yourself how much 'God' is really just you telling you what you want to hear.