DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Very best of luck with that pocaracus.

Getting M4X to be 'Definitive' and exact on things when it comes to the developing pointy end of this discussion more often than not just seems to result in more 'Good feels' type language emerging from M4X.

The comming posts/replies will be interesting/edifying.........

[T0 Th3 M4X]

How can we determine which of us is right (if any)?

We don't.  We let God determine.

But... but... but...  

What if there is no god?
I know you are very certain that there is, but your personal experience, inner feelings and stuff like that are not indicative of the existence of any god. They may be indicative to you, yes... but not to me.
This is where our divide happens. Here is where we need to determine which of us is right (if any).
From your side, you may expect god to come through and sort it out on his own...
But from my side, I can't expect such a thing. I merely look at people's psychology and notice a pattern that holds for whatever belief there is. And this gives me the hint that whatever it is that you feel or experience isn't really a god, but rather your own psyche at work, influenced by the environment in which it was brought up.

It's not about me vs you.  As soon as it becomes that, then that's what we'll find.  A battle of me vs you.

Matt 7:7-8 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

God, being equal to His Word, would need to honor that, correct?  If so, let God determine by His word.

These words were written by men, spoken by a man, potentially that Zedek priest... Why do you say they're from god?

If there was nothing, then you wouldn't get a positive result.

If I say there is an apple on the tree, and you go out and do not see an apple on the tree, then you would conclude the negative.  You don't know for sure unless you seek the source.  The apple determines itself.  If the apple is there, then there you go.   If your own bias tells you not to look, that there is no such thing as an apple, or you simply don't care enough to look, then you will never know.  I can be part of the solution, but I'm not sufficient to be the answer.

As far as the priest goes, we can go round and round about who it was or is today, but either what that priest said is universal or it isn't. As far as empirically establishing the identity, then I would have to say, respectfully, I wouldn't attempt to at this time.

---

At work.

Very best of luck with that pocaracus.

Getting M4X to be 'Definitive' and exact on things when it comes to the developing pointy end of this discussion more often than not just seems to result in more 'Good feels' type language emerging from M4X.

The comming posts/replies will be interesting/edifying.........

Well I must say I appreciate your sense of humor.

Can't say I fully understand what you mean by "good feels" language, but if you mean trying to keep a positive tone, then it probably has a lot to do with professional background, and working with people who've experience some type of trauma or setback.  If you're working with someone who is suicidal or frantic, you gotta be careful with what you say, so you learn to put a positive spin on things.  Eventually you've done it so much it becomes habit.

Them - "It's such a horrible day."
Me - "At least the sun is shining. I may even work on my garden today.  Do you like gardening?"

If you meant something else, then blaming it on my eyeballs starting to get heavy from staring at the screen.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Was just commenting that when the pushing comes to shoving part/time of any conversation with yourself, M4X?

Your language use changes. It gets more flowery/huggy-feely or you flip a word/engage a synonym to ricochet the conversation off some place else.

Like above reply to pocaracus. All fluffy-feely analogy.

Still, all the very best with the dialog that's developing between M4X and pocaracus!

[pocaracas]

Very best of luck with that pocaracus.

Close your eyes...



Now open them.... read my nick slowly.
Read what you wrote.


I know, I know... it's a running gag that everyone gets my nick wrong... but I too must play my part of trying to act frustrated and correct you guys!

---

But... but... but...  

What if there is no god?
I know you are very certain that there is, but your personal experience, inner feelings and stuff like that are not indicative of the existence of any god. They may be indicative to you, yes... but not to me.
This is where our divide happens. Here is where we need to determine which of us is right (if any).
From your side, you may expect god to come through and sort it out on his own...
But from my side, I can't expect such a thing. I merely look at people's psychology and notice a pattern that holds for whatever belief there is. And this gives me the hint that whatever it is that you feel or experience isn't really a god, but rather your own psyche at work, influenced by the environment in which it was brought up.


These words were written by men, spoken by a man, potentially that Zedek priest... Why do you say they're from god?

If there was nothing, then you wouldn't get a positive result.

No necessarily...
Remember the Leprechaun... I told that story for a reason. And this was that exact reason: positive results can be had, even when the underlying phenomenon has nothing to do with the positive result obtained.
Especially in psychology!

If I say there is an apple on the tree, and you go out and do not see an apple on the tree, then you would conclude the negative.  You don't know for sure unless you seek the source.  The apple determines itself.  If the apple is there, then there you go.   If your own bias tells you not to look, that there is no such thing as an apple, or you simply don't care enough to look, then you will never know.  I can be part of the solution, but I'm not sufficient to be the answer.

What if I don't see the apple because you just saw a small balloon that's shaped like an apple?
Or if it's just a red leaf that's broad enough for you to confuse it with an apple? But, given that someone else had primed you to think that you'd find an apple, you saw it as an apple.
Priming, that's the word that corresponds with the psychological phenomenon here.
Have you ever heard one of those songs played backwards that allegedly feature some devilish incantation? Well, here's one small internet article on it, with a link to a proper study or two on the subject:
https://curiosity.com/topics/heres-why-m...curiosity/

If your brain can be primed to hear things, believe you me that it can be primed to see things... you may start reading about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)

As far as the priest goes, we can go round and round about who it was or is today, but either what that priest said is universal or it isn't. As far as empirically establishing the identity, then I would have to say, respectfully, I wouldn't attempt to at this time.

I know... it's speculation at best.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Very best of luck with that pocaracus.

Close your eyes...



Now open them.... read my nick slowly.
Read what you wrote.


I know, I know... it's a running gag that everyone gets my nick wrong... but I too must play my part of trying to act frustrated and correct you guys!    

---

If there was nothing, then you wouldn't get a positive result.

No necessarily...
Remember the Leprechaun...  I told that story for a reason. And this was that exact reason: positive results can be had, even when the underlying phenomenon has nothing to do with the positive result obtained.
Especially in psychology!

If I say there is an apple on the tree, and you go out and do not see an apple on the tree, then you would conclude the negative.  You don't know for sure unless you seek the source.  The apple determines itself.  If the apple is there, then there you go.   If your own bias tells you not to look, that there is no such thing as an apple, or you simply don't care enough to look, then you will never know.  I can be part of the solution, but I'm not sufficient to be the answer.

What if I don't see the apple because you just saw a small balloon that's shaped like an apple?
Or if it's just a red leaf that's broad enough for you to confuse it with an apple? But, given that someone else had primed you to think that you'd find an apple, you saw it as an apple.
Priming, that's the word that corresponds with the psychological phenomenon here.
Have you ever heard one of those songs played backwards that allegedly feature some devilish incantation? Well, here's one small internet article on it, with a link to a proper study or two on the subject:
https://curiosity.com/topics/heres-why-m...curiosity/

If your brain can be primed to hear things, believe you me that it can be primed to see things... you may start reading about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)

As far as the priest goes, we can go round and round about who it was or is today, but either what that priest said is universal or it isn't. As far as empirically establishing the identity, then I would have to say, respectfully, I wouldn't attempt to at this time.

I know... it's speculation at best.

If I tell you there's an apple, you look for an apple, and you see an apple on the tree, are you going to say it's a balloon, are you schizophrenic, or are you going to say it's an apple?  You know the apple because it has the attributes.  You can pull the apple off the tree, slice it, taste it.  At what point will you agree it's an apple?  Will you even look?  If you never look for the apple on the tree, you will not likely ever find the apple, and even if you did, you wouldn't know if it was the same apple.

If you want to talk about "priming", wouldn't it be fair to say that you could be priming yourself?  You have placed a limitation on what you can find, so you will only see that limitation.  You have predetermined the outcome.  I believe it would fall under negative episodic priming, meaning you have flagged something in your mind to ignore it.

I'm sure we could go through an endless list of whys and why nots.

[pocaracas]

If I tell you there's an apple, you look for an apple, and you see an apple on the tree, are you going to say it's a balloon, are you schizophrenic, or are you going to say it's an apple?  You know the apple because it has the attributes.  You can pull the apple off the tree, slice it, taste it.  At what point will you agree it's an apple?  Will you even look?  If you never look for the apple on the tree, you will not likely ever find the apple, and even if you did, you wouldn't know if it was the same apple.

That's not how the analogy goes.
It goes like this:
You tell me there's an apple on that tree.
I've spent a good deal of my life passing by the tree and never noticed any apple there.
Still, I take a look.
I see nothing that can be called an apple.
I see balloons, and leaves and other plastic trash that somehow flew over and got trapped on the tree branches.
I just don't see any apple.

Others come by and can't see any apple either.
But some of those others will tell me that there must be an apple, even if they themselves don't see it.
And a few others will tell me that they see the apple.



So, I cannot see the apple, even if I use the highest resolution apple-detector available, I can't find an apple on that tree.
If I can't find the apple and, even some that think there must be an apple will tell me that they can't find it either, I must conclude that the ones that claim to find the apple must have some problem with their perception of the apple.

Either that, or the apple is actively hiding from most of us.

If you want to talk about "priming", wouldn't it be fair to say that you could be priming yourself?  You have placed a limitation on what you can find, so you will only see that limitation.  You have predetermined the outcome.  I believe it would fall under negative episodic priming, meaning you have flagged something in your mind to ignore it.

I'm sure we could go through an endless list of whys and why nots.

Hehe.... or you flagged something in your mind to see what isn't there...?

It's because it works both ways that it's so difficult to say anything final about the subject.

Perhaps some sufficiently advanced AI will be able to help us out in this.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

If I tell you there's an apple, you look for an apple, and you see an apple on the tree, are you going to say it's a balloon, are you schizophrenic, or are you going to say it's an apple?  You know the apple because it has the attributes.  You can pull the apple off the tree, slice it, taste it.  At what point will you agree it's an apple?  Will you even look?  If you never look for the apple on the tree, you will not likely ever find the apple, and even if you did, you wouldn't know if it was the same apple.

That's not how the analogy goes.
It goes like this:
You tell me there's an apple on that tree.
I've spent a good deal of my life passing by the tree and never noticed any apple there.
Still, I take a look.
I see nothing that can be called an apple.
I see balloons, and leaves and other plastic trash that somehow flew over and got trapped on the tree branches.
I just don't see any apple.

Others come by and can't see any apple either.
But some of those others will tell me that there must be an apple, even if they themselves don't see it.
And a few others will tell me that they see the apple.



So, I cannot see the apple, even if I use the highest resolution apple-detector available, I can't find an apple on that tree.
If I can't find the apple and, even some that think there must be an apple will tell me that they can't find it either, I must conclude that the ones that claim to find the apple must have some problem with their perception of the apple.

Either that, or the apple is actively hiding from most of us.

If you want to talk about "priming", wouldn't it be fair to say that you could be priming yourself?  You have placed a limitation on what you can find, so you will only see that limitation.  You have predetermined the outcome.  I believe it would fall under negative episodic priming, meaning you have flagged something in your mind to ignore it.

I'm sure we could go through an endless list of whys and why nots.

Hehe.... or you flagged something in your mind to see what isn't there...?

It's because it works both ways that it's so difficult to say anything final about the subject.

Perhaps some sufficiently advanced AI will be able to help us out in this.

You're complicating the matter at hand though.  We're talking about a tree with an apple.  Maybe you've never walked by the tree before or maybe you simply haven't walked by recently.  Why add variables and create more bias?    The apple isn't determined by balloons, the past, plastic trash, or whatever.  It's determined by the attributes of an apple.  Put all the trash, balloons, and what not in the tree, and it still will not change the matter of the apple.

[Bucky Ball]

How can we determine which of us is right (if any)?

We don't.  We let God determine.

But... but... but...  

What if there is no god?
I know you are very certain that there is, but your personal experience, inner feelings and stuff like that are not indicative of the existence of any god. They may be indicative to you, yes... but not to me.
This is where our divide happens. Here is where we need to determine which of us is right (if any).
From your side, you may expect god to come through and sort it out on his own...
But from my side, I can't expect such a thing. I merely look at people's psychology and notice a pattern that holds for whatever belief there is. And this gives me the hint that whatever it is that you feel or experience isn't really a god, but rather your own psyche at work, influenced by the environment in which it was brought up.

It's not about me vs you.  As soon as it becomes that, then that's what we'll find.  A battle of me vs you.

Matt 7:7-8 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

God, being equal to His Word, would need to honor that, correct?  If so, let God determine by His word.

These words were written by men, spoken by a man, potentially that Zedek priest... Why do you say they're from god?

I think his name was Zadok ... but I didn't know he hadeth a lisp.

[LastPoet]

Lol, pocaracus.

Its a roman name fo sho.

[pocaracas]

That's not how the analogy goes.
It goes like this:
You tell me there's an apple on that tree.
I've spent a good deal of my life passing by the tree and never noticed any apple there.
Still, I take a look.
I see nothing that can be called an apple.
I see balloons, and leaves and other plastic trash that somehow flew over and got trapped on the tree branches.
I just don't see any apple.

Others come by and can't see any apple either.
But some of those others will tell me that there must be an apple, even if they themselves don't see it.
And a few others will tell me that they see the apple.



So, I cannot see the apple, even if I use the highest resolution apple-detector available, I can't find an apple on that tree.
If I can't find the apple and, even some that think there must be an apple will tell me that they can't find it either, I must conclude that the ones that claim to find the apple must have some problem with their perception of the apple.

Either that, or the apple is actively hiding from most of us.


Hehe.... or you flagged something in your mind to see what isn't there...?

It's because it works both ways that it's so difficult to say anything final about the subject.

Perhaps some sufficiently advanced AI will be able to help us out in this.

You're complicating the matter at hand though.  We're talking about a tree with an apple.  Maybe you've never walked by the tree before or maybe you simply haven't walked by recently.  Why add variables and create more bias?    The apple isn't determined by balloons, the past, plastic trash, or whatever.  It's determined by the attributes of an apple.  Put all the trash, balloons, and what not in the tree, and it still will not change the matter of the apple.

Such is the nature of the matter, for if I can't find the apple in the tree, I can't ascertain any other attributes of it. I can't touch it and pick it up, I can't open it, I can't smell it... It is a mighty tree, though.