Crazy Bible Stories

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Forgive me for sounding befuddled again, but you could take it serious IF you are interested, to discuss, debate and dispel all sorts of amazing claims, just as serious as it is, on most of the religion topics on many many threads?

A little mockery in humour is tolerable, perhaps sometimes I may reply with a little sarc/ironic undertone when responding.

Were you "interested" or serious when taking part on ALL those "magic dragon" discussions throughout the Religion section on this forum?
Troll or not a troll is the question IOWs.

Moogly's point was that you, and Christians in general, dismiss out of hand any claims of magic including other religion's magic as nonsense not worth discussing. For example, Joseph Smith's miracles have millions of believers and yet most Christians see the story as obvious nonsense. The same for other religions, past and present.

And yet Christians can not understand how or why anyone could possibly not accept their tales of magic as obviously true and take them seriously.

I can't know for certain why he won't answer a very simple, honest question but am led to think he sees a difference between claiming a dragon and claiming a god. If both have the same inexplicable powers that defy scientific observation, and if both claims are sincerely held there isn't any difference one would think. Some religions have their gods and creator beings as exactly that, and some are animals and other things.

I can accept he's making an honest claim in saying they are still not the same, but that's just another un-evidenced claim that seems to be the norm in religious circles, my spookiness is real and your spookiness isn't.

 

[bilby]

... snip ...

No sample of the divine is required to test divine interactions with matter - just an exhaustive list of all interactions matter can have with anything. We have such a list. There are four (and only four) such interactions at human scales. Divine interactions are impossible, unless they use one of those four forces, in which case they would be very easily detected.

And, of those four, only two of them will be noticed by the average human unless they are involved somehow with nuclear/atomic physics or radiation.

Well Happy Hurah, we're touching upon the point I was making, although not quite, (Id' say God uses all the forces ).

When do you instantly peep into the QM world to catch or monitor a divine-manipulation in progress? How easy would it be to monitor such an event, if such a Divine intervention just apreared all of a sudden?

Logically imo, you would need a contiuous divine event, lasting enough time to setup to monitor and capture it's progression -which would be ideal for the theists. No specimen unfrotunately to make such claims!

Knowing when or where, is problematic and having the monitor devices in the right place and time from any location in the world is impossible. Setting up a lab doesn't mean you'll ATTRACT miracles events (so to speak) just because you chose to build your lab in a sunny spot in California - which would be really missing the mark if the DI event happens in Waikiki.

Knowing God proved to be impossible (by faith) because " you know all four forces", is simply a flawed argument, regardless of whether or not God exists.

Not at all. Having established that all material interactions are via the four forces of the Standard Model, we don't just stop, and say "therefore there's no gods ". We can examine the various claims of religions, in the light of our knowledge, and see whether these forces are acting to produce the effects and influences they claim. For example, when someone dies, we must (if claims of an afterlife are true) expect to see these forces acting to transfer their "soul" from their physical body. Yet all attempts to do this have failed.

If someone claims that a material object produces photons (or gravitational effects, gluons, or W particles), that's easy to test. There's no debate about whether a lightbulb or a radio transmitter or an X-ray machine produces photons; There's no debate about whether massive objects attract each other gravitationally (despite this effect being very weak indeed). These effects are obvious and easy to detect, and they occur (detectably) every single time that conditions are right for them - and yet you are asking us to accept that similarly routine events (such as death) have an effect that is mediated by one of the four forces, but we haven't ever detected this occurring. That's simply impossible.

Not only is it impossible, but if it was happening, it would be easy for you to prove unequivocally. If I claim that a lightbulb produces light, when supplied with electricity, and you are (rightly) skeptical and won't just accept my word for it, it's a trivial matter for me to flick a switch and prove to you that those photons really are produced. Nobody's going to accept the bunkum that a lightbulb in california works fine, even though nobody sees any light coming from it, on the basis that it might be illuminating a room in Hawaii.

If there's still debate about the existence of something that is claimed to exist, is easily proven to exist, but has never been actually demonstrated, then that's just an intellectual failure on the part of the claimant. If you have a god, or a soul, or a lightbulb, and you want others to accept that you really do have these things, all you need to do is show them. And if you don't, won't, or can't, then it's perfectly reasonable for them to assume that you don't have them. Indeed it would be crazy to do anything else.

 

[skepticalbip]

So you are back to magic and shifting the burden of proof, insisting it is true unless magic can be disproven. I have absolutely no reason to accept your claim that you have a one liter bottle that will hold fifty gallons of water. It is your burden to produce your magic bottle it you want anyone to accept it is real.

Atrib is right. I am befuddled with responses like these.

What are you saying? Are you then in agreement to the notion that it IS proven there can be no such thing as God or Creator, because of the physics reagrding knowing all four forces?

You are claiming that god (for which there is absolutely no evidence of existing) could use those forces to interact with humans with no explanation how he could manipulate something like gravity to cure cancer when he chooses to. Then expecting atheists to accept this as a reasonable argument and 'prove' it is nonsense.

I haven't shifted the burden at all (nice try again). You (plural) took on the burden of proof by claiming the above that not even Dawkins would claim. You (plural) strangley want to stay in this area (many posts along), perhaps thinking this an advantage when oddly this its not an argument that either side can really use at all as proof. Hence its better to go with what we do have thats visible and tangible etc.and etc!

Exactly... we have physics that explains human-scale reality so well that we can use it to manipulate our reality to suit our needs. Then we have some intangible imaginary god that doesn't seem at all useful in any tangible way even when earnestly appealed to by a large congregation to save some dying child.

 

[Learner]

Not at all. Having established that all material interactions are via the four forces of the Standard Model, we don't just stop, and say "therefore there's no gods ". We can examine the various claims of religions, in the light of our knowledge, and see whether these forces are acting to produce the effects and influences they claim. For example, when someone dies, we must (if claims of an afterlife are true) expect to see these forces acting to transfer their "soul" from their physical body. Yet all attempts to do this have failed.

As I said in a previous post. Someone claiming to know "what it may look like" - what they would expect to be looking for, seems to be suggesting that it would be "likely", that IF... such a thing was possible - a soul would be visible at a noticeable level to detect. You can't detect so easily (if at all) any fundamental interactions like, actually "see" a graviton as you would do, looking at cells under a microscope. So how would one tell or rule out (prematurely) any possibilty, if a soul were to be below the visible threshold for detection?

There would undoubtedly be failures in these tests but not necessarily giving the correct conclusion, that such things are said to be impossible - especially when the soul has for some reason, already been given its properties and the expectations that this would be the criteria for detection .

If someone claims that a material object produces photons (or gravitational effects, gluons, or W particles), that's easy to test. There's no debate about whether a lightbulb or a radio transmitter or an X-ray machine produces photons; There's no debate about whether massive objects attract each other gravitationally (despite this effect being very weak indeed). These effects are obvious and easy to detect, and they occur (detectably) every single time that conditions are right for them - and yet you are asking us to accept that similarly routine events (such as death) have an effect that is mediated by one of the four forces, but we haven't ever detected this occurring. That's simply impossible.

I was saying previously in the context: that the forces would be affected by a subdivisional-level interaction below the observable threshold as I mention above, which would give the very same result you mention: "We haven't ever detected this occuring."

Not only is it impossible, but if it was happening, it would be easy for you to prove unequivocally. If I claim that a lightbulb produces light, when supplied with electricity, and you are (rightly) skeptical and won't just accept my word for it, it's a trivial matter for me to flick a switch and prove to you that those photons really are produced. Nobody's going to accept the bunkum that a lightbulb in california works fine, even though nobody sees any light coming from it, on the basis that it might be illuminating a room in Hawaii.

If there's still debate about the existence of something that is claimed to exist, is easily proven to exist, but has never been actually demonstrated, then that's just an intellectual failure on the part of the claimant. If you have a god, or a soul, or a lightbulb, and you want others to accept that you really do have these things, all you need to do is show them. And if you don't, won't, or can't, then it's perfectly reasonable for them to assume that you don't have them. Indeed it would be crazy to do anything else.

Acknowledged, and I wouldn't use this area of physics to claim God exists - even by the idea that you can't prove God doesn't exist so therefor....

 

[bilby]

As I said in a previous post. Someone claiming to know "what it may look like", what they would expect to be looking for (so it sounds), seems to be suggesting that it would be "likely", IF... such a thing was possible - a soul would be visible at a noticeable level to detect. You can't detect so easily (if at all) any fundamental interactions like, actually "see" a graviton as you would do, looking at cells under a microscope. So how would one tell or rule out (prematurely) any possibilty, if a soul to be below the visible threshold for detection? There would undoubtedly be failures in these tests but not necessarily giving the correct conclusion, e.g. such things are impossible - especially when a soul has for some reason, been given its properties and the expectations that this would be the criteria for detection .




I was saying previously in the context: that the forces would be affected by a subdivisional-level interaction below the observable threshold as I mention above, which would give the very same result you mention: "We haven't ever detected this

You are grasping at straws. Our ability to detect any of the four forces isn't at issue; We can easily detect these forces, and we can also determine the minimum necessary amount of each to have an effect implied by a given claim. If you want to claim that gravity is significant in cellular level interactions, you are just going to get laughed at. Gravity is so pathetic that the entire mass of planet earth can't overcome the magnetic influence of a 1 gram fridge magnet.

Not only is it impossible, but if it was happening, it would be easy for you to prove unequivocally. If I claim that a lightbulb produces light, when supplied with electricity, and you are (rightly) skeptical and won't just accept my word for it, it's a trivial matter for me to flick a switch and prove to you that those photons really are produced. Nobody's going to accept the bunkum that a lightbulb in california works fine, even though nobody sees any light coming from it, on the basis that it might be illuminating a room in Hawaii.

If there's still debate about the existence of something that is claimed to exist, is easily proven to exist, but has never been actually demonstrated, then that's just an intellectual failure on the part of the claimant. If you have a god, or a soul, or a lightbulb, and you want others to accept that you really do have these things, all you need to do is show them. And if you don't, won't, or can't, then it's perfectly reasonable for them to assume that you don't have them. Indeed it would be crazy to do anything else.

Acknowledged, and I wouldn't use this area of physics to claim God exists - even by the idea that you can't prove God doesn't exist so therefor....

I have proven that god doesn't exist. That you are insufficiently educated in the current state of physics to understand the proof isn't my problem.

 

[Learner]

You are claiming that god (for which there is absolutely no evidence of existing) could use those forces to interact with humans with no explanation how he could manipulate something like gravity to cure cancer when he chooses to. Then expecting atheists to accept this as a reasonable argument and 'prove' it is nonsense.

How you are putting it, I think I agree with you.

Exactly... we have physics that explains human-scale reality so well that we can use it to manipulate our reality to suit our needs. Then we have some intangible imaginary god that doesn't seem at all useful in any tangible way even when earnestly appealed to by a large congregation to save some dying child.

Fair point of view.

 

[Learner]

You are grasping at straws. Our ability to detect any of the four forces isn't at issue; We can easily detect these forces, and we can also determine the minimum necessary amount of each to have an effect implied by a given claim. If you want to claim that gravity is significant in cellular level interactions, you are just going to get laughed at. Gravity is so pathetic that the entire mass of planet earth can't overcome the magnetic influence of a 1 gram fridge magnet.

No claims made from me as you put it in your quote above.

I have proven that god doesn't exist. That you are insufficiently educated in the current state of physics to understand the proof isn't my problem.

You can't get that proof in physics ... not yet.

(ordering physics for dummies)

 

[bilby]

You are grasping at straws. Our ability to detect any of the four forces isn't at issue; We can easily detect these forces, and we can also determine the minimum necessary amount of each to have an effect implied by a given claim. If you want to claim that gravity is significant in cellular level interactions, you are just going to get laughed at. Gravity is so pathetic that the entire mass of planet earth can't overcome the magnetic influence of a 1 gram fridge magnet.

No claims made from me as you put it in your quote above.

I have proven that god doesn't exist. That you are insufficiently educated in the current state of physics to understand the proof isn't my problem.

You can't get that proof in physics ... not yet.

Yes, you can. Have been able to since 2012 - you are more than seven years out of date.

(ordering physics for dummies)

Good idea.

 

[DBT]

The physical world appears to work according to the attributes and principles of physics, not someone behind the stage pulling strings. It is matter/energy that manifests the physical world and how it behaves, gravity, light, electricity, chemical interactions, etc.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The physical world appears to work according to the attributes and principles of physics, not someone behind the stage pulling strings. It is matter/energy that manifests the physical world and how it behaves, gravity, light, electricity, chemical interactions, etc.

I don't think those points are in dispute. The un-evidenced claim is that none of that is possible unless something is holding it all together behind the scenes, a Great Enabler if you will. And further, that nothing is enabling the Great Enabler.

To a rational observer the opposite is true, un-evidenced claims about a Great Enabler would not be there unless the universe and it's myriad detail were first present.

 

[Lion IRC]

I love quantum physics.
It's spooky.

Which of the nine or ten interpretations of QM do you love? All of them? Some of them?

Nine is enough but a tenth is just icing on the cake. Beautiful.

The physical world appears to work according to the attributes and principles of physics, not someone behind the stage pulling strings. It is matter/energy that manifests the physical world and how it behaves, gravity, light, electricity, chemical interactions, etc.

Agency is a thing. Get used to it.

 

[DBT]

Nine is enough but a tenth is just icing on the cake. Beautiful.

The physical world appears to work according to the attributes and principles of physics, not someone behind the stage pulling strings. It is matter/energy that manifests the physical world and how it behaves, gravity, light, electricity, chemical interactions, etc.

Agency is a thing. Get used to it.

View attachment 25392

Gravity is agency (effecting matter/energy objects), so is the strong force, weak force, electromagnetism.....but, gosh, where, oh, where is 'God' - whatever that is supposed to be?

 

[Lion IRC]

Gravity can or can't decide how/when it wants to propagate?
Electromagnetism is or is not scientifically predictable?

 

[skepticalbip]

Agency is a thing. Get used to it.

View attachment 25392

That is a nice example of the Fallacy of composition... assuming that what is true for a specific (human intention causing an event) means that everything that happens requires conscious intent.

 

[Lion IRC]

"Another characteristic of logical fallacies is that they are not always easy to spot, especially to the untrained mind."
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...llacies/205/What-is-a-Logical-Fallacy-Exactly

Dr. Bo's Three Criteria for a Logical Fallacy

...the standard conception of "fallacy" where the error in reasoning must apply to argumentation.

It must be an error in reasoning not a factual error.
It must be commonly applied to an argument either in the form of the argument or in the interpretation of the argument.
It must be deceptive in that it often fools the average adult.

Yes, lots of people commit ACTUAL "...this/therefore/that" logical fallacies.
But the bigger problem is folks who are so bad at logic that they can't even tell the difference between an actual and an imaginary logical fallacy.

 

[DBT]

Gravity can or can't decide how/when it wants to propagate?
Electromagnetism is or is not scientifically predictable?

Decisions are not necessary for actions to take place.

 

[Lion IRC]

Wouldn't it be easier for you to just come out and say it - you don't believe in free will?

 

[skepticalbip]

"Another characteristic of logical fallacies is that they are not always easy to spot, especially to the untrained mind."
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...llacies/205/What-is-a-Logical-Fallacy-Exactly

Dr. Bo's Three Criteria for a Logical Fallacy

...the standard conception of "fallacy" where the error in reasoning must apply to argumentation.

It must be an error in reasoning not a factual error.
It must be commonly applied to an argument either in the form of the argument or in the interpretation of the argument.
It must be deceptive in that it often fools the average adult.

Yes, lots of people commit ACTUAL "...this/therefore/that" logical fallacies.
But the bigger problem is folks who are so bad at logic that they can't even tell the difference between an actual and an imaginary logical fallacy.

Are you saying that you don't recognize the logical fallacy of showing a man leaver a stone to imply that if something happens without human intent then, obviously action requires intent (the stone wouldn't move otherwise), it had to be done through god's intent? Or are you perhaps guilty of committing the fallacy of assuming the conclusion?

 

[DBT]

Wouldn't it be easier for you to just come out and say it - you don't believe in free will?

Gravity doesn't need will in order to act upon matter/energy objects. Nor is the decision making process a matter of will. The world at large functions without conscousness or will.

 

[Lion IRC]

"The world at large" is only perceived by observers who know the difference between volition and compulsion. Who or what else comprehends something called... "the world at large"?

The unconscious lever doesn't choose to lift the rock. The unconscious fulcrum isn't thinking about what's gong on around it. It's not gravity consciously deciding to use one inanimate object to lift another inanimate object.