What would count as proof of God

[Learner]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

You have no idea what people are talking about, do you?

He alternates his persona from Babe in the Woods to a Snippy Mr. Knows Enough quite often.

Hey, it’s all of no consequence.
So many words, so little meaning. But it’s an entertainment medium, and Learner seems to be amusing himself
OTOH I am still wondering about his “education”. Seems to have been heavily indoctrinated in the free thinker “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge” school of philosophy.

Interesting two different perceptions of one entity quoted above and below.

I’m betting he has more formal education than I do, and it has taught him to pigeonhole me as a hopeless academician.

What are you saying?

The previous post about the two academics. One, the analytical thinker (context also meaning open minded), and the other, that who is unable to compute in his mind, the things outside that may exist which isn't text book. When you aks me which one were you, I said it could be determined by how you ( plural) would post.

I didn't pigeonhole you in that catagory btw - I was just replying, with what seemed to me, back in a similar tone.

 

[Elixir]

Let me pigeonhole you, and see if I’m correct at all.
I think you went to good grade and high schools, got into a State college or Uni, and dropped out in year 1or2.
Close?

 

[Learner]

Let me pigeonhole you, and see if I’m correct at all.
I think you went to good grade and high schools, got into a State college or Uni, and dropped out in year 1or2.
Close?

You know what? After so many posts about being uneducated, this is a compliment.

You didn't believe me when I said I was from a working class background, (and I was one of the few that loved school dinners), not that you couldn't get into good schools from that background. Not close.

 

[Elixir]

Not even high school?
That might help explain your inability to assess the extent of your own knowledge and insight regarding physical sciences. Not to even begin to mention cosmology, quantum physics or BB theory.

 

[bilby]

Let me pigeonhole you, and see if I’m correct at all.
I think you went to good grade and high schools, got into a State college or Uni, and dropped out in year 1or2.
Close?

Pretty much spot-on, although I did all of that in the UK, so the names of those various institutions were rather different.

Or wasn't this addressed to me?

 

[Elixir]

Let me pigeonhole you, and see if I’m correct at all.
I think you went to good grade and high schools, got into a State college or Uni, and dropped out in year 1or2.
Close?

Pretty much spot-on, although I did all of that in the UK, so the names of those various institutions were rather different.

Or wasn't this addressed to me?

I would have pegged you for a last year dropout, or perhaps a grad school dropout.
You obviously have a very active curiosity that you have nurtured and fed well over the years, with little regard for prior biases you may have held. I admire your retention ability, which is a bugaboo for those whose education was acquired without structure and format. (Ask me how I know.)
I think Learner has, on the other hand, taken all that curiosity, rolled it up and given it to Jesus to sort out. And Jesus has rewarded the prayer with heaping helpings of hopeless confusion, not only about the sciences, but also about what Jesus can and cannot help him with.
But I thought that since trying to convince him that the omniscience of God isn't going to help him play science authority is futile, maybe this thread would lighten up some if he can talk about himself. And I'm genuinely interested in that. At least more than in trying to convince him of the delusional nature of his "scientific insights".

 

[Learner]

Not even high school?
That might help explain your inability to assess the extent of your own knowledge and insight regarding physical sciences. Not to even begin to mention cosmology, quantum physics or BB theory.

Lol, I like the line of debating. I have already taken the status of uneducated, in a previous post. Now, all I'm doing, or I'm going to do, is ask questions, so I can learn (yes I do want to), like I wanted earlier to know how "no gods are possible" for example, where my limited ability can't understand the reasoning.

 

[Jarhyn]

I honestly just pity learner, because I pity myself. I've tried on so many lives, and while it's pretty obvious that I like this one the best so far because I continue to live in it, there were some epic embarrassments of my youth that I'm not keen on revisiting.

There is a cost, a price paid in uncomfortability to look on that, in admitting that this was who I used to be, and I cannot ever claim now that I wasn't and thus may never be again without the hindsight whose cost was living with much ignorance!

Still, no real magic comes without cost. The cost of Creation is staring into the void. The cost of Divination is learning many different kinds of jargon and learning all the places one may ask questions.

But learning this? The cost is accepting and learning to love the fact that you yourself, the thinker thinking, is wrong, and the only one pulling ideas out of the void on how to fix that is you.

Not even high school?
That might help explain your inability to assess the extent of your own knowledge and insight regarding physical sciences. Not to even begin to mention cosmology, quantum physics or BB theory.

Lol, I like the line of debating. I have already taken the status of uneducated, in a previous post. Now, all I'm doing or I'm going to do, is ask questions, so I can learn (yes I do want to), like I wanted earlier to know how "no gods are possible" for example, where my limited ability can't understand.

I have explained in a couple of posts that "no gods are possible" is heavily dependent on what is a god, and in fact expounded on the fact that "there are zero or more gods" and "no gods are in evidence".

The bolded part of your post cannot happen from you asking questions here. Or more, it simply won't. It costs a few tens of thousands of dollars worth in effort to even supply an undergraduate degree, and you don't seem to be ponying up.

None of us even have the credentials to teach you. You have to do the work.

 

[Learner]

I think I can anwser that later in Bilby's post regarding "all one" of the physicists so far mentioned

One is sufficient to refute the claim of "none".

I guess so, but, my simplistic basic logic keeps nagging me. Wouldn't it be wiser to go with the large majority and just say "We don't know" or "we have no way to tell at the moment?" At least until other scientists come on board?

At least some of our forum friends are with you on this one. You're not alone eh Atrib, Elixir, Jarhyn?

Moving the goalposts is not a good way to impress people with your intellectual honesty.

And reality isn't a democracy. It's not necessary for an idea to be popular in order for it to be correct. All that is necessary is for it not to be contradicted by observed reality.

Reality is the only authority.

I prefer the goal posts to stay where they are.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes well it would be nice if you highlighted the section(s) where he doesn't recognize his own contradictions.

Is your comprehension off today? Just watch the video.

 

[atrib]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

Thank you Elixir for that, which reminds me of something when you said memorizing 98%.

You reminded me of the analogy, of the two types of educated. Both have accumulated knowledge throughout there time n academia. But there is a difference between the two. When putting both of these fellows out of there environment, an environment where their knowledge is not any use, the difference between these fellows starts to show. Both are very knowledgeable but only one of them is able to adapt to the new environment The other is lost and confusued because , what he was taught he has engraved as the only guidance he goes by in the environment he's accustomed to. He can't get outside that mode, i.e. outsid the box, quite stubborn, has no burden, only repeating and repeating whilst professing to be wise.

The other is course is the analytical thinker, who thinks outside the box. He has imagination.

You are no analytical thinker. In order to think outside the box, one has to know where the box is, what it looks like, and what is inside the box. Which you don't. You don't even understand what people are talking about most of the time.

Anyone can be an analytical thinker. And you don't have tto be highly educated to be so?

It depends. You need to learn the following foundational items before you can think analytically about the Big Bang Model, for example:

1. Newtonian physics
2. Mathematics
3. Numerical modeling and analysis
4. Foundational cosmology (physics of macro objects)
5. Relativistic physics (general and special relativity and 3D geometry)
6. Astronomy

You also need to know about the vast body of observations that has been collected by scientists over the past two to four hundred years that the Big Bang Theory is based on.

But you don't know any of these things. So when you say things like this:

Really? You can tell all that, just by that sentence in bold? Extremely advanced, psychological profiling?

Its not a comment on your psychological profile, its a comment about your foundational education in physics and math. And my opinion is not based solely on one sentence, it is based on your history of posting on these forums over many years. You clearly don't have a high school level education in physics and math. Am I wrong?

Yes it does depend - it's purely a philisophical point of view, I was getting at.

To have a philosophical discussion on the merits of the Big Bang model and contrast it to other models, one must first have an understanding of the scientific underpinnings of the model and the observational data it is based on. I have a PhD in engineering with a strong background in applied math, and I don't understand a lot of the math that goes into solving general relativity problems, especially the way the geometry problem is handled. Are you saying that you do understand these details? If so, it certainly doesn't come through in your posts.

You'll be surprised to hear that I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang as it may seem to you. Meaning a "beginning" doesn't neccessarilly come from an explosion as conventionally understood - although I do take the side of the BB discussing the universe being estimated to be 14 + billion years old ; having a beginning (the theory) to work with, so to speak.

You look really foolish, because you don't have the education needed to form a valid opinion on the subject of the Big Bang model, much less think analytically about the subject. Heck, you don't even have a layman's understanding of the Big Bang Theory, based on what you wrote.

Well there's a little more to it than what you quoted. When I was an enthusiastic about learning these things plus other interests, I also came across alternative ideas back then. WHICH MEANS there were a few issues highlighted from other scientists, which seemed valid, regarding the BB theory. Now that does NOT mean I refuted the BB theory at all, back then. It just meant I couldn't be sure who got it right!! ( This was all before I became Christian, seven years now)

You don't even understand what the Big Bang model states, even on a conceptual level, and you clearly have no interest in learning. How the fuck could you possibly be qualified to discuss the shortcomings of the BB model and contrast it with other models? What other models are there to describe the expansion of the universe?

These are the questions I had asked you when you posted that you were not a proponent of the Big Bang. You never responded.. Would you care to take a stab at it now, or are you going to avoid it again?

The Big Bang Theory is a mathematical model that was developed to fit the observations we have collected over the past 90 years, observations which show
1. that the universe is expanding, and
2. that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating

Are you questioning the data or the model that was built to fit the data? What specifically are you questioning?
1. Are you suggesting the observations are flawed? If so, how so? Please be specific. Do you even know how astronomers measure distances to other stars and galaxies?
2. Are you questioning the Big Bang Model that was developed using the observations? If yes, what methodology or construct or assumption are you questioning? Please be specific. Do you even know what the Big Bang Model is, what it predicts, and how its predictions match the data?

 

[Learner]

Yes well it would be nice if you highlighted the section(s) where he doesn't recognize his own contradictions.

Is your comprehension off today? Just watch the video.

No worries if you can't highlight it. I just wanted to know

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes well it would be nice if you highlighted the section(s) where he doesn't recognize his own contradictions.

Is your comprehension off today? Just watch the video.

No worries if you can't highlight it. I just wanted to know

It's so pervasive that it goes unrecognized. He's not unique. Can you give me a single instance of "non-materialism" where the claimant does not take his cues from things material?

 

[atrib]

Not even high school?
That might help explain your inability to assess the extent of your own knowledge and insight regarding physical sciences. Not to even begin to mention cosmology, quantum physics or BB theory.

Lol, I like the line of debating. I have already taken the status of uneducated, in a previous post. Now, all I'm doing, or I'm going to do, is ask questions, so I can learn (yes I do want to),

You haven't learned a damned thing in the years you have been posting here. When people take the time to answer your questions, you simply ignore them, like you did when I tried to explain logical fallacies to you in another thread. I don't believe you when you say you are willing to learn because all the evidence says you aren't.

like I wanted earlier to know how "no gods are possible" for example, where my limited ability can't understand the reasoning.

This question has been discussed extensively in this thread. Go back and read it again, and if you still can't find the specific posts, I will post links.

 

[atrib]

Yes well it would be nice if you highlighted the section(s) where he doesn't recognize his own contradictions.

Is your comprehension off today? Just watch the video.

No worries if you can't highlight it. I just wanted to know

I have asked you multiple times in this thread to point out the timestamp where the video discusses the evidence for minds that are not based on a material substrate, and you have never bothered to respond. I have asked you to explain what evidence for immaterial minds is provided in the video, and again, you never bothered to respond. All you did was post a link to the video without any notes on what we are supposed to find in the video. And now you want other people to point out the problems with the content of the video? Amazing! Truly fucking amazing!

 

[Learner]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

I have no doubt that that's what you wanted to hear, but it's not what anyone has said.

I did, because now I would like to see again how those soul catching monitoring methods, without any specific sensitive device, so to speak were done again.

By application of the scientific method, in a bewildering array of different ways by thousands of people over centuries of effort.

Well yes sure, as you say, thousands of people and bewildering ways, over centuries has got us where we are today. So merely asking the question, because I want to learn the reasoning (yes I do Atrib) with experiments like for example "soul spotting", or OOBE etc., where nothing was found. Do you think merely wiring people up to electrical monitors or brain scanners was sufficient enough to test whether souls could exist or not?

I saw one experiment where the best way to know was to ask the person who supposedly could come out of the body and read a card high on a shelf. Imagine that, after thousands of people over centuries of effort, this was the best experiment, with electrical wires. Funny enough the test passed but I really couldn't say if the result was genuine. They didn't have any ultra sensitive instruments, or device, but mind you this was in the mid 90s. So I just wondered and by asking questions, if by now we have such a thing?

You persist in the false assumption that this is simple.

On the contrrary, I am saying your claim at least, should be imo simple, easy to demonstrate, hence why I asked if there was a device, specific for that test because of your bold claim, "no gods exist." So no, I don't think its simple - I am saying I am not convinced we have that capabilty yet, if at all possible.

The conclusions are simple. Arriving at them, with the ability to demonstrate complete confidence in every aspect of them, is not.

Yep

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I saw one experiment where the best way to know was to ask the person who supposedly could come out of the body and read a card high on a shelf. Imagine that, after thousands of people over centuries of effort, this was the best experiment, with electrical wires. Funny enough the test passed but I really couldn't say if the result was genuine.

Psychics and woo artists are easily debunked and there are plenty of examples around if you care to do your homework. Same goes for urban legends. Don't take your cues from your emotions and you'll be fine. Emotionally we're all on the same ignoramus level. The rational differences across humans are what separates us.

 

[Learner]

I saw one experiment where the best way to know was to ask the person who supposedly could come out of the body and read a card high on a shelf. Imagine that, after thousands of people over centuries of effort, this was the best experiment, with electrical wires. Funny enough the test passed but I really couldn't say if the result was genuine.

Psychics and woo artists are easily debunked and there are plenty of examples around if you care to do your homework. Same goes for urban legends.

I sort of said the same thing.

 

[Elixir]

Lol, I like the line of debating.

This isn’t debating. Just relating my observations.

I have already taken the status of uneducated, in a previous post. Now, all I'm doing, or I'm going to do, is ask questions, so I can learn (yes I do want to), like I wanted earlier to know how "no gods are possible" for example, where my limited ability can't understand the reasoning.

As a high school dropout, I take issue with the implication that being uneducated is an unavoidable sentence to ignorance, or an open door to nonsensical questions like “how are no gods possible” under the guise/excuse of “thinking outside the box”.

First, afaics, you are the only one asserting the impossibility of gods.

Second, I can form a counter example to such an assertion simply by defining something that exists as a god. Since all gods are products of human definitions, whatever I choose to elevate to god status is as godlike as anything else.

I think your “uneducated” status is nothing more than your very own personal license to laziness.

When you “became a Christian” did anyone tell you that intellectual sloth was a sin?

 

[bilby]

On the contrrary, I am saying your claim at least, should be imo simple, easy to demonstrate, hence why I asked if there was a device, specific for that test because of your bold claim, "no gods exist."

Your opinion is wrong, and ill advised.

Why do you think that my claim should be simple or easy to demonstrate? It's only very recently become possible to demonstrate it, despite the question having occupied the minds of some of the smartest people in history for thousands of years. To expect it to be simple is absurd.

So no, I don't think its simple - I am saying I am not convinced we have that capabilty yet, if at all possible.

But in your previous sentence you said that it was, in your opinion, simple. You are contradicting yourself.

And frankly, you're completely unqualified to have any opinion on what we are or are not capable of. Why should anyone care about your uninformed opinions, even if they didn't change from one sentence to the next?