|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2020 19:28:48 GMT
You don't fool me. I know how much it scares you that you cannot substantiate anything and do not have the first clue where the Kuiper Belt is exactly or how or when it got there. For a person who has none you cry a lot about evidence. Given that I have not mentioned the Kuiper Belt before I am not sure why you should suddenly say this. These are more claims the like of which you say you rarely make. In addition, since you have not seen the Kuiper Belt (a circumstellar disc in the outer Solar System, extending from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to approximately 50 AU from the Sun. It is similar to the asteroid belt, but is far larger – 20 times as wide and 20–200 times as massive and consists mainly of small bodies or remnants from when the Solar System formed) for yourself one can only assume based on your previous logic re: heart transplants that you doubt it exists. Meaning you don't know anything about that either?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 20, 2020 22:27:04 GMT
Given that I have not mentioned the Kuiper Belt before I am not sure why you should suddenly say this. These are more claims the like of which you say you rarely make. In addition, since you have not seen the Kuiper Belt (a circumstellar disc in the outer Solar System, extending from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to approximately 50 AU from the Sun. It is similar to the asteroid belt, but is far larger – 20 times as wide and 20–200 times as massive and consists mainly of small bodies or remnants from when the Solar System formed) for yourself one can only assume based on your previous logic re: heart transplants that you doubt it exists. Meaning you don't know anything about that either? The asteroid belt is a torus-shaped region in the Solar System, located roughly between the orbits of the planets Jupiter and Mars, that is occupied by a great many solid, irregularly shaped bodies, of many sizes but much smaller than planets, called asteroids or minor planets. I hope that helps. But of course since you haven't seen it with your own eyes...
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 21, 2020 1:44:36 GMT
Meaning you don't know anything about that either? The asteroid belt is a torus-shaped region in the Solar System, located roughly between the orbits of the planets Jupiter and Mars, that is occupied by a great many solid, irregularly shaped bodies, of many sizes but much smaller than planets, called asteroids or minor planets. I hope that helps. But of course since you haven't seen it with your own eyes... I'm certain that I have always said that all definitions are arbitrary. You may call things what you prefer to call them. If you see a rock in space you may call it Puddintane if you wish. It has recently been noted here that if you prefer to call Trump a "Christian" you may, and if you prefer not then you may balk. Of course definitions "typically" are designed to make communication as meaningful across as much of the wide world as practical. Although it might seem to make communication most meaningful if everyone had the same definitions it does appear often that certain disciplines find it necessary to devise their own for that discipline. That is sometimes called "jargon." An "astrophysicist" is certainly as entitled to his jargon as anyone else. I have no agenda to eliminate any definitions any group finds suited to its specific needs. My only point in addressing some definitions is whether they really are suited to any need to communicate meaningful information. Some definitions are a deliberate attempt to disguise truth. Even I can see that spherical objects are formed by a different process than objects with a highly irregular shape and therefore I can see the purpose of having a different word to describe them. That way people can readily know by which process the object was formed. Having an exact idea how the different types of objects are formed is not required. The rule about "clearing its path of similar sized objects" does not seem on cursory examination to have any meaningful application. It is disturbingly vague. It is not equally applicable to the known planets. Their paths vary rather much in size as do the planets themselves. I think it is pretending to knowledge of planet formation that is really not certain and obviously not public. You have not satisfactorily answered how any objects similar in "size" to Pluto in the "same path" as Pluto escaped notice for so long. Were they too dark? If so who turned on the light? How? It was not known Pluto was spherical until it was actually visited at close range. Furthermore those orbits are necessarily of an exceedingly long duration and information about them in their short acquaintance is correspondingly exceedingly sparse and inexact. Telling a story about the formation of the solar system would be much easier but for one glaring fact. The "spin" of the solar system is actually a number of spins in that the planets have objects spinning about them. Shouldn't there be a word for objects with other objects spinning about them? It remains unclear when, where and why those other spins developed. Then too you had no exact idea why the original spin exists. Nevertheless tell that story of exactly how old the Earth is. It's one of my favorite stories. I'm sure it's one of yours. Are you able to make any sense? That would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 21, 2020 11:51:54 GMT
The asteroid belt is a torus-shaped region in the Solar System, located roughly between the orbits of the planets Jupiter and Mars, that is occupied by a great many solid, irregularly shaped bodies, of many sizes but much smaller than planets, called asteroids or minor planets. I hope that helps. But of course since you haven't seen it with your own eyes... I'm certain that I have always said that all definitions are arbitrary. You may call things what you prefer to call them. If you see a rock in space you may call it Puddintane if you wish. It has recently been noted here that if you prefer to call Trump a "Christian" you may, and if you prefer not then you may balk. Of course definitions "typically" are designed to make communication as meaningful across as much of the wide world as practical. Although it might seem to make communication most meaningful if everyone had the same definitions it does appear often that certain disciplines find it necessary to devise their own for that discipline. That is sometimes called "jargon." An "astrophysicist" is certainly as entitled to his jargon as anyone else. I have no agenda to eliminate any definitions any group finds suited to its specific needs. My only point in addressing some definitions is whether they really are suited to any need to communicate meaningful information. Some definitions are a deliberate attempt to disguise truth. Even I can see that spherical objects are formed by a different process than objects with a highly irregular shape and therefore I can see the purpose of having a different word to describe them. That way people can readily know by which process the object was formed. Having an exact idea how the different types of objects are formed is not required. The rule about "clearing its path of similar sized objects" does not seem on cursory examination to have any meaningful application. It is disturbingly vague. It is not equally applicable to the known planets. Their paths vary rather much in size as do the planets themselves. I think it is pretending to knowledge of planet formation that is really not certain and obviously not public. You have not satisfactorily answered how any objects similar in "size" to Pluto in the "same path" as Pluto escaped notice for so long. Were they too dark? If so who turned on the light? How? It was not known Pluto was spherical until it was actually visited at close range. Furthermore those orbits are necessarily of an exceedingly long duration and information about them in their short acquaintance is correspondingly exceedingly sparse and inexact. Telling a story about the formation of the solar system would be much easier but for one glaring fact. The "spin" of the solar system is actually a number of spins in that the planets have objects spinning about them. Shouldn't there be a word for objects with other objects spinning about them? It remains unclear when, where and why those other spins developed. Then too you had no exact idea why the original spin exists. Nevertheless tell that story of exactly how old the Earth is. It's one of my favorite stories. I'm sure it's one of yours. Are you able to make any sense? That would be appreciated. I am not sure what the point of all this is, and you appear to be rambling now, so thank you for playing. I have already suggested that it sounds like you have recently been appointed the expert on Planetary Science on this board, thus I am sure you can answer all questions best to your own satisfaction. The age of the earth, btw, is estimated at 4.453 billion years. I am sorry that it is not known down to the minute, but such is the failure of science.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 21, 2020 16:01:40 GMT
I'm certain that I have always said that all definitions are arbitrary. You may call things what you prefer to call them. If you see a rock in space you may call it Puddintane if you wish. It has recently been noted here that if you prefer to call Trump a "Christian" you may, and if you prefer not then you may balk. Of course definitions "typically" are designed to make communication as meaningful across as much of the wide world as practical. Although it might seem to make communication most meaningful if everyone had the same definitions it does appear often that certain disciplines find it necessary to devise their own for that discipline. That is sometimes called "jargon." An "astrophysicist" is certainly as entitled to his jargon as anyone else. I have no agenda to eliminate any definitions any group finds suited to its specific needs. My only point in addressing some definitions is whether they really are suited to any need to communicate meaningful information. Some definitions are a deliberate attempt to disguise truth. Even I can see that spherical objects are formed by a different process than objects with a highly irregular shape and therefore I can see the purpose of having a different word to describe them. That way people can readily know by which process the object was formed. Having an exact idea how the different types of objects are formed is not required. The rule about "clearing its path of similar sized objects" does not seem on cursory examination to have any meaningful application. It is disturbingly vague. It is not equally applicable to the known planets. Their paths vary rather much in size as do the planets themselves. I think it is pretending to knowledge of planet formation that is really not certain and obviously not public. You have not satisfactorily answered how any objects similar in "size" to Pluto in the "same path" as Pluto escaped notice for so long. Were they too dark? If so who turned on the light? How? It was not known Pluto was spherical until it was actually visited at close range. Furthermore those orbits are necessarily of an exceedingly long duration and information about them in their short acquaintance is correspondingly exceedingly sparse and inexact. Telling a story about the formation of the solar system would be much easier but for one glaring fact. The "spin" of the solar system is actually a number of spins in that the planets have objects spinning about them. Shouldn't there be a word for objects with other objects spinning about them? It remains unclear when, where and why those other spins developed. Then too you had no exact idea why the original spin exists. Nevertheless tell that story of exactly how old the Earth is. It's one of my favorite stories. I'm sure it's one of yours. Are you able to make any sense? That would be appreciated. I am not sure what the point of all this is, and you appear to be rambling now, so thank you for playing. I have already suggested that it sounds like you have recently been appointed the expert on Planetary Science on this board, thus I am sure you can answer all questions best to your own satisfaction. The age of the earth, btw, is estimated at 4.453 billion years. I am sorry that it is not known down to the minute, but such is the failure of science. It's funny how I was thinking the very same thing about you. You left out the part where radioactive sample is pristine.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 21, 2020 17:00:04 GMT
I am not sure what the point of all this is, and you appear to be rambling now, so thank you for playing. I have already suggested that it sounds like you have recently been appointed the expert on Planetary Science on this board, thus I am sure you can answer all questions best to your own satisfaction. The age of the earth, btw, is estimated at 4.453 billion years. I am sorry that it is not known down to the minute, but such is the failure of science. It's funny how I was thinking the very same thing about you. You left out the part where radioactive sample is pristine. What on earth are you on about now? You are not even being grammatical.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 21, 2020 18:16:28 GMT
Honestly, I can't figure out why any of you - FilmFlaneur, gadreel or Phludowin - even bother with Arlon. FF, you so patiently and properly address his posts, again and again, while he flies off on some tangential quasi-point. I've read quite a few of your exchanges, and he just seems like such a lost cause. Why ever do you bother with him at all? Everyone needs a hobby. You can always choose another hobby. I like hand-piecing quilts, it is soothing in these troubled times.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 21, 2020 18:25:56 GMT
Honestly, I can't figure out why any of you - FilmFlaneur, gadreel or Phludowin - even bother with Arlon. FF, you so patiently and properly address his posts, again and again, while he flies off on some tangential quasi-point. I've read quite a few of your exchanges, and he just seems like such a lost cause. Why ever do you bother with him at all? They bother with me here because this is the only place they (you) can call the shots. Before the internet, democracy worked much better because it had professional oversight. Now, especially on a discussion board like this, the children are in charge. They suspected all along that there were lots of people who disagreed with the story told by the professional press, and with the internet they took control of the press. Notice how you have no argument other than the children here outnumber their teachers. The internet made possible a "democracy" like never before in that there can be instantaneous responses to events, and instantaneous polls. Who knew what the lack of professional oversight would do to the picture? They would later make a "god" of science, but science is no democracy, and doesn't respond to one. You often hear lately that "most" scientists hold a specific view or the "scientific community" holds a specific view. You should know right away that such people do not have the first clue what science is. You should know they are probably wrong and trying to use their numbers (democracy) to prove they are right. You just did that. If they were right by science it would be obvious no matter how many their numbers. Notice I do not take any count of how many people agree with me. That's because I know how science actually works, and it is not by democracy. Furthermore much of the so called "science" lately promises to make every dream come true no matter how out of line it is with traditional concepts of morality. That of course is the highly speculative science "fiction" rather than actual science. When I try to point out to you that it is fiction, you just take another vote. Be careful, there are a lot of traps out there waiting for you. They choose to bother with you; I don't.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 21, 2020 21:29:57 GMT
They bother with me here because this is the only place they (you) can call the shots. Before the internet, democracy worked much better because it had professional oversight. Now, especially on a discussion board like this, the children are in charge. They suspected all along that there were lots of people who disagreed with the story told by the professional press, and with the internet they took control of the press. Notice how you have no argument other than the children here outnumber their teachers. The internet made possible a "democracy" like never before in that there can be instantaneous responses to events, and instantaneous polls. Who knew what the lack of professional oversight would do to the picture? They would later make a "god" of science, but science is no democracy, and doesn't respond to one. You often hear lately that "most" scientists hold a specific view or the "scientific community" holds a specific view. You should know right away that such people do not have the first clue what science is. You should know they are probably wrong and trying to use their numbers (democracy) to prove they are right. You just did that. If they were right by science it would be obvious no matter how many their numbers. Notice I do not take any count of how many people agree with me. That's because I know how science actually works, and it is not by democracy. Furthermore much of the so called "science" lately promises to make every dream come true no matter how out of line it is with traditional concepts of morality. That of course is the highly speculative science "fiction" rather than actual science. When I try to point out to you that it is fiction, you just take another vote. Be careful, there are a lot of traps out there waiting for you. They choose to bother with you; I don't. TBH it is like watching a trainwreck...you can't look away. It is like you cannot believe that someone who can actually string sentences together ( usually a word salad however he sometimes almost makes sense) can actually be this arrogant stupid ignorant ill informed and well the poster boy for Dunning Kruger as being certain of himself. It is most unusual. How he gets through life, I have no idea. ..I suspect a hermit He reminds me of this because whilst he claims no belief in science, he also claims that you have to see everything to prove it with your own evidence. One can only hope that he doesn't try to do an amateur heart transplant in his basement LOLOLOLOL
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 21, 2020 23:47:17 GMT
You often hear lately that "most" scientists hold a specific view or the "scientific community" holds a specific view. You should know right away that such people do not have the first clue what science is. The sort of views like Darwin made a significant contribution to science, that relativity is sound physics, climate change is happening and we can tell how old the cosmos is?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 21, 2020 23:51:48 GMT
You often hear lately that "most" scientists hold a specific view or the "scientific community" holds a specific view. You should know right away that such people do not have the first clue what science is. The sort of views as that Darwin made a significant contribution to science, that the relativity is sound physics, climate change is happening and we can tell how old the cosmos is? Were you planning to substantiate any of those things here?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 21, 2020 23:54:43 GMT
The sort of views as that Darwin made a significant contribution to science, that relativity is sound physics, climate change is happening and we can tell how old the cosmos is? Were you planning to substantiate any of those things here? Is it worth it with you? It hasn't been before. And sorry but science isn't a democracy I've been told, but a dictatorship of evidence, and so you don't get to vote down the consensus.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 21, 2020 23:57:25 GMT
You don't fool me. I know how much it scares you that you cannot substantiate anything and do not have the first clue where the Kuiper Belt is exactly or how or when it got there. For a person who has none you cry a lot about evidence. Goddamn, man. I didn’t think you could get more ignorant or childish. I was wrong. I’m actually embarrassed for you. It’s like you’re walking around in crowd with a big poop stain on the seat of your pants and you don’t know it. Has anyone ever told you that you have a bad temper? Is the pandemic perhaps getting on your nerves?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 22, 2020 0:05:18 GMT
Were you planning to substantiate any of those things here? Is it worth it with you? It hasn't been before. And sorry but science isn't a democracy I've been told, but a dictatorship of evidence, and so you don't get to vote down the consensus. Did you know we can get another "consensus"? Not right away, Trump probably can't do it. Another consensus is in the works though. I keep trying to warn you not to claim knowledge of science you obviously don't have, otherwise Trump will erase you from history.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 22, 2020 0:15:54 GMT
Is it worth it with you? It hasn't been before. And sorry but science isn't a democracy I've been told, but a dictatorship of evidence, and so you don't get to vote down the consensus. Did you know we can get another "consensus"? ... Another consensus is in the works though. Perhaps here, in regards to science, we can take you to mean 'alternative facts'? Lol I love the smell of irony in the morning...
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 22, 2020 0:25:52 GMT
Did you know we can get another "consensus"? ... Another consensus is in the works though. Perhaps here, in regards to science, we can take you to mean 'alternative facts'? Lol I love the smell of irony in the morning... The other consensus might not arrive in virtually anonymous discussion board land as soon as it does in reality. A friendly reminder, Trump already won once and you didn't think that was possible either.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 22, 2020 0:39:08 GMT
They choose to bother with you; I don't. TBH it is like watching a trainwreck...you can't look away. It is like you cannot believe that someone who can actually string sentences together ( usually a word salad however he sometimes almost makes sense) can actually be this arrogant stupid ignorant ill informed and well the poster boy for Dunning Kruger as being certain of himself. It is most unusual. How he gets through life, I have no idea. ..I suspect a hermit He reminds me of this << image mad-scientist-inventor-picture.jpg" >> because whilst he claims no belief in science, he also claims that you have to see everything to prove it with your own evidence. One can only hope that he doesn't try to do an amateur heart transplant in his basement LOLOLOLOL << image heart-transplant-2.jpg obviously not >> Some people are trying to have dinner, if you don't mind. I didn't say you have to prove everything. I accept most of the rules in religion as intuitive. When you do need to prove something it is because it is nutty, like a heart transplant. Yes, you have to prove that. And no I'm not getting one. Thank you for keeping your monkey paws off me,
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 22, 2020 11:48:53 GMT
The sort of views as that Darwin made a significant contribution to science, that the relativity is sound physics, climate change is happening and we can tell how old the cosmos is? Were you planning to substantiate any of those things here? I was wondering the same thing.
I take it your AC is fixed? The last time we talked about this, you mentioned your AC was being worked on and you were having trouble responding.
Have you had time to gather the evidence, assemble the data, compile the research on the supernatural/god? I think you mentioned having a website? A website where all this is laid out in great detail..so much detail that NO ONE so far has been able to argue against your POV? So...it should be easy...simply cut and paste all the evidence you've presented there and publish it hear. In fact, not even ALL of it...just ANY evidence/data/results/research.
Contrary to what many theists apparently think, I...and I believe countless other atheists would be thrilled to see some substantive basis for asserting not only that there IS a god, but what the god is like, what it wants, what it did, what are its attributes, what powers it, what keeps it from succumbing to the forces of entropy, how can it have sequential thoughts...one after another without anything separating those thoughts.
And if those data don't exist...on what basis is it better to posit the existence of something totally different....something unnatural that no one can explore/investigate/study and say that THAT existence is capable of....for example, timeless existence than to just assume there might be something about the natural world we don't know?
True, God is DEFINED as being timeless and eternal, but that is an arbitrary and convenient assumption made ONLY to solve a conundrum.
I will be as collegial as you....
go...
edit: perhaps you've already posted those data elsewhere on IMDB2. IF so, a simple link will do. And thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 22, 2020 13:02:47 GMT
Were you planning to substantiate any of those things here? I was wondering the same thing.
I take it your AC is fixed? The last time we talked about this, you mentioned your AC was being worked on and you were having trouble responding.
Have you had time to gather the evidence, assemble the data, compile the research on the supernatural/god? I think you mentioned having a website? A website where all this is laid out in great detail..so much detail that NO ONE so far has been able to argue against your POV? So...it should be easy...simply cut and paste all the evidence you've presented there and publish it hear. In fact, not even ALL of it...just ANY evidence/data/results/research.
Contrary to what many theists apparently think, I...and I believe countless other atheists would be thrilled to see some substantive basis for asserting not only that there IS a god, but what the god is like, what it wants, what it did, what are its attributes, what powers it, what keeps it from succumbing to the forces of entropy, how can it have sequential thoughts...one after another without anything separating those thoughts.
And if those data don't exist...on what basis is it better to posit the existence of something totally different....something unnatural that no one can explore/investigate/study and say that THAT existence is capable of....for example, timeless existence than to just assume there might be something about the natural world we don't know?
True, God is DEFINED as being timeless and eternal, but that is an arbitrary and convenient assumption made ONLY to solve a conundrum.
I will be as collegial as you....
go...
edit: perhaps you've already posted those data elsewhere on IMDB2. IF so, a simple link will do. And thanks in advance.
Since you asked so politely, there are three different things most people mean when they speak of a "god" that they believe exists and is an influence on their important life altering decisions. First and foremost is the central figure in a system of developing morality and ethics. This one certainly exists as much as baseball does because you can see the people going in and out of the buildings or the stadium. The system of morality and ethics they develop often advises the government. That was easy, wasn't it? Case closed. God exists. No, it isn't an old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds. That concept of a god is for children and retarded adults who are incapable of understanding the abstract concepts necessary to developing a system of ethics. "But I prayed for a million dollars and I didn't get a penny," some atheists will complain. That is because they are mentally retarded and cannot understand the complexities of developing a system of morality. The second thing people mean is the entity that oversees such spiritual phenomena as precognition, clairvoyance, revelations, and assorted phenomena associated "extrasensory perception." This one is most difficult to prove because it is so easy to fake. Consider the example of a mother whose young child suddenly starts speaking fluent German without any exposure to, or study of, that language. If she tells anyone about it, they will simply think the child did have significant exposure to, and study of, that language. Only the mother who knows exactly where her small child was and with whom for every minute of its life will have the proof of the revelation. No one else will have the proof. Incidentally, you should know that many "Christians" consider much of those phenomena to be associated with Satan. "Pentecostals" sometimes relish various spiritual phenomena, but there are typically extremely few of them. The third thing people mean in some discussions about god is the intelligent designer. There is no religion that advances the idea of an intelligent designer much because it is not the sort of thing religion ordinarily uses to develop a system of ethics. The intelligent designer is a matter of merely science and logic. It is a scientific fact that the agency responsible for the first life on this previously molten planet is not found in nature. The ready complaint about that is that it is a "god of the gaps" argument. Actually the god of the gaps is a winning argument. If you cannot find the agency in nature then it is "supernatural" by definition. That's all "supernatural" means. What many people do try is to say that while the agency is not found in nature today, advances in the understanding of nature might occur, and we should just wait. That however only works for a short time. There are no expected advances in the knowledge of nature. The periodic chart of the elements is complete and even has some elements that are not natural. There are very few agencies like wind, sun, rain, electrostatic discharge, water wave motion and such. All the frequencies of electromagnetic radiation are produced in labs and understood. There is literally nowhere to go to fill the gap. The gap is not going anywhere. It is now proof of something else beyond the natural world. It is important to understand why people wanted to find the intelligent designer in nature in the first place. That would make the universe more predictable. It is not possible to predict using science what the intelligent designer will do, and that's why people hate it, and refuse to admit it must exist. Notice however that if you postulate nature being able to do the same thing as a "god" it becomes just as unpredictable. You have lost the whole point of disproving a god, gaps or no gaps. Your turn, go ...
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 22, 2020 17:38:12 GMT
Since you asked so politely, there are three different things most people mean when they speak of a "god" that they believe exists and is an influence on their important life altering decisions...(blah) One can observe that Arlon himself appears to have no fixed idea of what constitutes god, having ranged on this board from a 'code of ethics' to the 'essence of nature', then to 'something vague and nebulous', before helpfully telling us lately that the idea of the infinite supernatural "offends logic, measure and order". He has also told us that, to be meaningful, definitions need to be agreed in advance between all sides - not done here, it would seem. Go figure. It is interesting that Arlon places such weight on politeness when, in the same post with characteristic offensiveness he calls atheists "retards"! This of course assumes that one can know everything about, or look everywhere in, nature. For Arlon it would appear there is no such thing as the as-yet unknown, or unknowable, in nature. Conversely then, using his same logic, if one cannot evidence the supernatural (which is why people need faith) then what remains left to consider, which is everything evidenced, can only be natural. Or we can say that to assume that that which is not natural is supernatural we first have to assume that that which is not natural exists to label it so. In connection with this I have asked him several times for a logical reason why there cannot be something permanent at a basic level in nature. This Arlon ("I always answer direct questions") seems unable to answer. As has been patiently explained to Arlon before, the world is full of such ethical codes. Hence we can see the hand of God in the Cowboy Code as well as the Tenets of the Church of Satan. There is no evidence that any code springs from the mind of God as compared to the moral sense of man. The ancient South Americans had their code and idea of gods which necessitated pulling beating hearts from the chests of human sacrifices then decapitated heads rolling down the steps of temples. Are we to assume that this shows a deity necessarily exists? Which is, frankly, nonsense. One only has to look at the discoveries of science in the last few decades. What does Arlon think that experimental science and theoretical research does with itself all day? Mind you, this is from the man who told us that Darwin (d.1882) and Einstein (d.1955) contributed little to science worth thinking of! More nonsense, as a moment's recollection of the various creation myths around the world, let alone Genesis, will show. Whether intended to be read as a myth or to be taken literally these stories clearly advance the "idea" of an intelligent designer(s). Both the above, btw are from someone who asserted, just recently, that he "doesn't claim much" LOL It is certainly true that many believers like the psychological crutch of religion, great at establishing a presumed reassuring pattern and reason in a world which otherwise would seem to lack any. It is, after all a universe largely cold dark and 'empty'. It is also true that a serial lack of evidence for the purported deliberate supernatural is a prime reason for a lack of belief for many. But what is most commonly sought is a persuasion that the magic exists at all, (legs growing back at Lourdes would work for me), more than being able to tell what it will do next. In short disbelievers would just like It to do something firmly attributable to It and leave what for another time. Conveniently, as we know, the faithful would have the Christian deity working in mysterious ways, which cannot be known very often even to those who believe in it. But not everything in nature must, or can be predictable. Ask it of, say, quantum scientists working with indeterminancy as one principle of reality. Or even of those placing the odds on finding signs of possible life in the Venusian atmosphere a few weeks ago. No science says that if nature cannot be explained (so far) then it must be something magical, which is something those who espouse the God of the Gaps argument are prone to do. Perhaps Arlon here is confusing science with the pseudo science of creationism? And just because Nature is unpredictable (or unknown, or whatever) in the same way that some see supernatural Cause, that does not mean it might as well be the same. For, quite evidently, we at least know the natural world exists. If I cannot find my hat I put I do not put it down to the secret workings of God. Something unknown in nature is not by definition supernatural, it is just a part of nature not yet come across or explained satisfactorily.
|
|