Psychics, magicians, fortune tellers, astrologers and faith healers

[WhyNotAsk]

the argument i presented is goin deeper to the cell level in which creates what is called micro organisms, any good investigation has to start at the cell level that creates life first before moving on to the organisms.

those videos you posted never mention anything at the cell level of organisms that make up that organism those have to first be before the organism can be in existent.

I didn’t hear any of those people or read in the description on the their science back ground, it seemed the second video was more rambling than offering a scientific approach

Well the guy said he took a class i have to question amount of knowledge he actually knows of geology one class doesn’t make him a geologist

He leaves everything in the sources, and he is merely relaying what geologist currently agree upon at the moment from the evidence they collected.

here part one explaining abiogenesis which is way before cells which is what the guys in the videos where explaining.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you these basic concepts that you should have learned in 5th year during you education.

and here is something on Quantum physics to get the basic gist ..

 

[Magenta]

I believe that makes you an agnostic.

Technically speaking, no, because an agnostic by definition not only claims not to know, but that it is not possible to know

Not only not possible for them to know, but not possible for anyone to know

 

[Kojikun]

well what a lovely thread........

 

[JamOn]

The guy in the second video is the one with an actual scientific background, He was talking about the construction of the theological argument and where it fails.

The man doesn’t even give his name or where his scientific background came from I even clicked the link to more of the same personal opinion all have not a once of any scientific language. where did you find that the man has a scientific background I didn’t see or hear anything mentioned on the anitcitizenX channel.

 

[JamOn]

I followed one of those to their pages at the bottom the notes about space, they don’t even quote the right info

they said this,

1. Calculation based on volume. The observable universe is about 10^80 cubic meters in volume. The Earth's biosphere is about 10^17-10^19, depending on how thick you want to make it. The disparity is therefore around 61-63 orders of magnitude. If we wish to be generous, we can allow for a few hundred billion potentially habitable planets throughout the universe and still have 50 orders of magnitude left over to do something else with.

http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2012/09/part-6-failure-by-design_3.html

This is from another place that talks about it as well.

A Planck space has a volume of a Planck length cubed, which is the smallest measurable volume, at approximately 4.222×10^-105 cubic meters = 4.222×10^-99 cubic cm. Thus 2.5 cubic cm contain about a googol Planck spaces. There are only about 3×10^80 cubic metres in the observable universe, giving about 7.1×10^184 Planck spaces in the entire observable universe, so a googolplex is far larger than even the number of the smallest measurable spaces in the observable universe.

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...s-and-observable-universe-please-help.698889/

 

[WhyNotAsk]

Well the guy said he took a class i have to question amount of knowledge he actually knows of geology one class doesn’t make him a geologist

Listen to what he has to say, it doesn't matter who the information is coming from, but it matters if the information is valid or not.
That's why I bother talking to people here, Majority of people are not scientist, but they still can have valid data to present in an argument. The fact that you are looking for credentials is quite strange to me. Because I could say exactly same thing to you, anything you say doesn't matter because you are not a credited scientist and end the conversation with that, now tell me would that be a productive way to move forward ?

 

[WhyNotAsk]

Technically speaking, no, because an agnostic by definition not only claims not to know, but that it is not possible to know

Not only not possible for them to know, but not possible for anyone to know

You are spot on

 

[WhyNotAsk]

well what a lovely thread........

I'm glad you like it, never hurts to have some scepticism.

 

[Kojikun]

I'm glad you like it, never hurts to have some scepticism.

I was being sarcastic my apologies. I had a rather rough morning. God bless my friend.

 

[Magenta]

You are spot on

Thank you for affirming that

 

[Dino246]

Thanks for that

This is yet another variant of the Theological argument, that tries to prove the existence of god, based on the perceived evidence of a deliberate design in the natural world, it commits a bland a white fallacy, claiming there are only two options for the creation for this universe, either it happened by chance or God did it with out substantiating either claim, and also shifting the burden of proof on to the other person indirectly asking them to provide the 3rd option, it also ignores natural selection which is a non-random natural process where by organisms that are better suited for life survive and have a better chance at reproducing and "bringing forth more after their own kind" the reason why this is important is because it proves that evolution is not a random process which shows that your assumed premise of random chance is invalid.

This argument has yet another issue because it argues from ignorance. "we don't know how life came to be therefor God did it"
Personal incredulity is also quite clearly present here, "Where someone finds something hard to believe therefore asserts it can't be true"

This argument is broken down here if you want to see

The fine tuning argument is very similar to this and you can see it's logical downfalls here

You say that the video commits "a bland a white fallacy". I think what you mean is a "false dichotomy" (aka false dilemma). In fact it's not a false dichotomy; there really are only two options: intelligent creation or self-generation. In order to prove that particular fallacy, you must provide a third option. Burden of proof must be reasonable; a person who believes there are only two options cannot come up with a third.

I have little problem with natural selection, but scientific evidence only supports loss of genetic diversity and of information, not gain. In terms of being evidence for abiogenesis, it is meaningless. Scientists have yet to come up with any sound explanations for the origin of life outside of a transcendent creator. There are many hypotheses, but no evidence.

 

[JamOn]

Listen to what he has to say, it doesn't matter who the information is coming from, but it matters if the information is valid or not.
That's why I bother talking to people here, Majority of people are not scientist, but they still can have valid data to present in an argument. The fact that you are looking for credentials is quite strange to me. Because I could say exactly same thing to you, anything you say doesn't matter because you are not a credited scientist and end the conversation with that, now tell me would that be a productive way to move forward ?

Yes you are right he doesn’t have to be a scientist to talk science I apologize, I’ve been playing it and listening, i don’t think is not out of the realm of a designed steps from a creator who creates things that can self replicate, if the science of self replicate goes back far enough it can’t land on replicate its self even in that scenario the self replicate had to have been designed to self replicate. A painting didn’t paint on its own someone has to take the paint and mix some here and mix some there, little dash here and there and then a beautiful painting with all things self replicating as a unit to produce such wonderful views for who though why would a self replicating no thought microorganism want to one day gaze upon it.
building a computer you start with a motherboard ram cpu power supply etc. when all the pieces are in place is when the electricity is applied then the box starts to think for its self. man from dirt what is dirt made of

body and breath of life, thought, consciousness reason. building a airplane to fly the sky’s what animal has been able to do that and how did nature get such a leap in the ability to do so without a creator who design it to have that capacity.

 

[JamOn]

yea nature self replicating survival of the fittest the strongest survive huh takes on a whole new meaning with these wild birds huh

 

[JamOn]

the man seems to be making a good case for a global flood I think

 

[WhyNotAsk]

I was being sarcastic my apologies. I had a rather rough morning. God bless my friend. [/QUO

You say that the video commits "a bland a white fallacy". I think what you mean is a "false dichotomy" (aka false dilemma). In fact it's not a false dichotomy; there really are only two options: intelligent creation or self-generation. In order to prove that particular fallacy, you must provide a third option. Burden of proof must be reasonable; a person who believes there are only two options cannot come up with a third.

I have little problem with natural selection, but scientific evidence only supports loss of genetic diversity and of information, not gain. In terms of being evidence for abiogenesis, it is meaningless. Scientists have yet to come up with any sound explanations for the origin of life outside of a transcendent creator. There are many hypotheses, but no evidence.

yes,

these are all fallacies under different names, but deal with the same thing.

The black-or-white fallacy occurs in arguments that have a disjunctive premiss―that is, one that gives alternatives―when one or more alternatives is incorrectly omitted.

• Bifurcation
• Black-and-White Fallacy
• Either/Or Fallacy
• False Dichotomy
• False Dilemma

The 3rd option is abiogenesis and after that natural selection, which in no way is the same as random chance,
as their calculations proceed to extrapolate.

"scientific evidence only supports loss of genetic diversity and of information not gain." I'm not sure if you are just saying this because you have been misinformed or just haven't looked into the subject, but this is simply just false. Genes change and gain new attributes through multiple processes:

• Gene dublication events
• horizontal gene transfers
• transposable elemental domestications,
• gene fusions and fissions
• De Novo Originations

This has been observed and documented in multiple peer reviewed papers.
Here, gene duplication was directly observed from generation to generation. After duplication, a new function was seen to evolve.

Here, genetically identical mice were allowed to breed for several generations and then gene number variations were compared in the final populations.

"In terms of being evidence for abiogenesis, it is meaningless" because natural selection was never meant to be evidence for abiogenesis, natural selection takes effect only after there are replicating molecules. all of "life" on earth was just chemistry in the beginning, just as it is now just far more simpler.

This Scientific journal explores the molecules self-assembly properties. (You will need a subscription to the journal to get past the abstract)

Here is a lecture on abiogenesis by Dr. David Deamer

I agree scientist don't have all the answers and this is thing that keeps them going knowing that there is more to learn.
If we stop, by believing we already know everything we will never get anywhere. You make a claim that transcendent creator created everything, but this causes another even bigger question, if the universe is insanely complex and therefore can not create itself what makes you think having even a more complex being exist make the situation of creation easier to fathom. You believe God existed forever, scientist also seem to think the same about the universe in mathematical sense. During the Big bang space time would have expanded at many times the speed of light which would cause time it self to slow down close to infinity and the further into the expansion you go the faster time starts to go. Again time is relative and so is the beginning.

 

[WhyNotAsk]

the man seems to be making a good case for a global flood I think

watching it now.

 

[Dino246]

yes,

these are all fallacies under different names, but deal with the same thing.

The black-or-white fallacy occurs in arguments that have a disjunctive premiss―that is, one that gives alternatives―when one or more alternatives is incorrectly omitted.

• Bifurcation
• Black-and-White Fallacy
• Either/Or Fallacy
• False Dichotomy
• False Dilemma

The 3rd option is abiogenesis and after that natural selection, which in no way is the same as random chance,
as their calculations proceed to extrapolate.

"scientific evidence only supports loss of genetic diversity and of information not gain." I'm not sure if you are just saying this because you have been misinformed or just haven't looked into the subject, but this is simply just false. Genes change and gain new attributes through multiple processes:

• Gene dublication events
• horizontal gene transfers
• transposable elemental domestications,
• gene fusions and fissions
• De Novo Originations

This has been observed and documented in multiple peer reviewed papers.
Here, gene duplication was directly observed from generation to generation. After duplication, a new function was seen to evolve.

Here, genetically identical mice were allowed to breed for several generations and then gene number variations were compared in the final populations.

"In terms of being evidence for abiogenesis, it is meaningless" because natural selection was never meant to be evidence for abiogenesis, natural selection takes effect only after there are replicating molecules. all of "life" on earth was just chemistry in the beginning, just as it is now just far more simpler.

This Scientific journal explores the molecules self-assembly properties. (You will need a subscription to the journal to get past the abstract)

Here is a lecture on abiogenesis by Dr. David Deamer

I agree scientist don't have all the answers and this is thing that keeps them going knowing that there is more to learn.
If we stop, by believing we already know everything we will never get anywhere. You make a claim that transcendent creator created everything, but this causes another even bigger question, if the universe is insanely complex and therefore can not create itself what makes you think having even a more complex being exist make the situation of creation easier to fathom. You believe God existed forever, scientist also seem to think the same about the universe in mathematical sense. During the Big bang space time would have expanded at many times the speed of light which would cause time it self to slow down close to infinity and the further into the expansion you go the faster time starts to go. Again time is relative and so is the beginning.

I'll have a look at the links when I have time.

Your "third option" is just another name for the second option. It's still a real dichotomy.

 

[Kojikun]

yes,

these are all fallacies under different names, but deal with the same thing.

The black-or-white fallacy occurs in arguments that have a disjunctive premiss―that is, one that gives alternatives―when one or more alternatives is incorrectly omitted.

• Bifurcation
• Black-and-White Fallacy
• Either/Or Fallacy
• False Dichotomy
• False Dilemma

The 3rd option is abiogenesis and after that natural selection, which in no way is the same as random chance,
as their calculations proceed to extrapolate.

"scientific evidence only supports loss of genetic diversity and of information not gain." I'm not sure if you are just saying this because you have been misinformed or just haven't looked into the subject, but this is simply just false. Genes change and gain new attributes through multiple processes:

• Gene dublication events
• horizontal gene transfers
• transposable elemental domestications,
• gene fusions and fissions
• De Novo Originations

This has been observed and documented in multiple peer reviewed papers.
Here, gene duplication was directly observed from generation to generation. After duplication, a new function was seen to evolve.

Here, genetically identical mice were allowed to breed for several generations and then gene number variations were compared in the final populations.

"In terms of being evidence for abiogenesis, it is meaningless" because natural selection was never meant to be evidence for abiogenesis, natural selection takes effect only after there are replicating molecules. all of "life" on earth was just chemistry in the beginning, just as it is now just far more simpler.

This Scientific journal explores the molecules self-assembly properties. (You will need a subscription to the journal to get past the abstract)

Here is a lecture on abiogenesis by Dr. David Deamer

I agree scientist don't have all the answers and this is thing that keeps them going knowing that there is more to learn.
If we stop, by believing we already know everything we will never get anywhere. You make a claim that transcendent creator created everything, but this causes another even bigger question, if the universe is insanely complex and therefore can not create itself what makes you think having even a more complex being exist make the situation of creation easier to fathom. You believe God existed forever, scientist also seem to think the same about the universe in mathematical sense. During the Big bang space time would have expanded at many times the speed of light which would cause time it self to slow down close to infinity and the further into the expansion you go the faster time starts to go. Again time is relative and so is the beginning.

Glad your so sure of your uncertainty. My Ocd makes sure I have no options. My only hope is God without him I have none. The more doubts the more likely my insanity will increase. Glad your not revealing in psychosis. I can only dream of such a luxury.

 

[Mii]

Glad your so sure of your uncertainty. My Ocd makes sure I have no options. My only hope is God without him I have none. The more doubts the more likely my insanity will increase. Glad your not revealing in psychosis. I can only dream of such a luxury.

Disassociation will only "hold" intellectualism for so long...when wrath is poured out no argument will really stand up.

I can't say this particular path that this person is pursuing is entirely futile, but I feel where you are and sort of go back and forth between the two. I still have the luxury of entertaining these things sometimes but that window is getting narrower. Sometimes I have no choice but to be tossed around and desperately cling to the ROCK

Eventually these luxuries will cease for all men/women...


Oh and at your quoting me @WhyNotAsk you didn't really engage faith at all. I would highly encourage you to do so. Not the version that you posited to me, there are many other angles to perceive faith.

What is observable takes faith. That your senses cannot lie, and what you can see is therefore accurate. Science cannot explain many anomalies and they are conveniently factored out of discussions, such as mortality. It's something we don't understand. There is a biblical understanding that for me fills in the spiritual gap but not the intellectual gap...Plenty to say intellectually but I cannot currently discern whether or not this is productive or not. If you really think that blind faith is the only way to view it then I would suggest you reconsider, for the sake of intellectual honesty. Is self-reliance a form of faith? How do you know your body will sustain itself for another day? We cannot account for anomalies (such as mortal accidents) therefore we must just continue on blindly in some fashion.

An experiment proved a hypothesis. I take this statement on faith. I did not observe this experiment myself personally and in a way I am trusting another human's word against my own personal observations. Eh, I'm getting tired. I might be willing to unpack that a little further but we have limitations. Time being one of the most "pressuring"...so certain things have to be accepted based of the premise that we don't know, but that it could be because someone else said it and we must "presume" based off some type of evidence.

Let us say that someone "proved" some type of demonic activity. Would you trust a video? Would you want to carry out this experiment yourself? Let us say that when you carried it out that it didn't work in the same way because that being "said" (according to who carried out the experiment) that they were only going to show this one time. Would you be convinced?

Suppose said being did not want to demonstrate "proof" more than once...then unless you were in the room...you would not "really" know. You would be taking it on faith. Even if you were there...wouldn't that open up more questions?


I think one of the main issues with "Proving God" is that you expect to be able to understand everything you want to understand based off your own will. Do you suppose that this being has no will? Do you presume that you can exalt your will above his? That's a "bit" of a leap.


There a so many ways to view faith that I don't really want to get into but there's a lot to be considered.

 

[WhyNotAsk]

Disassociation will only "hold" intellectualism for so long...when wrath is poured out no argument will really stand up.

I can't say this particular path that this person is pursuing is entirely futile, but I feel where you are and sort of go back and forth between the two. I still have the luxury of entertaining these things sometimes but that window is getting narrower. Sometimes I have no choice but to be tossed around and desperately cling to the ROCK

Eventually these luxuries will cease for all men/women...


Oh and at your quoting me @WhyNotAsk you didn't really engage faith at all. I would highly encourage you to do so. Not the version that you posited to me, there are many other angles to perceive faith.

What is observable takes faith. That your senses cannot lie, and what you can see is therefore accurate. Science cannot explain many anomalies and they are conveniently factored out of discussions, such as mortality. It's something we don't understand. There is a biblical understanding that for me fills in the spiritual gap but not the intellectual gap...Plenty to say intellectually but I cannot currently discern whether or not this is productive or not. If you really think that blind faith is the only way to view it then I would suggest you reconsider, for the sake of intellectual honesty. Is self-reliance a form of faith? How do you know your body will sustain itself for another day? We cannot account for anomalies (such as mortal accidents) therefore we must just continue on blindly in some fashion.

An experiment proved a hypothesis. I take this statement on faith. I did not observe this experiment myself personally and in a way I am trusting another human's word against my own personal observations. Eh, I'm getting tired. I might be willing to unpack that a little further but we have limitations. Time being one of the most "pressuring"...so certain things have to be accepted based of the premise that we don't know, but that it could be because someone else said it and we must "presume" based off some type of evidence.

Let us say that someone "proved" some type of demonic activity. Would you trust a video? Would you want to carry out this experiment yourself? Let us say that when you carried it out that it didn't work in the same way because that being "said" (according to who carried out the experiment) that they were only going to show this one time. Would you be convinced?

Suppose said being did not want to demonstrate "proof" more than once...then unless you were in the room...you would not "really" know. You would be taking it on faith. Even if you were there...wouldn't that open up more questions?


I think one of the main issues with "Proving God" is that you expect to be able to understand everything you want to understand based off your own will. Do you suppose that this being has no will? Do you presume that you can exalt your will above his? That's a "bit" of a leap.


There a so many ways to view faith that I don't really want to get into but there's a lot to be considered.

Of course all you can do is judge from your point of view, you claim I didn't engage in Faith while in reality, I did for nearly 7 years with out questioning and 4 years before that with out understanding it.

We don't have to do every experiment to know the hypothesis has been proven and in turn they become theories, look at gravitational theory, germ theory of disease, plate tectonics theory, electromagnetic theory or quantum theory all of these have working understanding of the physical world and can be used to make accurate predictions if you invest the time to understand them.

But remaining in ignorance and just denying yourself to all knowledge because you hold to a specific belief leaves you just where you started when you where born, if not in a worse position.

I think proving God would be as easy as proving one bit of so called supernatural to be real, if its not why assume there is a God that we can know. Bible in this point is clearly wrong and this will be my view until I have even a shred of evidence to lean the other way.

Strangest thing about becoming an atheist is people never ask why I became an atheist, they just make assumptions that I had some bad experience, loss of a loved one, not having the right theology, never actually being born again, being deceived and so on... In reality its much simpler then that I don't believe because I realised all the "evidence" was just the bible verses which where actually just assertions never backed by any evidence.