Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

I see no evidence of cats, dolphins or octupus showing interest in the Andromeda galaxy.

And if radially-symmetric avian derived hominids from a distant galaxy can contemplate Life, the Universe and Everything it will be by using God's gift.

I see no evidence of that.

[Walter]

I see no evidence of that.

nor I

[Sebastian Toe]

And if radially-symmetric avian derived hominids from a distant galaxy can contemplate Life, the Universe and Everything it will be by using God's gift.

But will they need to know of Jesus in order to be saved?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see no evidence of that.

Isn't that, though, due to evading the question...''why is the universe so damn reasonable and logical and penetrable by science, philosophy, mathematics'' etc.?

[Sassy]

An unevidenced claim which was covered previously (when you couldn't provide any external evidence other than the claim) which is a non sequitur to my post and position. Try and read what people actually write.

Wasn't unfounded... I gave you his site details and even you can google.
He has umpteen different things you could actually see for yourself. But the truth is you don't look because you are scared of the truth and being shown to be unfounded in your allegations.


EXTERNAL evidence is a red herring because the truth is YOU DON'T LOOK for the truth.
It is there like everything else you look for. But you ONLY look for what you choose to believe.
HENCE  you do choose EVERYTHING you believe and you blank and pretend the rest doesn't exist.

[torridon]

...''why is the universe so damn reasonable and logical and penetrable by science, philosophy, mathematics'' etc.?

Is there some reason why it shouldn't be ?

[Shaker]

Isn't that, though, due to evading the question...''why is the universe so damn reasonable and logical and penetrable by science, philosophy, mathematics'' etc.?

No.

As ever with people who think that the universe is "so damn reasonable and logical", there's a simple two-word response. No, not the one that ends with "... off"; the one that starts with "quantum" and ends with "mechanics".

[Nearly Sane]

Wasn't unfounded... I gave you his site details and even you can google.
He has umpteen different things you could actually see for yourself. But the truth is you don't look because you are scared of the truth and being shown to be unfounded in your allegations.


EXTERNAL evidence is a red herring because the truth is YOU DON'T LOOK for the truth.
It is there like everything else you look for. But you ONLY look for what you choose to believe.
HENCE  you do choose EVERYTHING you believe and you blank and pretend the rest doesn't exist.

And that website is an unevidenced claim. You need to stop personalising this and provide evidence, it's your burden of proof.

[Alan Burns]

from: Alan Burns on January 06, 2017, 07:40:57 PM

    And if radially-symmetric avian derived hominids from a distant galaxy can contemplate Life, the Universe and Everything it will be by using God's gift.

I see no evidence of that.

But the fact that you are able to say "I see no evidence of that." is ample evidence that you have the gift of conscious awareness which science alone can't provide.

[torridon]

I see no evidence of that.

But the fact that you are able to say "I see no evidence of that." is ample evidence that you have the gift of conscious awareness which science alone can't provide.

Science doesn't give us conscious awareness, that would be nature. Science merely attempts to understand it.

[Shaker]

^ What he said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is there some reason why it shouldn't be ?

.
Yes, because of the alternatives.
Your apparent position, dogmatic Just Is-ics ignores that possibility.
If one takes the multiverse position one is acknowledging a fine tuning issue.
Or one takes a fine tuning position due to apparent perpetual lack of evidence for alternatives

That's two reasons for starters.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No.

As ever with people who think that the universe is "so damn reasonable and logical", there's a simple two-word response. No, not the one that ends with "... off"; the one that starts with "quantum" and ends with "mechanics".

And that's a reasonable and logical suggestion is it?......It is?.......oops where did that pop up from?

[Alan Burns]

Science doesn't give us conscious awareness, that would be nature. Science merely attempts to understand it.

"attempts" being the operative word.  There is much more to nature than science can discover, as I hope you will see one day.

[Nearly Sane]

"attempts" being the operative word.  There is much more to nature than science can discover, as I hope you will see one day.

Assertion. Show is the evidence.

[torridon]

.
Yes, because of the alternatives.
Your apparent position, dogmatic Just Is-ics ignores that possibility.
If one takes the multiverse position one is acknowledging a fine tuning issue.
Or one takes a fine tuning position due to apparent perpetual lack of evidence for alternatives

That's two reasons for starters.

Or it could be the anthropic principle - if our universe was not amenable to logic then we wouldn't be here to argue about it. Maybe most universes are sterile, devoid of life because their base parameters failed to yield order out of chaos.  Who knows, I don't think we are in a position to make any positive claims one way or the other currently.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"attempts" being the operative word.  There is much more to nature than science can discover, as I hope you will see one day.

Well Shaker having brought up QM is effectively warning us of that and Torridon's Just Is-ics suggests no go areas as well.

If I didn't know better this looks like building up a kind of weird ''Antitheism of the gaps'' argument...but then we are entitled to ask how this fits in with the rampant scientism shown on this board.

Of course this situation is completely in line with wanting proof for theism but accepting 'don't know' as a rationale for naturalism.

[Shaker]

"attempts" being the operative word.  There is much more to nature than science can discover, as I hope you will see one day.

If there wasn't more to nature, there would be no such thing as science.

[Nearly Sane]

Well Shaker having brought up QM is effectively warning us of that and Torridon's Just Is-ics suggests no go areas as well.

If I didn't know better this looks like building up a kind of weird ''Antitheism of the gaps'' argument...but then we are entitled to ask how this fits in with the rampant scientism shown on this board.

Of course this situation is completely in line with wanting proof for theism but accepting 'don't know' as a rationale for naturalism.

Which naturalism would you mean here?

And I don't want proof, I want evidence? Got any?

Or even a methodology that defines what you mean by evidence?

After all this time if you not providing such?

[torridon]

"attempts" being the operative word.  There is much more to nature than science can discover, as I hope you will see one day.

I don't see how anyone could make that claim.  Science is the investigation of nature.  If there is an observable effect, then we can investigate it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or it could be the anthropic principle - if our universe was not amenable to logic then we wouldn't be here to argue about it. 

How is that different from ''Just Is -ics?''

Doesn't it suggest that a) some strange how a universe with continually shifting constants couldn't exist or a universe with no matter energy couldn't, b) that the presence of something logical ensures a logical universe?

[torridon]

Of course this situation is completely in line with wanting proof for theism but accepting 'don't know' as a rationale for naturalism.

That is because theism is a positive claim, so it requires justification.  'Don't know' is, or should be, an acceptable position when we don't know.

[Nearly Sane]

How is that different from ''Just Is -ics?''

Doesn't it suggest that a) some strange how a universe with continually shifting constants couldn't exist or a universe with no matter energy couldn't, b) that the presence of something logical ensures a logical universe?

and if you need the presence of something logical it then needs the presence of something logical and since you think inifinite regression is illogical, you have just contradicted yourself.

[Shaker]

And that's a reasonable and logical suggestion is it?......It is?.......oops where did that pop up from?

Yes it is. It's pretty much a standard trope amongst physicists that nobody understands QM and that anybody who pretends to really doesn't. That's why there's still no explanation of QM, only a range of differing interpretations that you can choose effectively according to whatever appeals to you personally.

So yes: the sheer weirdness and - to date - inexplicability of nature at the quantum level is an entirely reasonable and logical rebuttal to those who think that the universe is a neat, tidy, orderly, comprehensible place.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and if you need the presence of something logical it then needs the presence of something logical and since you think inifinite regression is illogical, you have just contradicted yourself.

Logic, like energy and matter could be eternal.