Present Evidence Here II

[Cavebear]

Ah ... well then be more clear next time.  Or I will have to hit you with my poker ;-)

I read a sci-fi story once where the humans confused the telepathis aliens by focussing on an image of a knight climbing a poker.  The irrational image confused the aliens suficiently...

[Baruch]

I read a sci-fi story once where the humans confused the telepathis aliens by focussing on an image of a knight climbing a poker.  The irrational image confused the aliens suficiently...

Guess aliens don't understand homonyms (night).  And Kirk did this on Mudd's Planet ... to an poorly designed Norman, the android.

[Unbeliever]

I think Kirk did something similar in more than one episode. Wasn't something like that used against Landru?

[Baruch]

I think Kirk did something similar in more than one episode. Wasn't something like that used against Landru?

Correct, poor Landru never got his Windows patch, after Bob was loaded ;-)  I liked "Clippy" planet better ;-))

[trdsf]

There are three triggers that produce the same result.  The data is the same for each.  So why are two interpretations valid but the third not?

Two reasons.

First, there's nothing in the data to indicate that the "hand of god" is a plausible option.

Second, you can't run a cause/effect experiment in reverse.  While we can do an MRI on someone who's just done cocaine, or is looking at a picture (or in the physical presence of) someone they care deeply about, we cannot do an MRI to tell what drug someone has taken, or what person they're looking at.

This is the fallacy you're pursuing: it's a non-reversible process, and you're trying to use it reversibly.  You're saying, in effect: "This is the result I wanted, therefore it could have come from the cause I want it to come from."  I have a really good way to test that way of doing things: go out and start spending like you hit next Saturday's Powerball, because it could happen.  Be sure to let me know what happens when the bills start showing up.

You can not assume a cause just because you want it to be a cause.  If you really want to say a god did it, you first need to be able to demonstrate the existence of that god in a concrete way.  Then and only then can you run a test to see first if a god can influence a person's MRI readings, and then if the influence of that god on a person's MRI is comparable to that of cocaine or of other people.

When you just say "well, a god could have done it", you assume far, far too much and leave out far, far too many necessary steps.  If yours is a reasonable assumption, then it is every bit as reasonable for me to say a unicorn did it, or an alien did, or Santa, or the Tooth Fairy, or the influence of the asteroid Ceres as it retrogrades through Scorpio.

[cabinetmaker]

Two reasons.

First, there's nothing in the data to indicate that the "hand of god" is a plausible option.

Second, you can't run a cause/effect experiment in reverse.  While we can do an MRI on someone who's just done cocaine, or is looking at a picture (or in the physical presence of) someone they care deeply about, we cannot do an MRI to tell what drug someone has taken, or what person they're looking at.

This is the fallacy you're pursuing: it's a non-reversible process, and you're trying to use it reversibly.  You're saying, in effect: "This is the result I wanted, therefore it could have come from the cause I want it to come from."  I have a really good way to test that way of doing things: go out and start spending like you hit next Saturday's Powerball, because it could happen.  Be sure to let me know what happens when the bills start showing up.

You can not assume a cause just because you want it to be a cause.  If you really want to say a god did it, you first need to be able to demonstrate the existence of that god in a concrete way.  Then and only then can you run a test to see first if a god can influence a person's MRI readings, and then if the influence of that god on a person's MRI is comparable to that of cocaine or of other people.

When you just say "well, a god could have done it", you assume far, far too much and leave out far, far too many necessary steps.  If yours is a reasonable assumption, then it is every bit as reasonable for me to say a unicorn did it, or an alien did, or Santa, or the Tooth Fairy, or the influence of the asteroid Ceres as it retrogrades through Scorpio.

I'm not assuming a cause.  The data indicates that a cause was observed that was neither love nor cocaine.  The data does not conclusively rule out the hand of God.  I posted something a bit earlier discussing the extra dimensional qualities of God.  A professor out of the biology department at CU-Boulder hypothesized that God exists in n+1 dimensions.  Mathematically, we can prove the existence of 12 orthogonal dimensions.  This would mean that God exists in 13 dimensions.  How does one create tests to prove or disprove the existence of a 13 dimension being?  Now lets say that that 13 dimensional being is intelligent is ways that we cannot begin to grasp and, that for purposes of its own, it does not wish to be "observed," how would we be able to "observe" it? 

[Blackleaf]

I'm not assuming a cause.  The data indicates that a cause was observed that was neither love nor cocaine.  The data does not conclusively rule out the hand of God.  I posted something a bit earlier discussing the extra dimensional qualities of God.  A professor out of the biology department at CU-Boulder hypothesized that God exists in n+1 dimensions.  Mathematically, we can prove the existence of 12 orthogonal dimensions.  This would mean that God exists in 13 dimensions.  How does one create tests to prove or disprove the existence of a 13 dimension being?  Now lets say that that 13 dimensional being is intelligent is ways that we cannot begin to grasp and, that for purposes of its own, it does not wish to be "observed," how would we be able to "observe" it?

He doesn't want us to observe him, but he expects us to believe in him anyway? If that's the way it is, then God is an asshole, especially if he throws people into Hell simply for not believing in them. As for how we would possibly observe it, I don't know. You tell me. You're the one who claimed to have the evidence. I would like to see evidence for this 13 dimensional stuff too. Sounds like science fiction to me.

[Baruch]

1. Cause/effect is pre-scientific ... like phlogiston

2. The Tao of Physics proves that physics can be used to prove Buddhist etc

3. And yes, G-d is a jerk

[trdsf]

I'm not assuming a cause.  The data indicates that a cause was observed that was neither love nor cocaine.  The data does not conclusively rule out the hand of God.  I posted something a bit earlier discussing the extra dimensional qualities of God.  A professor out of the biology department at CU-Boulder hypothesized that God exists in n+1 dimensions.  Mathematically, we can prove the existence of 12 orthogonal dimensions.  This would mean that God exists in 13 dimensions.  How does one create tests to prove or disprove the existence of a 13 dimension being?  Now lets say that that 13 dimensional being is intelligent is ways that we cannot begin to grasp and, that for purposes of its own, it does not wish to be "observed," how would we be able to "observe" it?

You can't just say "the data does not conclusively rule out the hand of god".  It also doesn't rule out unicorns, aliens or astrology, or that my great aunt sneaked into the lab and screwed with the data when no one was looking.  Where are your assertions that it was any of those?

'Not ruled out' is in no way, shape or form anywhere near 'could have been'.  As soon as you make up a causal chain that has not been observed, you very much are assuming a cause.

All the data indicated was that people in a certain frame of mind experienced brain chemistry changes similar to love and cocaine.  That proves nothing about any god, because we already know that those changes can be induced strictly internally to the brain being measuredâ€"unless you want to further assert that 'love' occupies some independent existence outside of consciousness.  And frankly, I'm willing to bet that I can achieve that same state of mind without thinking one religious thought.  If you know someone who can make an MRI happen, I will cheerily submit to it.

You're repeating the same two logical faults: you're still trying to run the experiment backwards, and you cannot assert any cause involving a divine power, however many caveats you want to put on it, without first demonstrating that divine power exists.

Furthermore, if it doesn't "wish to be observed", two even more important things.  One, this is called 'special pleading', making up a "reason" we can't observe these things in controlled settings.  Second, if it's not observable, then we may proceed as if it does not exist, because if it's not observable, then it can have no effect on this universe.  As soon as there's an effect, it's measurable.

I also question a mathematical "proof" coming from a professor of biology rather than a professor of mathematics.  Lastly, the number of dimensions the universe occupies has nowhere near been proven, and the number of dimensions plus 1 does not demonstrate the existence of a god.  It only demonstrates the ability to add one.  This is back to special pleading again -- "it's where we can't look for it" is what you're saying.  Then it may as well not exist, and I therefore have reason to say it doesn't, and you therefore have no reason to say it does.

[Unbeliever]

Well, it depends on the exact "nature" of the supposed God and its characteristics (or properties). If it has contradictory characteristics then it cannot logically exist, and so it does not exist. If you posit a God that has entirely self-consistent characteristics then it could at least logically exist. But the Christian (theistic) God isn't this type of God, since its supposed characteristics are, indeed, contradictory.

Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey

So, what properties do you consider God to have? Does it have any properties at all, or is it just some vague "something out there"?

Actually, I fall into the label of "non-cognitivist," since the word God can mean just about anything at all, and so it really means nothing at all.

I guess I'll get no response to this from cabinetmaker. He must've given up on trying to convert me. Good, that'll save him both time and energy.

[cabinetmaker]

He doesn't want us to observe him, but he expects us to believe in him anyway? If that's the way it is, then God is an asshole, especially if he throws people into Hell simply for not believing in them. As for how we would possibly observe it, I don't know. You tell me. You're the one who claimed to have the evidence. I would like to see evidence for this 13 dimensional stuff too. Sounds like science fiction to me.

The proof of God is not in the physical world.  I think the reason for that is confoundingly simple.  "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€"and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€" 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."  Knowledge will not save a person, faith does.  You can't really have faith in that which can proven and tested.  Understanding God requires the ability to acknowledge that there is more to the universe than we can perceive with our senses.

[cabinetmaker]

1. Cause/effect is pre-scientific ... like phlogiston

They ran three trials with three separate stimuli and all three produced significantly similar results.  Why?

2. The Tao of Physics proves that physics can be used to prove Buddhist etc

That's nice.

3. And yes, G-d is a jerk

I cannot agree with this statement.

[Baruch]

Quoting Apostle Paul now?

Ah ... a response ...

Cause/effect is a matter of interpretation, not fact.   See David Hume.  When we see something has happened, followed by something else, we make an assumption that the first causes the second.  It is like the Black Swan problem ... they didn't exist, until someone sighted one.

The more modern view is "description" which is neutral statement of the facts, not "cause/effect" which is tendentious bias.

On religious and political idealism ... nice for you.  My experience of life is not favorable to idealisms.

[Unbeliever]

3. And yes, G-d is a jerk

I cannot agree with this statement.

This proves that the God of the Bible is even worse than a jerk:
What the Bible's God is really like

[cabinetmaker]

You can't just say "the data does not conclusively rule out the hand of god".  It also doesn't rule out unicorns, aliens or astrology, or that my great aunt sneaked into the lab and screwed with the data when no one was looking.  Where are your assertions that it was any of those?

They did not run the test with unicorns or aliens or astrology.  They did run for people experiancing a religious experience.  And got a repeatable result.

'Not ruled out' is in no way, shape or form anywhere near 'could have been'.  As soon as you make up a causal chain that has not been observed, you very much are assuming a cause.

If you cannot rule something out after a test then more and different testing is required.

All the data indicated was that people in a certain frame of mind experienced brain chemistry changes similar to love and cocaine.  That proves nothing about any god, because we already know that those changes can be induced strictly internally to the brain being measuredâ€"unless you want to further assert that 'love' occupies some independent existence outside of consciousness.  And frankly, I'm willing to bet that I can achieve that same state of mind without thinking one religious thought.  If you know someone who can make an MRI happen, I will cheerily submit to it.

Yes, you probably can.  But that still doesn't mean that people who are experiencing God in this test are not truly experiencing God. 

You're repeating the same two logical faults: you're still trying to run the experiment backwards, and you cannot assert any cause involving a divine power, however many caveats you want to put on it, without first demonstrating that divine power exists.

False.  Sometimes you run and experiment and get a result that you did not anticipate.  It gives you hint that there is something else going on that requires further research.  You have long ago reached a conclusion that God does not exist.  Therefore, all your arguments are predicated on that mind set.  I look at this data and see a result that was not anticipated and ask what explains that result.  OF the two of us, I am the one actually open to following the evidence.

Furthermore, if it doesn't "wish to be observed", two even more important things.  One, this is called 'special pleading', making up a "reason" we can't observe these things in controlled settings.  Second, if it's not observable, then we may proceed as if it does not exist, because if it's not observable, then it can have no effect on this universe.  As soon as there's an effect, it's measurable.

Yes, at some point any discussion regarding God is going to come down to a statement of faith.  Your faith is that God does not exist.  I contend that it is a statement of faith given that we DO NOT know all that there is to know.  Our understanding of the universe around us is constantly evolving.

I also question a mathematical "proof" coming from a professor of biology rather than a professor of mathematics.  Lastly, the number of dimensions the universe occupies has nowhere near been proven, and the number of dimensions plus 1 does not demonstrate the existence of a god.  It only demonstrates the ability to add one.  This is back to special pleading again -- "it's where we can't look for it" is what you're saying.  Then it may as well not exist, and I therefore have reason to say it doesn't, and you therefore have no reason to say it does.

Funny thing about university professors, a lot of their friends are university professors.  Even from other departments.  He did not offer the proof as his own but included the information in his presentation.  You will also note that I stated that it is a mathematical proof.  This makes sense as proofs only exist in math.  Now, since math is frequently used to model the physical, it can be applied to the universe.  It has been some time, but I recall a program on The Science Channel that was discussing extra dimensional and how it related to the universe.  The orthogonality of the dimensions makes ones head hurt when trying to understand how you can four dimensions and they are all are right angles to each other.  12 at all right angles?  Very difficult to understand.  The fact that we can't easily understand these concepts does not mean they are not true.  As it relates to God, you failed to answer my question.  IF (This requires you to use your imagination now) there exists a being that exists in 13 dimensions, what properties would that being have and how would we test for it?