BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 11:16 PM

"You can stop any time, Riginslinger."



                            Sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 10:08 PM

Epicurus spoke well, but the steps have a false middle in the statement that if he is able, but not willing, then he is malevolent. It conflates allowance with causation. It is possible he is not willing for perfectly benevolent reasons, like allowing humans to work out their own destiny.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 10:06 PM

You can stop any time, Riginslinger.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: bobad
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 10:05 PM

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:54 PM

Getting back to the task of finding gods, I think it might pay to look at the process of cleaning carpets.
                Muslims, you'll notice, roll their carpets out on a stone floor and spend hours and hours, five times a day, banging those carpets with their foreheads.
                In the west, of course, we throw the carpet over a clothes line, and beat the dust out of it with a worn out old tennis racket.
                In the west, I suspect we end up with cleaner carpets, but it's not hard to understand why no one has discovered a god. In the Middle-East, however, one would think, with those Muslims beating their carpets over and over--by the millions in all parts of west Asia and Northern Africa--pounding and pounding with their foreheads, they would surely have chased up some kind of a god by now. That is, if there'd been any kind of a god to find anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 01:16 PM

Well, if it changes from the unobserved, we'll never know anyway, since we can't observe the unobserved, so why worry?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 01:02 PM

Yes it seems irrational and at odds with what we are taught but

The fish dance does change. It may even change at great distance from the observer. The next dimension up from our percieved 4 dimensions has the unimaginable ability to be in contact with all points of 3D space at once. (but don't ask me to show you) ;< }

The molecular dances are keenly influenced by quantum changes and molecular changes keenly effect the larger systems of a nervous system.


Rarely do we really take in this reality...

One DOES see with the naked eye a macro partical in two places at the same time so it is not strickly at the quantum level. The cloud chambers in which you can see this effect are at several university labs. Yes size matters but it only effects the probabilities.

Indeed once things get sufficiently large the potential for bizarre quantum effects becomes potentially small. For example pushing your hand through a pane of glass without breaking the glass is possible but becomes somthing like 10 to the 20th power unlikely.

Of the billions of moments you have lived it is probable you have seen or sensed something "impossible". When this happens we usually don't see it since we have no context to put it in, or we don't believe our eyes. Of course believeing ones eyes is a whole different story.



PS
the cat may or may not have died prior to scratching the hungry dog's nose.

I do not know however if the cat scratched the dog's nose after it died.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 12:18 PM

Yes, the fish dance would change at the quantum level from being perceived - but not at any level WE live on.

Who asked the following questions or posed the conundrum:

Evil exists. If God can't stop it, he isn't omnipotent. If he can stop it and doesn't, he isn't benevolent. And there is more to it but I can't recall, help, someone?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 11:46 AM

My point exactly, in general, MT -- I do not blame all the stupefaction on religion, just that which centers around the areas of thought in which religion injects its data -- you know, the nature of the universe, the nature of ethics, the best methods of right action, stuff like that.

When it comes to thinking about science, of course, religion has nothing to say that could possibly confuse a person wanting to learn. Oh, except in matters of anthropology, archaeology, biology, geophysics, cosmology, and sociology. The damage imposed by religious teachings is more in areas of individual comeptency to think clearly, and in sociological areas like ethics, human interdependence, the nature of decency and so on.

Other subjects, of course, inject false data into student's wits. A major example, of course, is the video gaming industry and the entertainment industry. False emotions, false precepts, false values, false analysis, false news, mis-evaluation of importances, distorted views of sequence and consequence... no wonder kids end up in apathetic confusion.

A
A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 11:29 AM

The Pathetic Fallacy


"The pathetic fallacy is the name given the specious attribution of emotions --- which is to say, pathos --- to the inanimate. Thus, when NASA tells children that, Òthe moving object, due to its mass, wants to keep going,Ó it misleads them with the pathetic fallacy. For, to the best of anyoneÕs knowledge, an inanimate mass doesnÕt have any wants. Well, there is a belief system which posits that everything contains a spirit which motivates and directs its actions, and that system is called animism. But, animism is not science. So, apparently we have NASA promoting animism among our children under the guise of promoting science. This is scary. (One then wonders if NASA thinks this way, or it only wants children to do so). "

Jolly good stuff...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 11:12 AM

"The problem enters when they inject mind-crippling assumptions into the thinking of their young, rendering them stupid in certain areas of thought."

True, Amos, but don't blame it all on religion--check this Bad Science

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 10:35 AM

He would drool, or not.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: GUEST,Keinstein
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 10:20 AM

Even the light we look at is changed. It is changed right down to the quantum level.>/i>

Only at quantum level, though. If you look at higher levels- molecule size and above- quantum effects average out.

I would ask you to look up split beam experiment.
I Put it to you that in this universe something CAN even be in two places at the same time. It is observable fact.

Only quantum scale objects. Not fish or cats, even Schroedinger's. Though I've heard it argued that, as they travel at the speed of light, time doesn't exist for photons, and that there could be just the one in the whole universe.

Now what would happen if Schroedinger's cat met Pavlov's dog?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:39 AM

I have seen with my own eyes how a benevolent group of people in a buddist sect gradually became reactionary, exclusive and took on aspects of Nazi party. After an attitude of "specialness" was introduced an exclusivity began to subvert inclusiveness with rules like "a true beliver must remove books from their dwelling that could sour the words of wisdom in our holy texts".

The proximity of items became a threat. Then questions became a threat and finally the people who asked the questions became the threat.

Every club has dues. Some dues are evil dressed in angelic clothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:29 AM

MRRZY I know what you said about the fish not being effected is rational but it isn't true/

The weird and bizrre fact is they are changed. Even the light we look at is changed. It is changed right down to the quantum level.

I would ask you to look up split beam experiment.
I Put it to you that in this universe something CAN even be in two places at the same time. It is observable fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:26 AM

I would submit that there are benefits to having groups formed around nominally spiritual and benevolent principals. In other words, churches are good groups, perhyaps in spite of any intellectual predation or spiritual distortion they include in there metaphysics. But this is because they are really more social groups than religious ones. Some churches, that is. The problem enters when they inject mind-crippling assumptions into the thinking of their young, rendering them stupid in certain areas of thought.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:25 AM

I read, elsewhere, an interesting conversation someone was having with a Creationist. Usually, creationists make ill advised efforts to square their beliefs with reality by making up their own 'science' or distorting known scientific facts, or just stating that goddidit and that's that. Not this fellow, who seemed like a pretty clear thinking person otherwise. He had read his Bible carefully and literally, and pointed out that the god of the Bible is described as impatient, jealous, even fearful of his own created beings (after all, there was that angelic rebellion). His reasoning is that god is neither omnipotent or omniscient, at least not as we would define those qualities.

He noted that God said, after creating the planet, that it was 'good', not 'perfect', and that in his impatient haste to 'get it done', mistakes were made, steps were skipped, and a few bad decisions crept in. He thinks the universe was a separate creation from the earth, maybe even always there, and that God formed earth out of that only 6000 years ago, explaining all the appearances of age we see.

Of course, it's a completely off the wall notion, and I doubt any theologian would agree with him, but it interested me that in order to salvage the 'young earth' belief, this fellow was willing to take at least two 'omnis' out of his god's bag of tricks.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:10 AM

The moment you measure the dance... you have interjected some distortion - Not to the dance, though. The fish won't differ from being looked at or not. Your representation OF that dance will be distorted from "reality" by your perceptual system, expectations, etc. - but the fish just dances on.

There are many 'religionists' who are perfectly capable of discussing their beliefs calmly and in a rational way. - Sure - but their faith itself is NOT rational. (Almost by definition.)

And the growing evidence is that the Darwinian advantages of religion accrue to the PRIESTHOOD (loosely speaking), not to the believers upon whom they prey.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 09:39 PM

"the first guy wo discovered if he could do the Voodoo Hoodoo well enough he could eat without hunting."


                   And more importantly, he was left home alone with all the women. Which might explain why there's so many of them, assuming Darwin might have been onto something.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 07:49 PM

Well there had to be the first charlaton, but often the Spritual leader of the tribe was a medicine man based on his knowledge of healing plants.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 07:30 PM

People using spiritual desire as a means for controlling or defrauding others goes all the way back before your Gilgamesh was a twinkle in anyone's eye, back to the first guy wo discovered if he could do the Voodoo Hoodoo well enough he could eat without hunting.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: GUEST,donuel
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 07:25 PM

With all sincerity Nick, the televangelists of today are far worse than the money lenders of yore. Today they just keep your money and wouldn't dream of lending you any of theirs.




Here here John of Weldon, your features are a fine introduction into even more specific and fun filled issues. I have been known to do a few cartoons myself.


I for one was cast into public Jr. High School hell and sent to the principal's office for writing an essay on evolution in which I began "Man and other animals..." Although I was punished further by being castigated to the coat closet my spirit was not dampened. When they passed out clay for art class I did an anatomically corret female nude. I was cast out of art class yet I still do art. In English class I was given an F for a poem I had written because it was so good, the teacher determined it must have been plagerized. There was a piling on by teachers that I remember to this day.

It seems I was never directly punished for any scientificly held belief but rather punished for beliefs disrespectful to Christianity.

Last year I wrote 'a comedy of errors' based on the premise that the dead sea scrolls included deciphering copper scrolls that brought the whole bible into its true intended focus. For example many names were changed to protect decendents. Noah's ark was really Jonas ark and the flood was merely a global warming effect. The book of Levidicus when deciphered with the copper scrolls was really are really funny joke thread. Even the ten Commandments when deciphered were indeed as Mel Brooks guessed, The 10 condiments...etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 07:13 PM

Thanks for that M.Ted, I stand corrected. I had heard this story a long time ago and it seemed to add up, but now I know better. There were other fakes, more easily spotted - such as 'manager' being about 'men in charge' whereas in fact the word comes from the root 'mano' or 'manus' (good old latin again) meaning 'hand'. The concept was of someone who had a hand over something, as in guiding or controlling it

But the veracity of the 'sincere' story aside, I'm sure there were 'religious' fraudsters back then..

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 07:08 PM

Of course I forgot to add the example of the religious people who see money as a menas to an end, not an end in itself. For example, billions and billions of lire passed through the hands of the famous Italian, Padre Pio, but he never kept a cent for himself. The money (in donations0 was all used for various charity projects etc., Now whether OTHER people along the way creamed off a few lire here or there for 'administration' I don't know, but i haven't ever heard of it in that particular case.

I also recently finished reaidng a book called "Where God Weeps" by a Belgian priest called Wienfried Von Stratten who after WW2 tirelessly raised funds for the millions of 'displaced' and impoverished people left in the aftermath of that war in Europe. Now who do you think the first people he sent money to were? The Belgians? The French? No - the Germans. Thousands upon thousands of German families and children impoverished by the war recived money, food pacakges and Xmas presents to help them. He persuaded Belgina schoolchildren to save up their sweets at Lent (a Christian festival of 40 days when people try and make some small sacrifices such as giving up cigarettes or sweets) in order to have them sent in packages to German children.

His reward was to be able to pass on to the donors thousands of letters of gratitude from German families, many along the lines of "I can't thank you enough, I saw my children smile this Xmas when they got the sweets. We Germans didn't deserve this, we would have perfectly understood if after the war, you Belgians wished us dead. It has renewed our faith in the goodness of humanity in the midst of so much evil'.

Von Stratten made a point of getting people from one country to donate to former enemies in another country. Thus Germans who were able to do so were encouraged to send parcels to French etc, This way, he managed in thousands of individual cases to rebuild the spirit of a shattered continentt, and give practical meaning to the phrases "love your enemies' and 'turn the other cheek'.

It may not be an exaggeration to say that the work of people like him, and other religionists who joined his work, did as much to rebuild European humanity as did the 1957 Treaty of Rome which was the foundation treaty of the now-European Union. Yet today you would hardly even know such a person existed.

Von Stratten went on to South-east Asia and latter Latin America crusading to lift the unwanted poor of the world out of their filth and poverty. One of his tactics in latin Amercia was simply to squat land the government was allowing to go to waste and organise the locals to build a school, medical clinic, church, homes. These would then be supplied by the proceeds of his endless requests for money to the more (or less) well-off in other countries. He often upbraided the Church hierarchy for coming to compromise with the Eastern Bloc and Soviet Union so that an emasculated 'official' church subservient to the secular state would be left unmolested while the reality for the ordinary people was of crushing secular oppression of religion.

There isn't space here to write of all the things he did, this tireless man and champion of the earth's downtrodden. But I just wanted to show another side of the coin to those money-worshipping 'religious' mentioned by John.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 07:06 PM

Nice story about "sincere", but, not true, according to the dictionary people atMerriam-Webster Online:

" The "without wax" derivation of sincere is one that we've heard for ages now, it seems, but there is no evidence that sincere ever had anything to do with craftsmanship, statues, or wax. According to our sources, sincere is from the Middle French sincere, meaning "honest," which in turn derived from the Latin sincerus, meaning "whole, unsullied, pure, honest, genuine." Sincerus most likely derives from sem- or sim- (a Latin root word meaning "one") and –cerus, which is most likely akin to the Latin verb creare, meaning "to create." We can say it is clearly not related to the Latin cera, "wax." We have ample evidence of the Latin sincerus through Classical and Medieval Latin, and it has never been used to describe anything having to do with "wax." Sincerus has meant "honest, pure, genuine, whole" since the classical era. "

This is all by way of saying that the "without wax" story is just that—a story. It is a good one and makes for great copy, as they say, which is why it is so oft repeated. But unless we see some new evidence of early uses of sincere that make the connection between honesty and wax clear, we have to reject this explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 06:46 PM

The God and mammon video made some good points. You're right about lots of 'religious' people demanding money or abusing religion to defraud the unsuspecting. But this has been going on for a surprisingly long time. You know the way you sign off a letter with 'yours sincerely'? Ever wonder the origin of that phrase? It comes from pagan times (in the Roman empire) when vendors would hawk little statues of the various gods outside shrines. Now the 'proper' statues would be made of gold or silver, or perhaps at least a base of copper with a generous coating of silver for the cheaper ones. But even copper and tin are expensive so the really unscrupulous used-car salesmen of teh statue trade found a way to make an even bigger profit. They used hardened wax as the base with a thin coating of gold or silver over. Very cheap, and a tidy profit. Of course it wasn't long before this trick came to be known and people were wary when buying their votive statues. So vendors would put up signs telling their prospective clients their statues were without (sin) wax (ceres) = sincere (latin). This word has come down to us through time to mean 'without deception' or 'honestly'.

In the middle ages the abuses of selling pardons and indulgences was well-known. Chaucer roundly mocked the vendors in his stereotypes in his Canterbury Tales (see "the prologue to the Pardoner's tale", plus the tale itself). It was one cause of the schism with the Vatican that led to the reformation.

But we find people in all walks of life engaging in such dishonest practices. I remember reading of a sociologist who wasted 18,000 dollars of tax payers' money in the form of a grant form his university. The title of his thesis / research? I don't remember it now exactly, but it was along the lines of 'the interpersonal relationships found within a Peruvian brothel'......

Since you've read the New Testament you'll be familiar with Jesus' approach to money. Apparently He didn't even own a purse into which to put it. Judas (Iscariot) was the one who took care of all the finances. Jesus warned the Apostles 'carry no purse, no haversack' but told them to accept such help and support as people offered graciously (no hint of extortion). He drove the money lenders and merchants out of the temple in a very rare burst of righteous anger accusing them of turning His father's house into a den of thieves. My feeling (without wanting to slander anyone genuine) is that much of this televangelism today is along the same lines as those merchants.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: GUEST,cosmostician donueles
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 06:38 PM

(the observer effects the observed concept)
So if it is life or consciousness that imposes parameters for measured perception and in doing so distorts the universe , then a Universe unsullied by life would be without distortion, in the same sense as the fallen tree would make no noise without someone to hear it.

The distortion is within the consciousness of the life form's perception as well as the observed universe. The photons passing through 2 slits and displaying the pattern on a wall are indeed influenced by an observer in a manner which is like a supreme being calling quanta into existence.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 06:23 PM

John, your videos are well made and very funny!

But I think you show two extremes - the VERY reasonable polite scientists v. the totally unreasonable and violent 'religionists'. Ok, so you were dramatising for effect (I hope!) but I think it'll give people a skewed view. There are many 'religionists' who are perfectly capable of discussing their beliefs calmly and in a rational way. They recognise that 'conversion' is not up to the force of their argument or their experiences, but to the spirit of God. However the former might at least provide food for thought for the religiously curious. They will arrive at a point when they will politely agree to disagree on occasion. These are people who give their beliefs a lot of thought and mull over them regularly and are always seeking to understand more. They are not the blind automatons so often portrayed as religious stereotypes. Of course there are many of the latter as well! Your curiosity about religion and matters of the spirirt can often depend on which kind you meet first!


Then again if you have any experience of academia (and I'm sure you must, if you are qualified in any field of science) you will know how territorial some scientists (and academics generally) can get about their research and theories. They will defend the most absurd theories long past their sell-by date because they have often staked their reputation or academic careers on them, or because they have passed their own sell-by date and realise it would just be too painful to go back to drawing board and start from scratch. The unseemly academic spats of duelling scientists raraely make it to the front page of the tabloids or the prime-time news, firstly because it rarely involves death or suicide bombing (though at least one shooting, in Italy) - which is good, of course. But also because the material under discussion may be too opaque to the reporting journalist who fears a migraine trying to make sense of it all and just prefers simpler cliches about 'religious intolerance'. It doesn't make for good headlines is what I'm saying.

Of course such academics are not common, but my point is they do exist and it is a hidden side of academia and science that rarely gets a public airing. It helps create the fasle impression that scientists by virtue of their vocation are a more reasonable and reliable lot than humanity at large. You see scientists are humans and humans bring their personaloity and character with them into the classroom and lab just as religionists do into the church and their neighbourhoods. That's why you get interesting, open-minded scientists who it's great to chat with, and mean-minded scientists who sneer at dissent in the lecture halls (which may often stem from a fear of having their assumptions put under closer scrutiny). We're all just human at the end of the day.

Regarding 'Mon-Sat scientists' I suppose it depends on which kind you are talking about, but I think it's quite possible to reconcile an interest in science as a useful tool for explaining the physical world and spirit / religion as a way of addressing metaphysical questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 05:16 PM

Well, I am quibbling on semantics, but I think it is important. FIsh dance all day. The moment you measure the dance, or take a mental picture of it, to take it out of its original instant for comparison, or lump things together for counting purposes, you have interjected some distortion, but all representations of the universe are necessarily distorted from the original instant they represent.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: john f weldon
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 05:16 PM

And, on a lighter note...

Science and Religion

the flood

Mammon

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 04:32 PM

I don't think I understand what Making Numbers is, in that context, Amos.

So you would argue, if I comprehend you aright, that if nobody is watching the fish dance for research purposes, the dance, which exists, isn't data? I guess I would say I am being really, really metaphysical then - I think these kinds of naturalistic data are discovered - rather than created - when someone watches the fish dance.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 03:57 PM

The fish may dance, but it is not data. A datum is a representation of a state of being (or non-being) in some universe. The raw state of the universe is not a representation (unless you want to be really, really metaphysical about it, I guess). Making numbers, for example, is forcing the raw states of being into a framework for representation whichi s alreayd partially distorted by that act.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 03:35 PM

Well, I couldn't get the FFF game ot work. So I abandoned it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 02:25 PM

I'll have to try that at home.

But it's an interesting philosophical question... I would say that the data exist even if nobody is collecting them if we're talking naturalistic observation. Lab data, on the other hand, have to be created by the investigator's subjects. That is, even if nobody is drawing conclusions from the mating dance of the stickleback fish, the fish, nonetheless, dances.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 11:34 AM

The ultimate Faith Fighting Game to stimulate reflection and provide hours of entertainment.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 11:45 PM

I don't know what is useful to you, Amos, owing to the fact that you are all the way over on the other side of the country. If you were here, you'd need some horrible chemicals to melt the ice.
I'll bet they're not even legal in California.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 10:59 PM

Wal, Ted, as far as I can see they is all pickchoors from the same side of life, dancing in the mind of folks to help them pose problems and resolve them.

I acknowledge the distinction, but I can't say I find it especially useful.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 10:04 PM

Here is a guy auctioning off some pretty old (literal) shit
http://cgi.ebay.com/COLORFUL-SPECIMEN-OF-COPROLITE-DINO-DUNG-ROCK-FOSSIL_W0QQitemZ260205679890QQihZ016QQcategoryZ15915QQssPageNa


I guess its has to be a couple hundred years older than Jesus :< {

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 10:02 PM

As for collecting data--I know a lot of people who just like to collect things. They even, often, leave them in the bags, and pile the bags up in back rooms and basements. That's a whole other thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 09:59 PM

Amos:

Here is a definition of DATUM:"A fact or proposition used to draw a conclusion or make a decision."

The other thing that you mentioned is more likely a DICTUM:" A statement, comment, or opinion."

Subject: THE JESUS STONE
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 09:52 PM

Proof of Jesus is on Ebay.

There is a guy auctioning off the Jesus Stone...here it ishttp://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/pict/3600140011016464_1.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 09:52 PM

It occurs to me that DATA would only be DATA insofar that it is being considered for some external purpose, that being an IDEA or QUESTION. The IDEA or QUESTION, would define the DATA.

Whether LOGIC has an existence outside of the human mind depends very much on what LOGIC is, or, I suppose, how you define LOGIC.   From my view, LOGIC seems a tool of INTELLECT--but that can't be your definition of LOGIC, for obvious reasons--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 08:57 PM

I submit there are two different definitions of "datum" in play here. The scientific version is a measured or observed fact deemed to be reliable in formulating a hypothesis.

In general discussion about minds and how they work, "men are all the same, out to get you" can be a datum. It won't be a very workable datum, but it can be found in some minds, usually adopted under duress of some sort. "Sunlight reminds me of angels" can be a datum as surely as "steps for long division..." can be. Some data proves out in life, and some doesn't, and some folks can change their unworkable datums easily and some cannot do so as well.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 08:36 PM

Interesting, M.Ted. Lessee:

It would seem that first there is the IDEA, then DATA, which is drawn by LOGIC to a CONCLUSION. Yes, idea can come first, but sometimes the idea comes from the data, as in, I can't seem to draw a conclusion from these data, maybe I can think of another way to get more data and clarify something. Or, hey, these data lead me to a completely different idea than I had when I first asked the question.

But where does the IDEA come from? Oops, already answered.

Can DATA exist without an IDEA? Well, there are data all over the place, but we would just call them facts, or something, if we weren't trying to look at them as data (with an idea in mind). For instance, ungulates have various shaped hooves, which is data for their evolution, but they had the hooves long before humans evolved to wonder how the horses did, I hope that makes sense...

Can there be a CONCLUSION without an IDEA? Sure - at least the conclusion could be a different idea than the idea that started the data collection...

Can there be LOGIC with neither an IDEA or DATA? Now that is more interesting. Would logic exist without humans to use it? I would say yes, just like the data did. I would say that it was true before humans evolved the idea of equivalence that if A=B and B=C then A=C. Just Pi was equal to 3.14etc before we figured it out. I guess I would call logic a discovery rather than an invention. Arguments?

And, if there is no need for a CONCLUSION, is there no need for LOGIC? That is also an interesting one. Conclusions will happen whether we need them or not - we can't help it, with our minds. But without logic we would have a hard time drawing the correct inferences - but I wouldn't go collect data if I wasn't interested in drawing some conclusion or other, would you?

VERY interesting thoughts. Slightly afield, but still fascinating.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 05:36 PM

It is all considerations of various data, including the data hat says Logic worls one way or another.

Some data aligns better with material space-time phenomena than others.

Of course a concept exists in the instanrt of creation before it can be called data.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 05:35 PM

In spite of all of it, you'd think somebody ought to be able to scare up some kind of a god somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 05:29 PM

It would seem that first there is the IDEA, then DATA, which is drawn by LOGIC to a CONCLUSION.
But where does the IDEA come from?
Can DATA exist without an IDEA?
Can there be a CONCLUSION without an IDEA?
Can there be LOGIC with neither an IDEA or DATA?
And, if there is no need for a CONCLUSION, is there no need for LOGIC?

Just curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: autolycus
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 04:16 PM

i Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy - PM
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 03:33 PM

Ah, yes, but what do you use to draw conclusions from data, if not logic? I understand that one can get to one's ideas without logic, but how does one get to a conclusion?

Does that make all data, nails?




Mrrzy, that sounds like your hammer is drawing conclusions from data. That's the scientific caste of mind, isn't it?

And all the assumptions hidden in that phrase are what even only philosophers of science (never mind those of other experiential/existential frameworks) would seek to uncover.

Just as with Bill, you seem not (to me) to realise that your framework/philosophy/vision/point of view is exactly that, a f/p/v/pv. LIke most of us, your f/p/v/pv is reality,for you. It is, for you, the way it is; THE way to handle the rest of the world, and to know it.

Just as each of us is liable to believe from top to bottom that OUR take on things IS NOT a mere take but, quite simply, the way it is.

That's how come so many of us get aggravated,annoyed, frustrated, angry, depressed, exasperated, contemptuous, et cetera, when another comes along and disagrees with our blindingly obviously true take on things.

Drawing conclusions from data is no less A way of dealing with the world than any other, omo.

When we are in the , for want of a better word, 'grip' of our view as the self-evident way, then other views, well, are wrong ot incomprehensible or both.( uh -eh- er -er - a - (like out of breath )


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 03:49 PM

No, it does not, of course.

It is the filter on acceptable or perceivable data that maketh all the difference.

It is the insight into ramifications of data and the relative importance of it. Boolean logic is not very good at defining relative importance. A lot of data skirmishes come from difference of opinion about weighing relative importance of information.

A single white crow might be statistically negligible in a world of usual crows; but in the universe of people believing that all crows are black, it could be extremely important, because it offers a crack in the doorway into a better model by presenting an irritating anomaly. Depending on your logic, you could throw the datum away or elevate it to great importance.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 03:33 PM

Ah, yes, but what do you use to draw conclusions from data, if not logic? I understand that one can get to one's ideas without logic, but how does one get to a conclusion?

Does that make all data, nails?