Life and God

[Willum]

If there were a Biblical God, wouldn't we find a lot more life in the universe?

If life has purpose, and including the whole apple story,etc., we should see life everywhere, by design.

At least that is the premise, any counter-views?

[Kenisaw]

Just popping in to remind everyone this is the science sub-forum.

Anyone saying their ideas have "naff-all to do with science" need only move their speculative rhetoric to an appropriate sub-forum, or start using more science in their ideas.

Perhaps it needs to be brought to the attention of the mods then, that the thread is in the incorrect forum.



Apart from that, my comments re science are appropriate within the context of the forum. As far as I can see, no one has stated that their own ideas have "naff all to do with science."

I see intelligence involved with biological evolution and you do not. Science actually doesn't have an opinion either way on the subject.

That's a fact, Jack.

eta - just popping back in to say you are actually incorrect. It is not a 'science forum' as you claim. perhaps no need for mod action after all as it is a "Science AND Religion" forum.

Post all debate topics in regards to Science and Religion here. When you create a new topic, have a clear and specific question to debate. The more specific your topic, the better. Do not create a topic like, "Creationism vs Evolutionism," because each of these areas has many issues. Instead, choose a topic that is more focused (such as "Plate Tectonics" or "Radiometric Dating," or "The Global Flood").

This subforum is designed to foster debate on issues which intersect science and religion. While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims.

It was already pointed out in another one of my threads that science does indeed have the ability to comment on your claim. I thought it appropriate to mention it here as well since that is a core theme of this particular post, and the science and religion forum is the perfect place to discuss the topic.

[William]

[Replying to post 70 by Kenisaw]

Claiming things like the planet is a conscious entity and that living things are just part of that consciousness is entirely within the realm of testability under the scientific method. That it may ALSO have philosophical and theistic ideas as well does not remove the scientific testability of the claim. Science is THE perfect tool for examining your claim to determine it's plausibility.

Well that is your claim, so please explain how - using science - you would go about testing the claim that the planet is inhabited by a conscious intelligent self aware creative entity.

The reason you don't like that is because...

Now you are claiming that you can read my mind and see what it is I am thinking and why I am thinking it? Tsk tsk. Please explain the science involved with this ability you appear to claim to have.

...science takes your claim and throws it in the dumpster pretty fast.

You are confused in your conflating. Science is not a conscious self aware entity. It is a method in which to examine things which by and large are seen to exist.

Therefore, no - science does no such thing as you claim. Self aware entities such as yourself may abuse science for that purpose, but that is not in and of itself, 'science'.

I think you make the mistake of thinking that philosophical and theistic ideas aren't testable by the scientific method, and they are completely exclusive of each other. This is completely erroneous.

I made no such claim. What I said was "the topic itself is not exclusively scientific in nature." and "complaining that these things have naff all to do with actual science, is besides the point". Please refrain from misrepresenting what I said, for the sake of continuity and respectful honesty.

In terms of making an empirical argument, subjective experience is absolutely useless.

Again, you are misrepresenting what I actually said. I never said at all that I was making an empirical argument. I specifically mentioned more than once even, that I was speaking specifically in regard to subjective experience, which was not to be confused with 'useless information'.

I never claimed that my subjective experience was useful to scientific method. Indeed I clearly said - again more than once - that scientific method was useless as a tool for accessing my subjective experience and subsequent claims regarding my subjective experience, even in relation to the subject of GOD, which in this case I refer to as the 'Local' GOD - the conscious intelligent self aware creative entity is inhabiting the planet.

Plain and simple, any person making a claim could be lying. It's not verifiable

So now you contradict yourself. You said:

Claiming things like the planet is a conscious entity and that living things are just part of that consciousness is entirely within the realm of testability under the scientific method.

And then you said:

Plain and simple, any person making a claim could be lying. It's not verifiable...Subjective experience is useless for data points to support claims such as the conscious planet one.

So how do you suppose you can test the claim through scientific means then?

If it were a scientific claim, sure, but it is not.

It is a scientific claim, because it can be tested scientifically.

Okay - well you have made it quite clear that you think my claim is a scientific one, so it is able to be tested using science. All that is required is for you to say how you think this claim can be tested scientificaly.

Or your brain made it up, based on previous expectations and experience.

My brain is an organ I use. It does not make things up as if it were an entity separate from me, with its own agenda etc, and then somehow make me believe things.
I make the choices through deliberating, and use my brain as part of that process. My expectations are based upon and shaped through subjective experience, and in that I have learned well enough to be prepared to be unprepared as it were, because things most often don't turn out the way I have expected, so therein there is little point to having expectations. That is just me and what I have learned through my experience, which can only be subjective.

Or you remembered incorrectly, because human memories change over time.

There are ways in which to counter these hurdles. Some of them include going over the experience immediately after having it and cementing it into the memory. Taking notes is another way, again - during or immediately afterwards.

Like I said in an earlier post, if it fulfills your intellectual curiosity, so be it.

It does that as well as other things, yes.

But I will not let the claim that it is a real thing go unchecked at this website.

Well, you are the one claiming it can be checked out through scientific method, so knock yourself out.

Not in relation to being useful for science, but useful for me within the context of my subjective experience in relation to what science is able to so far show me re empirical evidence.

I see intelligence involved with biological evolution and you do not. Science actually doesn't have an opinion either way on the subject.

Not true in the least.

You are grossly mistaken.

There is no scientific support for your statement.

There does not have to be. My statement clearly says that my subjective experience is not useful to science. I bolded it above just so you don't miss it again.

Science has a great deal to say on it.

Well, since it is you making that claim, I would like to see the evidence you have to support the claim you are making here.

That it is useful for you is fine, but it is unsupported conjecture as far as scientific knowledge and research has discovered.

Like I asked in my previous post, show me the evidence of your claim here. Show me this scientific knowledge and research which has discovered that my claim re the Earth Entity, is false.

It would be far more appropriate for you to show me why the data points to something completely different than the planet being host to a conscious intelligent self aware creative entity. I am sure that you cannot show this to be the case, and am willing to change my position if indeed you actually can.

Nice try, but you don't get to shift the burden of proof here.

On the contrary. It is YOU who doesn't get to shift the burden of proof here as it is YOU who are making the claim that my claims are not only able to be scientifically tested (see where I quote you above) AND that the scientific data "points to something completely different than the planet being a self conscious entity, or that there is a creative thing at all for that matter", thus, the burden of proof is on YOU to back up your claims by producing that data you claim exists.

You are the one claiming the planet is a conscious thing. I can't think of any data or empirical evidence that shows this, and apparently you can not provide anything either (let's be honest - if you had something, you would have already posted it). So if no empirical information exists for your claim, and the only thing we have to go on is your personal experience, then the only rational conclusion to reach is that your claim is not even remotely plausible.

You appear very confused about what my position is and misrepresent me in what I did actually state about it. I clearly said that the data of empirical evidence adds to what I have experienced as a subjective individual human being and that I interpret that data in the way I do because of this. I also acknowledged that other subjective human beings would interpret the SAME data differently, based upon their own subjective experiences and associated bias.

To end this, I am compelled to add that it is quite disturbing to witness time and again this fallacy which is imposed upon others - and this is not directed at you personally, but to all such individuals I have encountered over many years, who insist on burden of proof through scientific means to every religious and philosophical claim made by folk like me.

Not only have I pointed out the incongruity, inconsistency and contradictory nature of your expressions - to remind you:

Claiming things like the planet is a conscious entity and that living things are just part of that consciousness is entirely within the realm of testability under the scientific method.

and:

I can't think of any data or empirical evidence that shows this

and then projecting it back at me as a thing I am required to produce the scientific evidence for, is simply a fallacy.

Not to say I do not understand the rational behind the statement itself, but I do not accept how you are using the statement so inappropriately.

For example, IF I were someone who was claiming that every Sunday without fail, people congregate around me because I have the power to cure all sickness and other ailments, THEN you could claim that such a claim can be scientifically tested, and I imagine you could come up with some ideas on how to do that in order to back up your claim. Right?

But not in relation to my claim, because while you have claimed that my claim can be scientifically tested, you are unable to come up with ANY ideas on how this can be done. Thus your claim is empty. It is fallacy.

YOU made the claim nonetheless, so the burden of proof is on YOU, and trying to do the old switcheroo routine is, plain an simple, a fallacy.

I have not made any claim that my claim is scientifically testable. Indeed, right from the go get, all I have done is state my understanding of 'Life and God - is there any distinction?' by saying, "Nope - from MY subjective experience, there is NO distinction."

In closing, I will just add that I find it somewhat oxymoron that those who proclaim the scientific method as most reliable, because of its attention to detail, testing and retesting, and everything else that goes with that, are so apt to misrepresent what another has said in such blatantly obvious and demonstrably false manner.

If you choose to reply to this post or any other posts I make on this website, please do so in respect to NOT misrepresenting what I have said in order to make an argument based around that misrepresentation. Such tactic amounts to nothing more or less than the strawman fallacy.

Besides which, it is just plain rude.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 70 by Kenisaw]

Claiming things like the planet is a conscious entity and that living things are just part of that consciousness is entirely within the realm of testability under the scientific method. That it may ALSO have philosophical and theistic ideas as well does not remove the scientific testability of the claim. Science is THE perfect tool for examining your claim to determine it's plausibility.

Well that is your claim, so please explain how - using science - you would go about testing the claim that the planet is inhabited by a conscious intelligent self aware creative entity.

You would collect and analyze every available piece of data about the Earth. You would formulate hypothesis that show that a) the planet is a conscious entity and b) how all the data about the Earth supports a). You would test this and validate it over and again, and try to falsify your hypothesis. If you cannot, then the hypothesis has to be considered accurate and descriptive of the phenomena you studied.

I already tried this earlier when, in an attempt to steel man your argument, I racked my brain to find some kind of data and empirical evidence that would hint at you say. I tried to think of any underlying organization, or directed effort, or any geological action on Earth, that suggests a conscious effort. I tried to find the same thing in evolution, or biological processes. But I can't think of anything that suggests a single conscious that presents itself in living things. And since you can't seem to provide any data for that either, then we are left with a heaping pile of nothing to support your claim.

All you and I have is that you had an experience. Not much to go on...

The reason you don't like that is because...

Now you are claiming that you can read my mind and see what it is I am thinking and why I am thinking it? Tsk tsk. Please explain the science involved with this ability you appear to claim to have.

I had an experience.

I notice you don't deny what I stated, only object that I stated it. Interesting...

...science takes your claim and throws it in the dumpster pretty fast.

You are confused in your conflating. Science is not a conscious self aware entity. It is a method in which to examine things which by and large are seen to exist.

Therefore, no - science does no such thing as you claim. Self aware entities such as yourself may abuse science for that purpose, but that is not in and of itself, 'science'.

Right, and that method (science) cannot support your claim, hence the claim ends up in the dumpster. Playing word semantics doesn't help you here. The scientific method, the work of science, scientists, whatever you want to call it is besides the point. There is no scientific reason to consider your claim valid and plausible, and claims that aren't useful get tossed in the dumpster.

I think you make the mistake of thinking that philosophical and theistic ideas aren't testable by the scientific method, and they are completely exclusive of each other. This is completely erroneous.

I made no such claim. What I said was "the topic itself is not exclusively scientific in nature." and "complaining that these things have naff all to do with actual science, is besides the point". Please refrain from misrepresenting what I said, for the sake of continuity and respectful honesty.

Hence why I said "I think you make". I stand corrected. I assume you agree therefore that philosophical and theistic claims are testable scientifically, which is odd since you asked me above to explain how science can test the claim. If you already know it is not exclusively scientific in nature, then why do you need it explained how to test it scientifically?

In terms of making an empirical argument, subjective experience is absolutely useless.

Again, you are misrepresenting what I actually said. I never said at all that I was making an empirical argument. I specifically mentioned more than once even, that I was speaking specifically in regard to subjective experience, which was not to be confused with 'useless information'.

But it is useless information if it can't be validated or verified. If it ain't empirical, it ain't useful.

I never claimed that my subjective experience was useful to scientific method. Indeed I clearly said - again more than once - that scientific method was useless as a tool for accessing my subjective experience and subsequent claims regarding my subjective experience, even in relation to the subject of GOD, which in this case I refer to as the 'Local' GOD - the conscious intelligent self aware creative entity is inhabiting the planet.

Except your self aware entity is testable (which you agree to above), but since your non-usable experience is all you have supporting your claim, you are making nothing more than a baseless assertion. I get that your experience isn't testable, but your conclusion (the creative entity) is...

Plain and simple, any person making a claim could be lying. It's not verifiable

So now you contradict yourself. You said:

Claiming things like the planet is a conscious entity and that living things are just part of that consciousness is entirely within the realm of testability under the scientific method.

And then you said:

Plain and simple, any person making a claim could be lying. It's not verifiable...Subjective experience is useless for data points to support claims such as the conscious planet one.

So how do you suppose you can test the claim through scientific means then?

No, I didn't contradict myself. The existence of the creative entity is testable. The evidence you use (subjective experience) is not testable. The entity can be verified. Your personal experience cannot. Please understand the difference.

If it were a scientific claim, sure, but it is not.

It is a scientific claim, because it can be tested scientifically.

Okay - well you have made it quite clear that you think my claim is a scientific one, so it is able to be tested using science. All that is required is for you to say how you think this claim can be tested scientificaly.

Already covered this up above in this post. I can't find any evidence for it. You got any? No, you don't. Rational conclusion to reach based on the lack of any data to support your claim? That no such thing exists.

Or your brain made it up, based on previous expectations and experience.

My brain is an organ I use. It does not make things up as if it were an entity separate from me, with its own agenda etc, and then somehow make me believe things.
I make the choices through deliberating, and use my brain as part of that process. My expectations are based upon and shaped through subjective experience, and in that I have learned well enough to be prepared to be unprepared as it were, because things most often don't turn out the way I have expected, so therein there is little point to having expectations. That is just me and what I have learned through my experience, which can only be subjective.

Look, I got news for you, the human brain fills in the gaps all the time. Your vision is actually quite bouncy, but do you see this? No, because you brain washes that out and gives you a smooth image. Your brain interprets the incoming data from your senses, and gives you a modified product. Don't take my word for it, google it and read up on it yourself. There are all kinds of articles and research on the subject.

Peter Kokemail, Floris P. de Lange. Shape Perception Simultaneously Up- and Downregulates Neural Activity in the Primary Visual Cortex. Current Biology, June 2014

Vanderbilt University. "The Brain Doesn't Like Visual Gaps And Fills Them In." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 21 August 2007.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... d-the-gap/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... n-a-blink/

Our memories change over time too. Again, google it to verify yourself.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/am ... hink-it-is

Or you remembered incorrectly, because human memories change over time.

There are ways in which to counter these hurdles. Some of them include going over the experience immediately after having it and cementing it into the memory. Taking notes is another way, again - during or immediately afterwards.

Writing them down only reinforces the fact that memories change over time. Unless you write everything down all the time, your memories are in constant change:

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria- ... collection

But I will not let the claim that it is a real thing go unchecked at this website.

Well, you are the one claiming it can be checked out through scientific method, so knock yourself out.

We checked it. There was no evidence. So it went to the dumpster.

Not in relation to being useful for science, but useful for me within the context of my subjective experience in relation to what science is able to so far show me re empirical evidence.

I see intelligence involved with biological evolution and you do not. Science actually doesn't have an opinion either way on the subject.

Not true in the least.

You are grossly mistaken.

Nowhere in the massive amount of research undertaken on biological evolution is there anyone who has found evidence that evolution had intelligence involved. If you know of any published journal articles or reports, please present it in your next post. Otherwise, I'd say science has a definite opinion on whether evolution is directed or random...

There is no scientific support for your statement.

There does not have to be. My statement clearly says that my subjective experience is not useful to science. I bolded it above just so you don't miss it again.

There doesn't have to be for you, but you came on a public forum and made a specific claim about something regarding the planet and the process of evolution. So that statement has every right to be debated, discussed, and dissected by any and all that wish to do so. It is well within the purview of site members to note the problems of making dataless claims.

Science has a great deal to say on it.

Well, since it is you making that claim, I would like to see the evidence you have to support the claim you are making here.

Been there done that.

That it is useful for you is fine, but it is unsupported conjecture as far as scientific knowledge and research has discovered.

Like I asked in my previous post, show me the evidence of your claim here. Show me this scientific knowledge and research which has discovered that my claim re the Earth Entity, is false.

Been there done that. No evidence = no reason to consider it plausible.

It would be far more appropriate for you to show me why the data points to something completely different than the planet being host to a conscious intelligent self aware creative entity. I am sure that you cannot show this to be the case, and am willing to change my position if indeed you actually can.

Nice try, but you don't get to shift the burden of proof here.

On the contrary. It is YOU who doesn't get to shift the burden of proof here as it is YOU who are making the claim that my claims are not only able to be scientifically tested (see where I quote you above) AND that the scientific data "points to something completely different than the planet being a self conscious entity, or that there is a creative thing at all for that matter", thus, the burden of proof is on YOU to back up your claims by producing that data you claim exists.

Been there done that. There is no data for such an entity. It is entirely devoid of proof. So it gets tossed into the dumpster.

You are the one claiming the planet is a conscious thing. I can't think of any data or empirical evidence that shows this, and apparently you can not provide anything either (let's be honest - if you had something, you would have already posted it). So if no empirical information exists for your claim, and the only thing we have to go on is your personal experience, then the only rational conclusion to reach is that your claim is not even remotely plausible.

You appear very confused about what my position is and misrepresent me in what I did actually state about it. I clearly said that the data of empirical evidence adds to what I have experienced as a subjective individual human being and that I interpret that data in the way I do because of this. I also acknowledged that other subjective human beings would interpret the SAME data differently, based upon their own subjective experiences and associated bias.

You seem confused about what empirical means. All you've done is claimed you had an experience. What data and empirical evidence "adds" to what you've experienced? I've asked you for this empirical data, you still haven't provided it. I don't think I can be much clearer with this request. Empirical data is evidence that anyone can gather. I've already told you I can't think of any that supports your claim, so if you have it, now would be a good time to trot it out for all the world to see and consider.

To end this, I am compelled to add that it is quite disturbing to witness time and again this fallacy which is imposed upon others - and this is not directed at you personally, but to all such individuals I have encountered over many years, who insist on burden of proof through scientific means to every religious and philosophical claim made by folk like me.

The real fallacy that exists is that claims of miracles, and godly actions, and existence of divine creatures cannot be tested scientifically. Of course they can. Science tests things in the universe. All the miracles and godly actions and divine creatures happen/operate/live in this universe. The conversation laws don't suddenly stop working just because a "god dun it" claim is made. There has to be evidence left behind, and yet despite thousands of gods doing countless things for tens of thousands of years, we find exactly nothing.

The reason people point this out to folk like yourself is because those folks don't seem to realize how truly irrational a conclusion they've reached. Often times they have no idea that science does not only not support what they think, it's actually proven the exact opposite (like a 6000 year old Earth as a random example).

The people that make claims of specific events, or specific actions, or specific beings, can believe whatever they want. But make a public proclamation about it, and it's fair game.

Not only have I pointed out the incongruity, inconsistency and contradictory nature of your expressions - to remind you:

Claiming things like the planet is a conscious entity and that living things are just part of that consciousness is entirely within the realm of testability under the scientific method.

and:

I can't think of any data or empirical evidence that shows this

and then projecting it back at me as a thing I am required to produce the scientific evidence for, is simply a fallacy.

I was trying to think of something that supports your claim. I can't find anything that does. You've stated, specifically, that empirical information exists that you use to support your claim. I can't find it. Maybe you can provide it...

Not to say I do not understand the rational behind the statement itself, but I do not accept how you are using the statement so inappropriately.

I've explained the difference and why it is rational. I'll leave it at that.

For example, IF I were someone who was claiming that every Sunday without fail, people congregate around me because I have the power to cure all sickness and other ailments, THEN you could claim that such a claim can be scientifically tested, and I imagine you could come up with some ideas on how to do that in order to back up your claim. Right?

Right

But not in relation to my claim, because while you have claimed that my claim can be scientifically tested, you are unable to come up with ANY ideas on how this can be done. Thus your claim is empty. It is fallacy.

I realize you wrote this before I gave some examples above, but there are any number of ways to test it. The problem is not the ability to test it. The problem is that none of the data from Earth sciences, cognitive studies, or neurology even hints at what you state. No one can prove a negative. All I can do is try to prove this conscious entity thing exists. I can't, there's no evidence for it. So the only rational conclusion to reach is that it doesn't exist.

YOU made the claim nonetheless, so the burden of proof is on YOU, and trying to do the old switcheroo routine is, plain an simple, a fallacy.

I have not made any claim that my claim is scientifically testable. Indeed, right from the go get, all I have done is state my understanding of 'Life and God - is there any distinction?' by saying, "Nope - from MY subjective experience, there is NO distinction."

I hope you either finally provide whatever empirical evidence you state you consider along with your experience, or retract the empirical claim completely and admit your stance is one of unsupported conjecture.

In closing, I will just add that I find it somewhat oxymoron that those who proclaim the scientific method as most reliable, because of its attention to detail, testing and retesting, and everything else that goes with that, are so apt to misrepresent what another has said in such blatantly obvious and demonstrably false manner.

If you choose to reply to this post or any other posts I make on this website, please do so in respect to NOT misrepresenting what I have said in order to make an argument based around that misrepresentation. Such tactic amounts to nothing more or less than the strawman fallacy.

Besides which, it is just plain rude.

I haven't purposefully tried to misrepresent what you've said, and I've already apologized for any misunderstandings I've had over what you've meant.

All I can do is go off the words you have written. Word usage matters at this website, and if you want to continue posting without accurately understanding what things like empirical means, you are going to see this type of discussion happen time and again. While I always try to be clear and concise with my posts to everyone, I can't control what others write.

[William]

[Replying to post 73 by Kenisaw]

Okay. I have read your whole post and see we are getting to the meat of things.

In relation to what you have said, I stand by my position that it is all a matter of how the data is interpreted, and from that, what is left is the subjective lens and accompanying bias, which propels the individual in the direction he/she chooses to go in relation to that.

I also will continue to point out that in relation to consciousness, no matter what form it takes on, be that the form of the universe, a galaxy, a planetary system, a biological critter, etc - the point of view will always be and can only ever be one of subjective experience.

That is an important fact which needs to be kept at the forefront of this discussion, so hopefully you can at least agree with this, if you want to continue in the discussion.

The reason I am starting my reply with this observation, is because of your 'dumpster' remarks which are obviously condescending and reflective of the attitude of many folk who take on the distinctive position against the opposing distinctive position. In this I am not saying that it is in any way just an atheist attitude, but it also can be expressed through theist positions as well, such as 'pearls before swine' etc - my point being that is adds nothing to the conversation other than to help me identify an unreasonable attitude, so it would be helpful if you could use introspection to examine this expression coming from your psyche and find it in your rational to dump such expressions into the dumpster-of-unnecessary-expressions.

Having said that, I will use the opportunity to quote where you have used the expression for the purpose of attempting to show you wherein with this attitude, you err.

...science takes your claim and throws it in the dumpster pretty fast.

As I have previously pointed out, science has no opinion on my claim as it is a process. What you are probably trying to say is that scientists are unable to verify my claim so they leave it be, and where it is, is not in a dumpster. That is your particular expression, not one of science.

Right, and that method (science) cannot support your claim, hence the claim ends up in the dumpster. Playing word semantics doesn't help you here. The scientific method, the work of science, scientists, whatever you want to call it is besides the point. There is no scientific reason to consider your claim valid and plausible, and claims that aren't useful get tossed in the dumpster.

See my previous reply. To add to that, scientists are individuals who are consciousness within human experience. As such, they are experiencing a subjective reality and while it might be fair to claim that some of them have the same attitude as you currently do - in relation to what they subjectively interpret as useful and everything else can be dumped, this is not true of all scientists and your err to express it as if it were the case.

Well, you are the one claiming it can be checked out through scientific method, so knock yourself out.

We checked it. There was no evidence. So it went to the dumpster.

Again, no supporting evidence that this is the case, plus you presume to make it appear that the royal 'we' represent all scientists, AND that scientists have altogether at some stage invested large amounts of time and effort into 'checking', came up empty handed, dumped the concept and moved on.

All of which I am supposed to accept on hearsay?

The truth is, the majority scientists have been and still are are employed by those who invest in such things as space exploration (including exploration of the Earth), weapons manufacture, drug manufacture, and other profit making research and such ideas related to theology and philosophy are not seen to be of any value in that regard, and are the 'consigned to the dumpster of uselessness' (left examined) on account of THAT.

After all, scientist need to eat too, and being 'only human' any chance at a piece of the pie will invoke the need to turn a blind eye as required and even cook the books. Scientist may be the new priests on the block but they are subject to the same frailties of human greed and deception.

Not taking such into account, can presume a glossy picture of perfection, but the truth will be very different to the icon of the upright and trustworthy scientist.

Been there done that. There is no data for such an entity. It is entirely devoid of proof. So it gets tossed into the dumpster.

Again, the data is the SAME, it is just interpreted differently based upon personal subjective experience.

The atheist will see the data as evidence of lack proof of intelligent design in the process of biological evolution and a theist will see the evidence as proof of intelligent design in the SAME process.

The truth of the matter is that the process is intelligent, and one does not have to be a scientist to work that out. One simply has to observe the process for what it actually is, subjective experience and all.

Thus, the 'dumpster' is only useful to the atheist (scientist or otherwise) due to their particular position of interpretation of the matter, and one simply cannot allow for the observation to be seen as it is, because then the idea of GOD comes into it, and the whole point of being an atheist is to LACK any belief in any idea of GOD, period.

That, my dear fellow, is the underlying reason WHY your 'dumpster' exists.

There is actually no logical reason for the idea of intelligent design to be throw aside in favor of supporting ideas that don't have to include ID, especially since it is undeniable that biological evolution is an intelligent process.

Subjectively of course we each are allowed to believe what we want about what is really happening in relation to what we are experiencing as reality, and I for one categorically dismiss the idea that there is no intelligence behind biological evolution on the simple enough grounds that - not only does it appear to be an intelligent process, but the appearance is the actuality.

Which thus naturally enough brings me to the subject of the Earth Entity, as an explanation to how the intelligent process is achieved, and how from examining the situation unfolding upon the planet - both historically and up to date, we can observe in that unfolding, a purpose which can only be overlooked by those who have chosen to interpret what IS, as being a mindless accident.

And no - I am not in any way disrespecting scientific methodology. I enjoy what has so far been discovered through that as something which is in itself peeling away the layers of ignorance in order to reveal the intelligence underneath it all. My argument is related to how those such as yourself interpret what is revealed as a mindless process not worthy of more intense investing of scientific process and who make efforts to disrespect the subjective experience of the individual as nothing more worthy than to exploit and/or consign to the dumpster.

I will leave off replying to other arguments you have made in your post to do with the science of human memory, the nature of empirical evidence, the supposed independent consciousness of the human brain and such as I wish to sit with those for a time and find it far more pertinent to specifically reply to your dumpster remarks, in the hopes that you will indeed make an effort to engage introspection and hopefully choose to change your expression to a more suitable one.

Understanding that will be your choice to make, I leave it to the subjective experience of the reader to decide for themselves whether your dumpster attitude on the subjective experience of the individual is appropriate to take on as a tool of honest observation and evaluation, or not.

To the theist reader, I encourage you to continue your journey with your idea of Life and GOD (as per the thread heading - with in mind where necessary changes/adjustments might be appropriate) and your belief that you are an integral part of the whole network of Intelligent Design, and in no way deserving of the dumpster of atheistic science interpretation processes.

That you understand the import of your and every other individual human being on the face of the planet, that interpretation of science is not always in favor of that same importance, as - for example, the Holocaust, in which science was at the forefront making real, that imposed tragedy, and without the scientists the 'dumpsters' used to dispose of the so-called useless subjective human individual victims could never have been created for that use.

Thus, we can understand that such interpretation of science can be dangerous and should never be accepted on that count. Intelligent design will win the day, because without it we would not exist and without it, our existence has no meaning or purpose other than to consign subjective reality to the dumpster of atheistic scientific interpretation. That, as we 'know', would be devolution.

The subjective human experience is important. GOD is unavoidably with you in every respect to that.

Peace.

W

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 73 by Kenisaw]

Okay. I have read your whole post and see we are getting to the meat of things.

In relation to what you have said, I stand by my position that it is all a matter of how the data is interpreted, and from that, what is left is the subjective lens and accompanying bias, which propels the individual in the direction he/she chooses to go in relation to that.

What data is that, in particular? It has been requested of you several times now to list whatever data you are talking about, and yet you seem to be unable to list anything specific. Now please understand, I get your reluctance to do so. It serves your position very well to remain as generic as possible. Claiming one consciousness exists based on your experience, plus a different personal "direction" on the data that everyone supposedly uses, is delightfully lacking in detail. It makes it pretty hard to discuss specifics when none are forthcoming.

It has been my experience when talking with cultists about anything involving anything, both at this website and others as well as in person, that they generally shy away from getting specific because they know all too well that it becomes increasingly difficult to defend their claims once they do that.

However, I will continue to ask for specifics from such folks, since they always claim that they've considered specific information when reaching their conclusions. So my request for your considered data will stand until such time as you either honor that request, or change your claim. Stating that you consider the same data as everyone else doesn't cut it, because we have no idea if that is true or not. The only to get to the "meat of the matter" is to discuss the data you think supports your hypothesis.

Just give me one of the big points. If the sky being blue is evidence that the Earth is a conscious entity, then tell me that. Of course I will ask you how a blue sky specifically proves that the Earth is a conscious entity at that point, and then you will have to explain how they tie in together. Or you could just say a blue sky is not the data you considered, which of course will then prompt me to ask what data is part of what you considered. Either way, the natural progression of this conversation is for us to get into the details. Just my personal opinion, but I think you don't want that at all...

I also will continue to point out that in relation to consciousness, no matter what form it takes on, be that the form of the universe, a galaxy, a planetary system, a biological critter, etc - the point of view will always be and can only ever be one of subjective experience.

That is an important fact which needs to be kept at the forefront of this discussion, so hopefully you can at least agree with this, if you want to continue in the discussion.

When it comes to anything except biological critters, I don't agree, because there is no evidence that any of those things have consciousness. As it relates to biological critters, I agree that each creature has it's own subjective experience. But the existence of consciousness is testable. We have definitions of what consciousness is, and we can take measurements and readings and gather responses and data and declare consciousness exists. Others can verify and validate these things, so that our confidence in accuracy increases and the subjectiveness decreases.

The reason I am starting my reply with this observation, is because of your 'dumpster' remarks which are obviously condescending and reflective of the attitude of many folk who take on the distinctive position against the opposing distinctive position. In this I am not saying that it is in any way just an atheist attitude, but it also can be expressed through theist positions as well, such as 'pearls before swine' etc - my point being that is adds nothing to the conversation other than to help me identify an unreasonable attitude, so it would be helpful if you could use introspection to examine this expression coming from your psyche and find it in your rational to dump such expressions into the dumpster-of-unnecessary-expressions.

It's an expression, nothing more. It's a way of saying something. If it offends your delicate sensibilities then I will find another way of saying it. If you think it was meant with vitriol, report it to a mod per the forum rules, and they will punish me if they see fit to do so.

Having said that, I will use the opportunity to quote where you have used the expression for the purpose of attempting to show you wherein with this attitude, you err.

...science takes your claim and throws it in the dumpster pretty fast.

As I have previously pointed out, science has no opinion on my claim as it is a process. What you are probably trying to say is that scientists are unable to verify my claim so they leave it be, and where it is, is not in a dumpster. That is your particular expression, not one of science.

As I said, semantics. If only you were this detailed with the data you've supposedly considered, we could really get somewhere...

Science could verify your claim, if there was any evidence for your claim. There isn't (unless, or course, you have some to provide for us), so scientists conclude that there is no merit to the hypothesis, and consider it a failed proposal.

Right, and that method (science) cannot support your claim, hence the claim ends up in the dumpster. Playing word semantics doesn't help you here. The scientific method, the work of science, scientists, whatever you want to call it is besides the point. There is no scientific reason to consider your claim valid and plausible, and claims that aren't useful get tossed in the dumpster.

See my previous reply. To add to that, scientists are individuals who are consciousness within human experience. As such, they are experiencing a subjective reality and while it might be fair to claim that some of them have the same attitude as you currently do - in relation to what they subjectively interpret as useful and everything else can be dumped, this is not true of all scientists and your err to express it as if it were the case.

I never claim 100% agreement between all scientists when it comes to anything. To expand on that, humans never completely agree on anything either. In fact it is pretty critical to the success of science that there is disagreement and discussion and debate about everything. However, that is why the verification and validation of scientific work is part of the process. It removes subjectivity, bias, and error when many individuals repeat and validate work.

But heck, you know all this already. Since it is only fair for me to assume that some of the scientists agree with me, let's just get from you the name of the scientist that agrees that the Earth is a conscious entity. What is the title of this scientists published paper so that I can read their work and conclusions? I look forward to your reply.

Well, you are the one claiming it can be checked out through scientific method, so knock yourself out.

We checked it. There was no evidence. So it went to the dumpster.

Again, no supporting evidence that this is the case, plus you presume to make it appear that the royal 'we' represent all scientists, AND that scientists have altogether at some stage invested large amounts of time and effort into 'checking', came up empty handed, dumped the concept and moved on.

All of which I am supposed to accept on hearsay?

You want supporting evidence...that there is no evidence.

Do I need to explain why that makes no sense?

There's a real simple way for you to totally embarrass me here. I mean really hand it to me, and shut down everything I say. All you have to do is list some empirical data and evidence that supports your claim that the Earth is a conscious entity. Then your victory will be complete.

I guess I got too big for my britches, but that's the way it is. So go ahead and list that data, and show everyone at this website what a fool I was to claim there is no evidence that the Earth is a conscious entity. I'm getting my eating crow plate out of storage as we speak...

The truth is, the majority scientists have been and still are are employed by those who invest in such things as space exploration (including exploration of the Earth), weapons manufacture, drug manufacture, and other profit making research and such ideas related to theology and philosophy are not seen to be of any value in that regard, and are the 'consigned to the dumpster of uselessness' (left examined) on account of THAT.

No value? How much money do humans spend on religious/dogmatic items and literature and efforts on planet Earth? How many man hours have humans spent searching for all manner of creative entities and magic and supernatural stuff? If there was a buck to be made on the Earth being conscious, I find in inconceivable that no one would have jumped all over it.

Perhaps it is not seen to be of any value because there isn't any truth to the claim. But there I go, getting too big for my britches again. List the data and embarrass me please, so I can move on with my life...

After all, scientist need to eat too, and being 'only human' any chance at a piece of the pie will invoke the need to turn a blind eye as required and even cook the books. Scientist may be the new priests on the block but they are subject to the same frailties of human greed and deception.

Not sure if you were trying to hint at a conspiracy theory here, so I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't, and just move on.

Been there done that. There is no data for such an entity. It is entirely devoid of proof. So it gets tossed into the dumpster.

Again, the data is the SAME, it is just interpreted differently based upon personal subjective experience.

The atheist will see the data as evidence of lack proof of intelligent design in the process of biological evolution and a theist will see the evidence as proof of intelligent design in the SAME process.

Great. So the sky is blue is proof that the Earth is conscious then. Please connect those dots for me, I'm having a problem seeing how it all ties in together.

The truth of the matter is that the process is intelligent, and one does not have to be a scientist to work that out. One simply has to observe the process for what it actually is, subjective experience and all.

Great. Prove it.

Thus, the 'dumpster' is only useful to the atheist (scientist or otherwise) due to their particular position of interpretation of the matter, and one simply cannot allow for the observation to be seen as it is, because then the idea of GOD comes into it, and the whole point of being an atheist is to LACK any belief in any idea of GOD, period.

So it is a purposeful effort to ignore the data that points to a god creature then, eh? So that must mean there is lots of data that proves your side, right? Awesome! Can't wait to see it...

By the way, what is the point of you not believing in Zeus, or Odin, or Santa Claus? That's how it is for me not believing in your flavor of god creature.

There is actually no logical reason for the idea of intelligent design to be throw aside in favor of supporting ideas that don't have to include ID, especially since it is undeniable that biological evolution is an intelligent process.

As I'm sure your list of empirical data and evidence will bear witness to in your next post.

Subjectively of course we each are allowed to believe what we want about what is really happening in relation to what we are experiencing as reality, and I for one categorically dismiss the idea that there is no intelligence behind biological evolution on the simple enough grounds that - not only does it appear to be an intelligent process, but the appearance is the actuality.

I love specific claims. Prove the actuality of intelligence behind evolution.

Which thus naturally enough brings me to the subject of the Earth Entity, as an explanation to how the intelligent process is achieved, and how from examining the situation unfolding upon the planet - both historically and up to date, we can observe in that unfolding, a purpose which can only be overlooked by those who have chosen to interpret what IS, as being a mindless accident.

And no - I am not in any way disrespecting scientific methodology. I enjoy what has so far been discovered through that as something which is in itself peeling away the layers of ignorance in order to reveal the intelligence underneath it all. My argument is related to how those such as yourself interpret what is revealed as a mindless process not worthy of more intense investing of scientific process and who make efforts to disrespect the subjective experience of the individual as nothing more worthy than to exploit and/or consign to the dumpster.

I will leave off replying to other arguments you have made in your post to do with the science of human memory, the nature of empirical evidence, the supposed independent consciousness of the human brain and such as I wish to sit with those for a time and find it far more pertinent to specifically reply to your dumpster remarks, in the hopes that you will indeed make an effort to engage introspection and hopefully choose to change your expression to a more suitable one.

Consider my expression changed, I am properly humbled. No more slang terms for us to focus on. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, we can dig into all that wonderful data and evidence that you no doubt are ready to provide that support the claims you've made.

Understanding that will be your choice to make, I leave it to the subjective experience of the reader to decide for themselves whether your dumpster attitude on the subjective experience of the individual is appropriate to take on as a tool of honest observation and evaluation, or not.

I'm sure the reader would love to have a chance to examine your data too. Let's give them everything we can so that they can make an informed decision.

That you understand the import of your and every other individual human being on the face of the planet, that interpretation of science is not always in favor of that same importance, as - for example, the Holocaust, in which science was at the forefront making real, that imposed tragedy, and without the scientists the 'dumpsters' used to dispose of the so-called useless subjective human individual victims could never have been created for that use.

You are blaming science for the holocaust??? What left field did that come out of. How, pray tell, do you possibly think that science is responsible for the Holocaust?

Thus, we can understand that such interpretation of science can be dangerous and should never be accepted on that count. Intelligent design will win the day, because without it we would not exist and without it, our existence has no meaning or purpose other than to consign subjective reality to the dumpster of atheistic scientific interpretation. That, as we 'know', would be devolution.

The subjective human experience is important. GOD is unavoidably with you in every respect to that.

Peace.

W

But the purpose of eternally serving a god creature in it's special place is meaningful...that sound rather odd to me.

Look forward to your data!

[William]

[Replying to post 75 by Kenisaw]

Look forward to your data!

The data is comprehensive and anyone who is actively interested (as you seem to claim to be) will immerse themselves in it, as the opportunity makes itself available to do so.

I therefore direct you to my Members Notes where you can peruse at your own pace. Specific to your comments, I recommend you delve into the data under the headings:

♦The Dangers of Separating Human Consciousness From Any Idea of GOD:
♦ The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD
♦ Burden of Proof - The scientific way to examine "verifiable evidence"
♦ Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.
♦ Atheism and Theism
♦ Separating any idea of GOD from All other Consciousness.
♦ Panpsychism is the best idea of GOD.

Here is the link directing you to the data you requested. "Knock yourself out" as the saying goes.

Note: If you complain that the data isn't presented in a manner whereby you have less work to do, that is not here nor there as far as I am concerned, because anyone who is genuinely asking for data because they are genuinely interested. won't see any logical need to complain. You asked for the data and your have been given it so the opportunity to examine it is available to anyone genuinely interested.
There is no need to hurry. Take your time. It is a big subject which cannot be reduced to a few lines in order that anyone can then have an epiphany whereby GOD is revealed. It doesn't and cannot work that way, and to think otherwise is fallacy.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 76 by William]


em·pir·i·cal [əmˈpirik(ə)l]: {ADJECTIVE} based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

You will excuse me mentioning it publically, but you appear to have completely ignored part of my oft repeated request for your data. I didn't type the word empirical for no good reason. I have read every single word of the list of selected readings (and some of the ones that weren't listed for that matter), and nowhere in any of it was a single data point or piece of verifiable evidence listed.

You don't have any data or evidence to offer, you have conjecture and philosophical waxings instead. So it appears that what I have been saying all along - that there is no proof for the planet being some kind of single consciousness - was entirely accurate.

[William]

[Replying to post 76 by William]


em·pir·i·cal [əmˈpirik(ə)l]: {ADJECTIVE} based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

You will excuse me mentioning it publically, but you appear to have completely ignored part of my oft repeated request for your data. I didn't type the word empirical for no good reason. I have read every single word of the list of selected readings (and some of the ones that weren't listed for that matter), and nowhere in any of it was a single data point or piece of verifiable evidence listed.

You don't have any data or evidence to offer, you have conjecture and philosophical waxings instead. So it appears that what I have been saying all along - that there is no proof for the planet being some kind of single consciousness - was entirely accurate.

If you have indeed read every single word in my Members Notes, you would have come across the argument that science is not a good device in which to examine subjective, philosophical and religious ideas. Therefore demanding 'em·pir·i·cal' evidence for such things is fallacy.

Clue: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 76 by William]


em·pir·i·cal [əmˈpirik(ə)l]: {ADJECTIVE} based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

You will excuse me mentioning it publically, but you appear to have completely ignored part of my oft repeated request for your data. I didn't type the word empirical for no good reason. I have read every single word of the list of selected readings (and some of the ones that weren't listed for that matter), and nowhere in any of it was a single data point or piece of verifiable evidence listed.

You don't have any data or evidence to offer, you have conjecture and philosophical waxings instead. So it appears that what I have been saying all along - that there is no proof for the planet being some kind of single consciousness - was entirely accurate.

If you have indeed read every single word in my Members Notes, you would have come across the argument that science is not a good device in which to examine subjective, philosophical and religious ideas. Therefore demanding 'em·pir·i·cal' evidence for such things is fallacy.

Clue: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

What you only have as evidence for your Earth Entity is your testimony about your personal, subjective experience.

But your isolated testimony based on your personal, subjective experiences can't be considered compelling evidence when proving something exists(Earth Entity); because human mind is a fickle thing: people can have false memories; can have visual, auditory, olfactive hallucinations; can be mentally ill; are gullible, naive, impressionable, trusting, deceivable, easily led; most of them are ignorant, most of them are with average/below intelligence.

Your reasoning is fallacious.

Anecdotal fallacy – using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of sound reasoning or compelling evidence.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

[evilsorcerer1]

... my opinion is if there were a biblical god we'd see a lot less life; ....... and the reason we see so much war and death is people believe in the biblical god is the fallacy of forgiveness and sacrifice (shedding blood) to forgive bloodshed....