Jump to content
Mike Smith Cosmos

Producing a hierarchy of human life .

Recommended Posts

I feel myself well and truely chastised .i will try and be a good boy ! 

--------------------

Well done guys , you have just given me about six (6) minus ones -6 

how to support your fellow commentator , All that effort . 

i was not far wrong about the mob bullies , who used to kick people in the gutter in the 1960's 

mike 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Well done guys , you have just given me about six (6) minus ones -6 

Oh, get over yourself. (And, no, it still wasn't me.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

I feel myself well and truely chastised .i will try and be a good boy ! 

--------------------

Well done guys , you have just given me about six (6) minus ones -6 

how to support your fellow commentator , All that effort . 

i was not far wrong about the mob bullies , who used to kick people in the gutter in the 1960's 

mike 

I've now lost track of the number of -1's of yours I have cancelled by giving an otherwise unmerited upvote. However, since you seem determined to go on about it, I shall not be providing that "service" in future. I'm not much in favour of negative votes, though I think I may have given someone one early on in my membership. So can we just focus on the discussion - and I do concur with those who have suggested you will receive fewer negatives if you avoided schoolboy philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Area54 said:

   So can we just focus on the discussion - 

Was everything science ? Was God included , as being an originator of all the matter, fields , living things , that followed a scientific style of EXISTANCE.  Or did God himself originate all the scientific principles , so that he/she could build and maintain a Universe in a satisfactory form . 

Mike 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was everything science? Is mathematics a convenient descriptive device, or is the universe an expression of a mathematical underpinning? Such questions are deabted at length, but those debates are conducted through structured observation, provision of evidence and logical argument, not by presenting juvenile wish lists.

Is God outside of reality, or part of it? Is she real, or is it a product of human imagination and need? Yes, these are valid questions, but again - when asked - they are asked from a position of knowledge, extensive knowledge, not narrow, agenda driven knowledge.

If you wish serious discussion on these points then you need to be equally serious. That means opinions don't count. Personal preferences don't count. Waffle and wishful thinking don't count. Evidence and Argument do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Area54 said:

Was everything science? Is mathematics a convenient descriptive device, or is the universe an expression of a mathematical underpinning? Such questions are deabted at length, but those debates are conducted through structured observation, provision of evidence and logical argument, not by presenting juvenile wish lists.

Is God outside of reality, or part of it? Is she real, or is it a product of human imagination and need? Yes, these are valid questions, but again - when asked - they are asked from a position of knowledge, extensive knowledge, not narrow, agenda driven knowledge.

If you wish serious discussion on these points then you need to be equally serious. That means opinions don't count. Personal preferences don't count. Waffle and wishful thinking don't count. Evidence and Argument do.

Well I must say , I heartily agree with most of what you have listed there . I can also see why possibly some of the things that I have stated , do not rest easily with you. However I do appreciate your comments , and thank you for your support , and will try and honor your requests , when conversing with you . 

I would add that , my understanding of any revelation of the true nature of reality , is , that it is in fact , spread out across history , in different forms , at different times. Like :-

 Who am I ? Philosophy ? Religion ?  Math ? Science ? What is it all about ? Where do we go from here ?

I would say that proofs , have been forthcoming at different times , but in those different past times , the content has been entirely different. 

The list can consist of such things as :- 

How can I know an invisible God actually exists? 

There is a section of past history , where this issue was delt with . That has passed. 

Today , a different issue is coming to the fore , :- 

Which government should rule the world ?  That's what every country is squabbling about , from one side of the Earth to the other ?

And there are a few other issues , floating about . Every one deadly serious . Like are all citizens of the world getting a fair share of Earths resources? 

All these issues are deadly serious and very current ! As I am sure you agree with me . 

 

Mike 

P.s. I must apologise if I sound " flippant " sometimes. It is probably my defence from going ' stark staring bonkers'

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

How can I know an invisible God actually exists? 

There is a section of past history , where this issue was delt with . That has passed. 

You say that as if this question were settled. It isn't. It is still being debated. 

4 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Today , a different issue is coming to the fore , :- 

Which government should rule the world ?  That's what every country is squabbling about , from one side of the Earth to the other ?

And that has always been argued about. Look at history of empire building from the earliest civilisations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Strange said:

A) You say that as if this question were settled. It isn't. It is still being debated. 

B) And that has always been argued about. Look at history of empire building from the earliest civilisations. 

A) The issue of 'GOD' , is unlikely to be answered to every bodies satisfaction, in the near future . As most people would say " well let me see God then " . But that is impossible , as it is stated " No man can see God and live " , or words to that effect. 

On the contrary , the EFFECTS of God , are able to be seen and experienced. It was that , that I was looking for in my ' gold fish ' experiment. Namely if the HIERACHY is repeatable , namely 'man to fish / fish to man ' has certain characteristics that I can recognise. Then go looking for these same characteristics in the ' man to God /'God to man relationship ' . Although not definitive on a single test , it might lead on to further tests, which might be more supportive of the idea. 

B) World domination , I agree has always been an issue . But it is certainly rearing it's head , over the last 100 years. ( and currently ) . Again if I am correct in the point about a God . The subject of world domination was predicted for this time . 

 

Now I appreciate these two points A) and B), 

need more 'meat on the bone ' 

 

mike 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

A) The issue of 'GOD' , is unlikely to be answered to every bodies satisfaction, in the near future . As most people would say " well let me see God then " . But that is impossible , as it is stated " No man can see God and live " , or words to that effect. 

On the contrary , the EFFECTS of God , are able to be seen and experienced. It was that , that I was looking for in my ' gold fish ' experiment. Namely if the HIERACHY is repeatable , namely 'man to fish / fish to man ' has certain characteristics that I can recognise. Then go looking for these same characteristics in the ' man to God /'God to man relationship ' . Although not definitive on a single test , it might lead on to further tests, which might be more supportive of the idea. 

B) World domination , I agree has always been an issue . But it is certainly rearing it's head , over the last 100 years. ( and currently ) . Again if I am correct in the point about a God . The subject of world domination was predicted for this time . 

 

Now I appreciate these two points A) and B), 

need more 'meat on the bone ' 

 

mike 

List some effects of god that are not explained by methodological naturalism...  

Quote

Again if I am correct in the point about a God . The subject of world domination was predicted for this time

You sling around the word "if" as though it was evidence. If a frog had wings he wouldn't bust his little slimy ass every time he jumps.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

List some effects of god that are not explained by methodological naturalism...  

You sling around the word "if" as though it was evidence. If a frog had wings he wouldn't bust his little slimy ass every time he jumps.. 

Well , I have read the definition of "  methodological naturalism.. " . And it describes it as a deliberate statement of EXCLUSION OF ANY CAUSES BY A " GOD  " . So it is bound to not have any effects caused by God by sheer definition! 

 (So by that reason , if one came up with 10 occurances of a Devine intervention  say " the creation of ADAM " etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc , ALL 10 would be automatically excluded as evidence. So ANY evidence could never be provided.)

.. That sounds like a ' which came first  the chicken or the egg ' argument ..

mike 

OK.

  I GIVE IN . ... SOMEONE IS DESCIDING TO WIPE ME OUT WITH   -1, s 

.................. some way to have a discussion . ...... 

Bye  ALL !  

 ....  This behaviour is BARBARIC .... 

C(https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=barbaric+meaning&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Well , I have read the definition of "  methodological naturalism.. " . And it describes it as a deliberate statement of EXCLUSION OF ANY CAUSES BY A " GOD  " . So it is bound to not have any effects caused by God by sheer definition! 

 (So by that reason , if one came up with 10 occurances of a Devine intervention  say " the creation of ADAM " etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc , ALL 10 would be automatically excluded as evidence. So ANY evidence could never be provided.)

.. That sounds like a ' which came first  the chicken or the egg ' argument ..

mike 

OK.

  I GIVE IN . ... SOMEONE IS DESCIDING TO WIPE ME OUT WITH   -1, s 

.................. some way to have a discussion . ...... 

Bye  ALL !  

 ....  This behaviour is BARBARIC .... 

C(https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=barbaric+meaning&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari

No. methodological naturalism means that if you were to give evidence for god it would have to be real, not someone claims in a book. Methodological naturalism can only study that which is real, or has a measurable effect on reality. We used to think that thunder and lightning was supernatural, didn't keep us from studying them and finding out how they work. If you cam up with 10 instances of divine intervention you would need more than simple claims. Yes methodological naturalism requires evidence no matter what is being studied. So far the supernatural/religion/god has yet to provide any evidence than can be shown to be a part of reality. 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

Quote

If a philosopher or social scientist were to try to encapsulate a single principle that yoked together the intellectual process of [civilization], it would be a gradual dismantling of presumptions of magic. Brick by brick, century by century, with occasional burps and hiccups, the wall of superstition has been coming down. Science and medicine and political philosophy have been on a relentless march in one direction only — sometimes slow, sometimes at a gallop, but never reversing course. Never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing mystical explanation. ("Holy cow, Dr. Pasteur! I've examined the pancreas of a diabetic dog, and darned if it's NOT an insulin deficiency, but a little evil goblin dwelling inside. And he seems really pissed!") Some magical presumptions have stubbornly persisted way longer than others, but have eventually, inexorably fallen to logic, reason and enlightenment, such as the assumption of the divine right of kings and the entitlement of aristocracy. That one took five millennia, but fall it did.

Quote

However, this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism — the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical— essentially atheistic — claim that only natural causes exist.

Methodological naturalism makes no truth claim, it follows the evidence, you must have read Conservapedia's definition. In the future it would be wise to avoid sites with a religious ax to grind... 

http://www.conservapedia.com/Methodological_naturalism

Quote

Methodological naturalism is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility. 

This is quite simply dishonest, a knowing lie used by religious conservatives to deceive people looking for answers... 

 

To be honest, you bitch about neg rep when I am surprised you haven't been buried in it due to people thinking you are dishonestly arguing your point. Having read your stuff on here for quite some I have given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you simply didn't know how dishonest most of your arguments were. The more you complain about neg rep the more likely you are to receive it. 

What you believe is personal and as long as it harms no one else feel free to believe it but if you are going to assert your belief as reality then you have a burden of proof and what an old book says is not proof... 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well , I do appreciate your explanation, Mootenman . I , have no intention to provide argument that is wrong. On this subject I am probably in a different mode than my engineering , scientific mental frame , and probably speaking from my heart . Perhaps the subject of God ,exists in another realm , that keeps it out of reach , for some reason or another . 

I would have liked to continue my original proposal of a simple HEIRACHY existing from God to Man to Fish , as it currently interests me , and I thought it had some value . However if it is not possible to do that here ,( or outside the rules )  without receiving a downgrading of my status continually , I will clearly have to stop, as I do enjoy being able to discuss things here, as I have done for several years now. ( I was under the misunderstanding that ' the Lounge ' was outside the normal constraints of the Forum , eg   " Anything ". ) 

So please accept my apology , I will continue with a different ' tack ' . 

Unless of course , I happen on something , non controversial , to what is expected here on the Science Forum. 

 

Mike 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hard evidence you require could well be :- 

the RAINBOW splitting sunlight into a SPECTRUM of light . This was demonstrated by the scientist Isaac Newton , by his famous demonstration of this phenomenon . Previously demonstrated over history as the RAINBOW . 

Claimed and accepted to be the work of God . I suspect even modern science , would be hard pushed to reproduce such a phenomenon ! 

I might be wrong , but I do not think a similar phenomenon has be observed , by our looking at other star / planetary systems across the nearby universe . 

Mike 

 

http://www.webexhibits.org/colorart/zoom.php?i=i/prism-iamge-01.jpg&k=&j=

 

image.jpeg.467c2a93e5bdaf926d80f59f6ec70307.jpeg

 

image.jpeg.f11774750b1585ae588f3d9c455885f4.jpeg

 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

The hard evidence you require could well be :- 

the rainbow splitting sunlight into a spectrum of light . This was demonstrated by the scientist Isaac Newton , by his famous demonstration of this phenomenon . Previously demonstrated over history as the RAINBOW . 

 

...which is hard evidence of the wave nature of light and that white light contains the full spectrum of wavelengths. It is well understood (you used to be a Physics teacher right?).  What are you claiming it is hard evidence of?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DrP said:

...which is hard evidence of the wave nature of light and that white light contains the full spectrum of wavelengths. It is well understood (you used to be a Physics teacher right?).  What are you claiming it is hard evidence of?  

That the manipulation of the Earths conditions , during our early history , could only have been performed by :

a SUPERHUMAN  ( GODLIKE ) ACTIVITY .

. I doubt even with our current advancement in science could we generate a repeatable phenomenon , say on the moon , or one of our nearby planets , say EUROPA  ( which has a large water content . ) . Maybe in a few hundred years time , but not currently ! 

Mike 

ps . Incidentally you can repeat the Isaac Newton style experiment , ( as early experimenters did ) . On a really sunny day with a mug full of water. Face sideways to the sun . Take a large mouthful of water . And in a firm but controlled way , blow the water up, and over at 45 %  to the ground . You should see a small rainbow appear in front of you . 

Don't wear your best suit ! 

 

http://library.si.edu/exhibition/color-in-a-new-light/science

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

That the manipulation of the Earths conditions , during our early history , could only have been performed by :

a SUPERHUMAN  ( GODLIKE ) ACTIVITY .

. I doubt even with our current advancement in science could we generate a repeatable phenomenon , say on the moon , or one of our nearby planets , say EUROPA  ( which has a large water content . ) . Maybe in a few hundred years time , but not currently ! 

 

Of course we can't do that...  If you want to talk science fiction then maybe in hundreds of years we could teraform a planet...  it's irrelevant. Our earth has taken 4.5 billion years to become what it is. Life has only been around for a tiny blip of that time. We have learnt so much about planet formations and the early development of self replicating molecules and the first cells etc.. over the last few 30 years... Why dismiss that in exchange for unsupported superstition? Believe what you like - but in your heart you know that you have not presented a single piece of evidence that supports the idea of a superbeing. Creation and the other laws of physics are not evidence because you are just making up a solution for something you do not understand.

Just keep hanging on waiting for some kind of coincidence to come along (which it will) which in your mind you will latch onto as 'evidence' of an outside agency... Then you will have some more unsupportable 'evidence' for your argument - it is a common affliction. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DrP said:

Of course we can't do that...  If you want to talk science fiction then maybe in hundreds of years we could teraform a planet...  

 

Yes , but that is exactly what did happen . 

A planet was ' terraformed ' ..

by WHAT ? 

The HARD  evidence is here . Go and look out the door the next time it is raining and the sun is shining ! 

And I will go outdoors and look at my fish , as the raindrops plop into the pool . And they will look up at me , who normally feed them . And who do they think I am ? To them I am probably ' a God ' ? 

Mike 

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 

A planet was ' terraformed ' ..

by WHAT ? 

 

Time and the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. 

 

39 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

The HARD  evidence is here . Go and look out the door the next time it is raining and the sun is shining ! 

Numinous is not proof of god. Surely you know that? Wonder and amazement - the pure joy of reality and existence....  it's beautiful....  but all perfectly natural and explainable without superstition and the invention of outside agencies.

39 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 

And I will go outdoors and look at my fish , as the raindrops plop into the pool . And they will look up at me , who normally feed them . And who do they think I am ? To them I am probably ' a God ' ? 

Or potential food.

 

PS - it wasn't me that gave you -ve for that last post  -  but if you state that a rainbow is solid hard evidence of god one more time I will add to that -ve, lol.    ;-)

Edited by DrP
PS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DrP said:

Time and the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. 

 

 

Sure , we we're Terraformed , by physics , chemistry and Biology . 

But that surely requires some form of oversight , much as you or someone else was suggesting , in the future we as Earthlings , may one day be capable of  terraforming a world . 

What , to me is incredible , is that we are possibly the FIRST , in the whole universe to be TERRAFORMED. 

Someone, somewhere had to be FIRST  , and we appeared to be it !

And we 'screwed up '. 

The big question of course is :-  Who or what did the TERRAFORMING . 

If it's not Blasphemous, lets suggest it was a body of beings that did a lot of thinking . They somehow had managed to materialise matter , by coming up with this vaporous mini mini mini particle that had no mass but by infusing mental energy ( all of them ' the thinkers ' ) started off a chain reaction that duplicated this energy , and went fissssst from a single Higgs energy particle to a thing the size of one of our marbles. ( inflationarily ) . By careful manual manipulation they now had something to mentally work on , in the material universe ( the size of a marble ) . Bingo ! They adjusted things just right and it went into a duplicating mode , and low and behold over 13 billion years we had a material Universe . 

Then came the Terraforming of the first world . Our world . But when some of them materialed some things started to go wrong !  The rest is history ! 

Well it would make a good film ? Bags the copyright ! 

Mike 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 

Sure , we we're Terraformed , by physics , chemistry and Biology . 

But that surely requires some form of oversight , 

 

Nope. It just requires the laws of physics. As your first assertion here is wrong we can happily dismiss the rest of your post. 

Please, Mike, try and understand the difference between evidence and baseless assertion. It's getting old. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 What , to me is incredible , is that we are possibly the FIRST , in the whole universe to be TERRAFORMED. 

Someone, somewhere had to be FIRST  , and we appeared to be it !

There is absolutely no evidence that this is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 

What , to me is incredible , is that we are possibly the FIRST , in the whole universe to be TERRAFORMED. 

 

Possibly - but how could you possibly know? The universe is very large and we wouldn't even know if life came about, evolved into a vast intelligent civilization and then died out again a billion years later...   we wouldn't ever know about it if it was on the other side of the galaxy even, let alone in another galaxy or on the other side of the universe. I don't think you get how big it is and how small we are.

 

30 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 

. Someone, somewhere had to be FIRST  , and we appeared to be it !

And we 'screwed up '. 

 

 

We have no way of knowing if we were the first or not...   looking at the maths...  we probably aren't.

Who says we screwed it up? Who did anyway - life in general or humans? We are just the latest most advanced life form on the planet. We are improving - life is a lot better and fairer than it was a few thousand years ago. In a few thousand years time, if we survive wars and nature trying to kill us as a species, then I would think it will be better still as we learn from our mistakes.

 

34 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 

The big question of course is :-  Who or what did the TERRAFORMING . 

 

Time and physics - clearly from what we have learned and tested.

 

35 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 

If it's not Blasphemous, lets suggest it was a body of beings that did a lot of thinking .

 

 

Why postulate that at all? There is absolutely no evidence for it... and it just makes things more complex - who made them?  

 

Have a nice day anyway - I am at work and can't really chat anymore.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know whether or not I speak for the other participants on this thread, but here is my take so far. I think I may have said it before and I think I've read at least one other member making the same comment - you seem to be a thoroughly good person. I think that is the reason your nonsense has been tolerated so far. And it is nonsense. Nonsense that you continue to repeat.

Look at some recent examples:

  • You claim the rainbow is evidence for God, yet it is simply an expression of fundamental laws, one of many emergent properties.
  • You claim the formation of the Earth is evidence for God, yet.....as above.
  • You claim science doesn't understand male-female attraction. I offer 3,000,000 hits on Google Scholar as a refutation.
  • You take each of your desires to represent reality: because you wish something to be true that is your evidence it is. That is the epitome of illogic and arrogance.
  • You claimed to know more of fish than science. I listed ten sciences that provided us with a much deeper understanding of fish.

It is clear you still feel your hierarchy concept has some value. The problem is that you have quite failed to present a cogent argument for it; an argument that could be respected by others, even if they did not agree with it. Since you won't present that I guess I'll have to do it for you. That may take some time. Don't hold your breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

The hard evidence you require could well be :- 

the RAINBOW splitting sunlight into a SPECTRUM of light . This was demonstrated by the scientist Isaac Newton , by his famous demonstration of this phenomenon . Previously demonstrated over history as the RAINBOW . 

Claimed and accepted to be the work of God . I suspect even modern science , would be hard pushed to reproduce such a phenomenon ! 

I might be wrong , but I do not think a similar phenomenon has be observed , by our looking at other star / planetary systems across the nearby universe . 

Mike 

 

http://www.webexhibits.org/colorart/zoom.php?i=i/prism-iamge-01.jpg&k=&j=

 

image.jpeg.467c2a93e5bdaf926d80f59f6ec70307.jpeg

 

image.jpeg.f11774750b1585ae588f3d9c455885f4.jpeg

 

Are you suggesting there were no rainbows until a god destroyed the world and made rainbows to signify his promise?  Really? A rainbow is part of the behavior of matter under specific circumstances, are you asserting an imaginary god created it to signify that it would not destroy the world by flood? A flood that can be proven never to have happened supposedly caused by a entity there is no evidence for to begin with? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.