|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You're just juggling words. The clear meaning of my statement is that scientists make the underlying assumption that there is no God. Such an assumption is clearly not testable (by material means...) Whether the scientists claim that it's testable -or not (or publicize their assumption...) is beside the point... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk

Joined: 06 Dec 2005 Location: somewhere in Korea
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| You're just juggling words. The clear meaning of my statement is that scientists make the underlying assumption that there is no God. Such an assumption is clearly not testable (by material means...) Whether the scientists claim that it's testable -or not (or publicize their assumption...) is beside the point... |
Oh, I didn't care about your statement, it seems as if Hans was purposely missing what MM2 was saying by selective quoting, and was just backing him up. I wasn't commenting on the actual statement itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| You're just juggling words. The clear meaning of my statement is that scientists make the underlying assumption that there is no God. |
The problem is they don't make that assumption. They make the assumption that the phenomenon they are investigating has a natural cause. Do you understand the difference?
"Your baby died in utero."
"Why?"
"God killed it? Oh wait, ha ha, I'm a medical doctor so I'll assume a natural explanation."
Does this make the doctor an atheistic evangelizer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was referring specifically to theories that life originally evolved from matter which assume that consciousness must be an emergent physical property - when actually, in its pure state, consciousness is spiritual and it is due to the presence of a non-material soul...
There is absolutely no proof that consciousness has a material cause, and life has never been observed to evolve from dead matter - life always comes from life... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
I was referring specifically to theories that life originally evolved from matter which assume that consciousness must be an emergent physical property - when actually, in its pure state, consciousness is spiritual and it is due to the presence of a non-material soul...
There is absolutely no proof that consciousness has a material cause, and life has never been observed to evolve from dead matter - life always comes from life... |
No poof? You mean like your "if it doesn't fit into my world view, no proof is good enough but if a yogi claims he flopped on a mat and visited the moon, THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME." That kind of proof? Cha!
It seems to me your only "proof' that human intelligence is a product of a soul is that when the brian dies, we can't fix the brain. Geez, Einstein, I'm still waiting for your Nobel prize on that brilliant observation. Let's go back to you talking about how matter after the big bang couldn't possibly have organized itself into planets...
There are a HEAP of brain research experiments that tie human consciousness to specific parts of the brain, specific chemicals, and specific mechanisms.
That you've never bothered to look or study it doesn't mean there is no proof. But you can go look. You won't. Just as you won't review the talk.origins site for the massive amount of research from different lines of science that establish evolutionary theory.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/mind_brain/neuroscience/
Next. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just because there's a "tie" between parts of the brain (or chemical activity...) and altered states of consciousness doesn't necessary indicate a causal relationship. There would also be similar correlations if the consciousness used the brain as a very sophisticated instrument. If the brain is physically or chemically altered there would be less (or more) consciousness perceived within a specific body. Even if a person is "brain dead" (don't look at me... ) there would still be some consciousness within the body as long as the heart can beat on its own (indicating that the soul hasn't departed that body yet...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
Just because there's a "tie" between parts of the brain (or chemical activity...) and altered states of consciousness doesn't necessary indicate a causal relationship. There would also be similar correlations if the consciousness used the brain as a very sophisticated instrument. If the brain is physically or chemically altered there would be less (or more) consciousness perceived within a specific body. Even if a person is "brain dead" (don't look at me... ) there would still be some consciousness within the body as long as the heart can beat on its own (indicating that the soul hasn't departed that body yet...) |
We're not talking correlation. We're talking controlling for all other variables but the variable in question. If you do x and y happens, you can conclude x causes y. Yes, god can jump in as some super hidden factor, but that's not science.
There is simply no scientific evidence of your belief. However, there is loads of scientific evidence that consciousness, memory, perception, and emotion are all tied to specific areas of the brain and operate based on a mechanism we learn more and more about all the time.
You have a wonderful proof of your claim before you. Yogis sending their consciousness to other planets. If they can send it to another planet, they can send it to a sealed room and see a random number and report back, fully demonstrating your claim. It just takes one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're not stating anything new - You can obviously see a physical precipitating cause, but you can't see the underlying spiritual cause. Eventually, conceptual advances would need to be made to the physical world view of science in order to recognize the spirit-soul:
In the theoretical structure of modern physics, however, there is presently no place for such a conception of the mind and the ethereal element (although some physicists have begun to tentatively entertain such ideas.) As a consequence, scientists still generally adhere to the idea that it is impossible for the brain to interact with a distinct "nonphysical" mind. This in turn makes it impossible for them to give credence to many phenomena which imply the existence of such a mind, even though empirical evidence for these phenomena has existed for many years. These include the psychic phenomena studied by the parapsychologists, out of body experiences, and the spontaneous remembrance of previous incarnations by small children.
http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ghi/vcchap.html
Actually, all that would logically be required to prove the existence of the soul is at least one confirmed out-of-body (OBE) experience - or spontaneous remembrance of a previous birth by a small child...
I have already answered your repeated requests to produce a yogi willing to do magic tricks by explaining that such yogic practice is practically impossible in this cosmic age (which began around 5000 years ago...) Previously, the atmosphere on earth was much less disturbed and polluted, and conditions were much more conducive for the type of meditation required. One of the qualifications was that the yogi had to be a lifetime celibate - never having lost any semen... That would pretty much eliminate most everyone around these days (except for some great sages residing in remote spots in the Himalayas ...)
These sites give some discussion of mystic siddhis and such:
http://www.bvashram.org/articles/98/1/Siddhis,-Riddhis-and-Mystical-Experiences
http://www.trsiyengar.com/id59.html
http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ghi/vcchap.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| You're not stating anything new - You can obviously see a physical precipitating cause, but you can't see the underlying spiritual cause. Eventually, conceptual advances would need to be made to the physical world view of science in order to recognize the spirit-soul: |
I can't see the "spiritual cause" because I can't see any evidence. Zero. I can see no reason why your latest desperate gap to plug in a god even requires a god. We stopped believing lightening was caused by god. We don't expect human consciousness to have some underlying spiritual woo woo either.
| Quote: |
These include the psychic phenomena studied by the parapsychologists, out of body experiences, and the spontaneous remembrance of previous incarnations by small children. [/color][/b]
|
That's great but there's zero repeatable evidence of psychic ability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005 Location: Vancouver
|
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:02 am Post subject: Re: "Miracle" Water Spouting From Tree |
|
|
Sorry for the delay in posting, but things are getting really busy. Don't have much time.
| huffdaddy wrote: |
And how do you know that you aren't making the same silly errors? Even, for the sake of argument, accepting God and the story of creation, there's a whole host of issues involved here. The role of God in writing the Bible, literal versus figurative, allegory, metaphors, ad nauseum. Not to mention copying and translation issues. To flatly assert that God created the universe in 6 days some 6000 years ago takes a ridiculous leap of assumptions that are not in any way, shape or form, vital components of Christianity.
|
If you would truly analyze the evidence and look at the threads that weave through what you have just mentioned ,you would see the amazingly overwhelming amount of evidence that supports faith in Christ. There are many good books and sites that support this.
The leap of assumptions actually come when you try to put the earth at 5 to 15 billion years old. It is theoretically impossible for the earth to be at this age, but still this is the common belief held by scientists.
| Quote: |
| In the end, religion, including Christianity, shouldn't be about where we came from, but rather where we are and where we are going. To invest the credibility of the church in things like an Earth-centered universe, the Shroud of Turin, crying Madonnas, water sprouting trees, and evolution is doing more to destroy you than any athiest ever could. |
If we don't know where we came from, then we don't know where we are going. Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last. He was, He is and He is yet to come. Through Him all things were created and without him nothing would exist. Whether it's 6000 or 100 mil, we still have to figure it out.
[quote]
| Quote: |
| And Noah's Ark?? The only evidence I've seen supporting the 6000 year old Earth is that eveything can be explained by "God's hand." |
Interestingly enough. Some guys on Fox news claim to have evidence to where it is. Mt. Solomon(sp?) in Iran.
| Quote: |
| Off topic, but it looks like it was written by a high school student, or at best, a high school science teacher. So much conjecture and so many holes. |
Ok, personally I watch this site more,
http://www.discovery.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hans Blix
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
|
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
He was responding to this..
Quote:
Rteacher wrote:
[b][color=darkred]The underlying assumption made by some scientists that "there is no God" can not be tested experimentally.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. First, no scientist would make a claim that's even testable.
No scientist would make a claim that "there is no God" is even testable. Pretty easy.
|
hope this isn't too selective.
universal statements, some claim, are testable. perhaps they can't be proved, but maybe they can be tested. testing a (positive) universal statement with negative data constitutes a test, i would think.
so an example of a test of this statement 'no bats lay eggs' would be to exhibit a bat that lays eggs.
i realise this may seem like semantic hair-splitting, but i think these distinctions are important. differ me.
notice that i'm disagreeing with both contestants in this, um, polemic.
so what do scientists do? make tentative universal claims? is this how you think of what a 'theory' is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:56 am Post subject: Re: "Miracle" Water Spouting From Tree |
|
|
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. *COUGH* Dover totally SPANKED them. If that's the best the Discovery Institute can do, it's pretty sad. Sad.
Okay, first of all, ID is a massive argument from personal incredulity and a false dichotomy. The ID argument goes like this:
I have a theory that lightening is caused by the hydrogen in rain water getting loose and then catching on fire. You prove this theory is impossible given the observed facts. You then claim you can't imagine anyone ever coming up with a natural theory to explain lightening, therefore God throws lightening bolts.
That is exactly what ID is claiming.
It's setting up a false dichotomy. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Creationism is simply based on such a false dichotomy. "If we can prove evolution is wrong, then the only other possible explanation is the bible. Hozannah!"
Ahem. There could be another natural explanation. But we're hardly in danger of throwing out evolution. Dover only confirms this, again.
The Supreme Court in McLean and the Dover ruling, plus a host of other rulings, have shown that when evolution goes up against creationism and its step child ID in a venue where facts, logic, and science are the only issues under consideration evolution wins time and time again. Suck it up.
Now some people might be tempted to label Dover's judge as an activist judge. The problem is he was both an avowed Christian AND a Dubya appointee. Wot happened? Got a theory there, St. Peter?
| Quote: |
| We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. |
Suck it up. Bush's man says it ain't science and what they offer as science is horse pucky. Golly.
| Quote: |
| ID�s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. |
This conservative judge found ID people lied! Lied! Good religious people lied:
| Quote: |
| It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. |
Liars! They put their freakin' hands on the bible, swore an oath to buddy jesus, and then told bald faced lies. That's a sin, you know. Are you aware your ID people are lying? Sinners?
And let's consider ID golden boy Behe's public spanking:
| Quote: |
| Professor Behe�s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor �missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,� what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system. |
So there was no "half an eye". First there were some cells that were sensitive to light. Then more so. Slowly new adaptive functions were added. Boom. We got ourselves an eye. In fact, the whole (possible) evolution scheme for the eye is alive and well and reflected at every (possible) stage in the animal kingdom. Evolution actually expects this, as anything well adapted for its environment will keep that which adapts it to its environment. Hence the reason we have both monkeys and humans.
| Quote: |
| Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe�s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex. |
Now, c'mon, St. Peter, a federal court with a conservative Dubya appointed judge handed the ID movement its ass on a silver platter. And you still think there's some kinda real science going on at that DI link? You're a little beyond the basics? I can see why you're a hagwon teacher and not a working engineer anymore. I sure as hell wouldn't want to cross a bridge you built if you share the DI's sense of scientific rigor. "And this is the part where god holds up the bridge..."
Keep pounding it to that link, St Peter, because after Dover, your American creationist brothers don't have much left to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper
|
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:33 am Post subject: Re: "Miracle" Water Spouting From Tree |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. *COUGH* Dover totally SPANKED them. If that's the best the Discovery Institute can do, it's pretty sad. Sad. |
That was a damned good read. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Once again, "Mindmetoo" tries to lump together and trash all people with faith in something beyond material science. People desparately searching for miraculous cures for their children or other loved ones will naturally seek help from both medical science and God.
In most instances, people will apparently not be cured by either. Wise people understand that material/medical science has its limits. They also understand that everything happens for a reason known ultimately only by the unlimited, omniscient person...
Here's an article from the local San Antonio paper that appeared early on, before the specific "rational" explanations surfaced:
Cary Clack: Water-gushing tree proves that faith is individual
Web Posted: 08/16/2006 08:45 PM CDT
San Antonio Express-News
In the 1948 movie "The Miracle of the Bells," Fred MacMurray plays a press agent who tries to create publicity for a young actress who has died before the release of her film. During her funeral, religious statues in a Catholic church turn and face her casket to the amazement of the congregation.
The priest, played by a young Frank Sinatra, rushes to the church basement where, after careful examination of the foundation, he explains to MacMurray that a shifting of the earth was responsible for the statues' movement.
MacMurray tells the priest that however logical the reason, the people in the church will always believe they'd witnessed a miracle.
I believe in miracles: angels, ghosts and life on other planets. But I also believe that there are usually logical explanations for things that, initially, can't be explained.
Often, what appears to be supernatural may actually be natural, albeit rare.
I'm fairly confident that there's a scientific reason why the large red oak in Lucille Pope's backyard has been spouting water since April. Whatever reason is the correct one doesn't detract from the unusual sight of a tree leaking like a hose.
Since the story of the Leaking Tree appeared under Vincent T. Davis' byline last Friday and in this column space on Tuesday, the newspaper has received a tidal wave of very plausible explanations as to why the tree does what it does.
They are so good and there are so many that I'm sure one of them is the right one.
More numerous than calls and e-mails trying to explain the tree are calls and e-mails from people seeking its help. They don't see the tree as a curiosity, but as a religious symbol that may possess healing powers.
This e-mail, signed, "Desperate Sister," read, "I am desperately writing to you because the only family I have is my sick sister. She has ovarian cancer and no insurance. I am desperately asking you to ask this family to permit me to take my sister there so that she could drink some of this water to see if her cancer goes away. I cannot live without her because we are very close and I would do anything to see her well."
People want the tree's water for ailments such as arthritic legs and a sister-in-law's bad arm.
Among the people who have been showing up at the Pope house were a mother and 5-year-old son who has a potentially fatal disease. Seeking a healing for the child, they flew in from Pennsylvania to touch the tree and its water.
This is when the phenomenon of the leaking tree that has attracted national and international attention is no longer simply a strange and amusing sideshow; something fun to wonder and talk about.
For many of us, the leaking tree is a pleasant distraction from real world problems. But for many others, it's a possible solution to their real world problems.
When I watched the newscast of the mother and her son at the tree, I felt profoundly sad. I was sad that the child is so sick and sad that his mother is so desperate that she has to make herself and him believe in the healing powers of water from a tree.
And yet, who am I to judge her? To say that she's misguided? If I had a child or sister gravely ill, I'd probably do the same thing.
Faith is personal, and where someone may place his or her faith isn't where I would place mine.
People seek hope in the divine and the secular, from prayer and pilgrimage, to wishing on stars and tossing coins into wells. We're often in search of miracles in our lives and in this world.
A tree that continuously pours out water is a wondrous thing to behold, however understandable and scientific the reason.
If its wonders are taken beyond its gnarled surface, that may symbolize just how desperate some are for a miracle.
May they find those miracles wherever they need to. http://www.mysanantonio.com/salife/stories/MYSA081706.01P.clack.f65b66.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| [b][color=darkblue]Once again, "Mindmetoo" tries to lump together and trash all people with faith in something beyond material science. People desparately searching for miraculous cures for their children or other loved ones will naturally seek help from both medical science and God. |
That has nothing to do with what I posted. The DI claims it's doing science. A court, a venue of fact and logic, has ruled in no uncertain terms ID is not science. That's what I'm trashing. If you want to believe there's a buddy guy in the sky that cares about you, great. Clearly it's helped you. But if you claim it's science, then we need to talk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|