Catholic nonsense

[No wides]

From reading omaghjoe's posts on this thread and from a prior discussion we had, I think he makes some good points, as far as I can follow them.

Joe, on the conscience bit, and considering where humans evolved from, do you think our non-human ancestors all had a conscience, or at what point did it come about?

Because Joe would know that, maybe he is time traveling and can get the answer?

[Esmarelda]

From reading omaghjoe's posts on this thread and from a prior discussion we had, I think he makes some good points, as far as I can follow them.

Joe, on the conscience bit, and considering where humans evolved from, do you think our non-human ancestors all had a conscience, or at what point did it come about?

Because Joe would know that, maybe he is time traveling and can get the answer?

I said "do you think" so it's just his opinion I'm after.

What's with the agro?

[No wides]

It's life - like all animals, you are born, live your life and die.

EH? So quantum mechanics is BS then? How did we come to experience life?

Is it just humans that experience life?

[omaghjoe]

From reading omaghjoe's posts on this thread and from a prior discussion we had, I think he makes some good points, as far as I can follow them.

Joe, on the conscience bit, and considering where humans evolved from, do you think our non-human ancestors all had a conscience, or at what point did it come about?

Well a conscience is intertwined with experience and consciousness Esm so the short answer is I dont know. Because where does it stop primates?, dogs?, snakes, fish, plants, bacteria, rocks?
But then I KNOW I have one and I BELIEVE that everyone has one. Does a chimp have one for example... not a clue and it doesnt really affect how I interact and feel towards them so I dont feel compelled to believe anything on it as such. But obviously somewhere along the line it started how and when I dont know. Some people believe animals do and I would be cool with that if that's what they believe....

[omaghjoe]

So prior to the new God 2000 odd years ago, did mankind feck themselves by worshiping other Gods even know they didn't know about the new God, and why did the new God wait so long before introducing himself, the Egyptians were a smart race - why did he not give them a shout or was he just shy and wanted to wait until he got his Word correct?

Sure there are probably still natives in the darkest reaches of the Amazon who, this very day, have yet to experience the delights of organized religion and the Judaeo-Christian god! What fate awaits those poor wretches through no fault of their own? Never mind those eejits among us who were in the club but came to an honest, logical, properly thought-out conclusion that's it's all a load of bollocks!

So whats not bollocks J70?

That Klopp has got Liverpool playing marvelous football. That Michael Murphy is a once in a generation full forward being sacrificed for the greater good of the Donegal team in the era of blanket defenses. That the day is lit up by the sun. That science is an incredible tool to investigate the universe.

Are you really looking for a list?

But what if I believe soccer is by and large shit? Michael Murphy is just big ignoramus who can shoot a bit? And sunlight is nothing  only an illusion our mind has created from photons? I do believe science is a great tool for investigating the universe (the empirical universe at least) even if what it tells us may not be the true nature of reality.

So your really what your saying is whats not bollocks it what you believe not matter if someone else believes something else? Would that be fair?

[omaghjoe]

It's life - like all animals, you are born, live your life and die.

EH? So quantum mechanics is BS then? How did we come to experience life?

You asked me what is not bullshit - life isn't, for 7 billion people on this planet they are born, they live whatever hand they have and they die.  If you are away in another dimension like stargate good for you hope the weather is pleasant.

...Yes and according to quantum mechanics those lives are just a jumble of floating atoms which consist of particles whizzing and popping around.

Arent you travelling through time? I am thanks to the spacetime geodesic that all my atoms are sitting on but if I was hanging out on a neutron star time would slow way down (relative to you of course), and should stop in a black hole.

[J70]

So prior to the new God 2000 odd years ago, did mankind feck themselves by worshiping other Gods even know they didn't know about the new God, and why did the new God wait so long before introducing himself, the Egyptians were a smart race - why did he not give them a shout or was he just shy and wanted to wait until he got his Word correct?

Sure there are probably still natives in the darkest reaches of the Amazon who, this very day, have yet to experience the delights of organized religion and the Judaeo-Christian god! What fate awaits those poor wretches through no fault of their own? Never mind those eejits among us who were in the club but came to an honest, logical, properly thought-out conclusion that's it's all a load of bollocks!

So whats not bollocks J70?

That Klopp has got Liverpool playing marvelous football. That Michael Murphy is a once in a generation full forward being sacrificed for the greater good of the Donegal team in the era of blanket defenses. That the day is lit up by the sun. That science is an incredible tool to investigate the universe.

Are you really looking for a list?

But what if I believe soccer is by and large shit? Michael Murphy is just big ignoramus who can shoot a bit? And sunlight is nothing  only an illusion our mind has created from photons? I do believe science is a great tool for investigating the universe (the empirical universe at least) even if what it tells us may not be the true nature of reality.

So your really what your saying is whats not bollocks it what you believe not matter if someone else believes something else? Would that be fair?

It's all a judgement call, based on our cumulative upbringing, environment and intelligence. Had I never been exposed to science beyond secondary school and my own curiosity, I might still be a believer in Catholicism... maybe. If I grew up in Riyadh, I might be an Islamic fundamentalist who approves of violent jihad. If I grew up in rural Indiana and was homeschooled before going to Liberty University, I might be a young earth creationist.

But does that mean all those competing world views are equally valid? Have we no solid ground to stand to say they aren't? Is the "Grand Canyon was carved by Noah's Flood" a valid hypothesis? Does the interlocking geological and palaeontogical evidence against it not really matter? Are the anti-vaxxers and homeopaths on equal footing with modern medicine?

[muppet]

OmaghJoe's argument is always simply to allow you to go to the edge of proven science and insist that God lives just beyond it.

There is no evidence, observation or even solid theory to work with.

Utter bollocks muppet as usual, have I even mentioned God in this thread? Tho to be fair a straw man is usually a more intricate fallacy than your usual red herring (tho maybe not in this case).

Tho I will reiterate what my point is and that is we can never be completely sure of anything.

And even if you do believe in a materialist world fine but why would you assume that empiricism can give you an accurate picture of that world? Its a massive jump in logic to assume that it does, and the discovery of the bizarre realm of quantum mechanics with spooky action and randomness more or less confirms that our empirical view of things aint accurate, and also begs the question is that realm a true picture of reality?

What is the thread about?

As for....

"we can never be completely sure of anything. "

This is exactly the point I was making and precisely where you go in any religious argument.

We can be sure of plenty. Scientific process, evidence, peer-review and most importantly, reproducibility, can prove some things with certainty.

[omaghjoe]

So prior to the new God 2000 odd years ago, did mankind feck themselves by worshiping other Gods even know they didn't know about the new God, and why did the new God wait so long before introducing himself, the Egyptians were a smart race - why did he not give them a shout or was he just shy and wanted to wait until he got his Word correct?

Sure there are probably still natives in the darkest reaches of the Amazon who, this very day, have yet to experience the delights of organized religion and the Judaeo-Christian god! What fate awaits those poor wretches through no fault of their own? Never mind those eejits among us who were in the club but came to an honest, logical, properly thought-out conclusion that's it's all a load of bollocks!

So whats not bollocks J70?

That Klopp has got Liverpool playing marvelous football. That Michael Murphy is a once in a generation full forward being sacrificed for the greater good of the Donegal team in the era of blanket defenses. That the day is lit up by the sun. That science is an incredible tool to investigate the universe.

Are you really looking for a list?

But what if I believe soccer is by and large shit? Michael Murphy is just big ignoramus who can shoot a bit? And sunlight is nothing  only an illusion our mind has created from photons? I do believe science is a great tool for investigating the universe (the empirical universe at least) even if what it tells us may not be the true nature of reality.

So your really what your saying is whats not bollocks it what you believe not matter if someone else believes something else? Would that be fair?

It's all a judgement call, based on our cumulative upbringing, environment and intelligence. Had I never been exposed to science beyond secondary school and my own curiosity, I might still be a believer in Catholicism... maybe. If I grew up in Riyadh, I might be an Islamic fundamentalist who approves of violent jihad. If I grew up in rural Indiana and was homeschooled before going to Liberty University, I might be a young earth creationist.

But does that mean all those competing world views are equally valid? Have we no solid ground to stand to say they aren't? Is the "Grand Canyon was carved by Noah's Flood" a valid hypothesis? Does the interlocking geological and palaeontogical evidence against it not really matter? Are the anti-vaxxers and homeopaths on equal footing with modern medicine?

I studied science (or applied science at least) to 3rd level ed and take a great interest in it. I dont see any conflict with faith unless your faith was based on a God of the gaps.

And although you pick rather extreme examples all of them including science make the following two logical errors:
They make assumptions to move forward: science assumes our senses give us an accurate picture of reality, faith assumes there is a spiritual aspect to the universe
None of them logically add up: unknown mystrey in religion and lack of a theory of everything in science, (let alone an empirically "proved" one).

Then again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.

I dont believe in "last Thursday-ism" or "brain in a vat" but I have no way of knowing at all if they are wrong.

Also a note on the "antivaxers" although Im no fan of theirs there was a good example of the intolerance going around for alternative views when a doctor on tv said that "its a fact that vaccines do not cause autism." I was thinking how in the hell does he know especially considering that medicine doesnt even know what causes autism so to say its a "fact" is complete Bollocks.

[easytiger95]

https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/2015/02/24/what-does-quantum-mechanics-suggest-about-our-perceptions-reality/

Don't particularly want to go down this rabbit hole with you Joe, but logic dictates I must. With regard to your questions about consciousness and conscience, I think the area itself is one of the last great frontiers for science. As I've stated before on the board I'm an agnostic, so if science comes to the conclusion a la Occam's Razor that there is a higher force at work in human consciousness, I'll neither be surprised or dismayed.

However, you are using the existence of quantum mechanics as an argument to discredit the possibility of empiricism providing us with any concrete answers to your questions re experience. Ipso facto there must be a higher power/force of right and wrong/whichever you'd like to call it that cannot be accounted for by empiricism.

The link above is a discussion paper about the relationship between quantum mechanics and perceived reality. It's a dense read but I'd point your attention to the last paragraph which would seem to refute your argument below.

Then again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.

The last paragraph states

Where does that leave us? The remarkable thing is that we can still reliably track aspects of reality. Whatever quantity you want to measure — be it position, momentum, or spin — if you measure it twice, within a short span of time, you will find that it has the same value.  Thus, we have good reason to think that our measurements provide reliable information about reality.  This sort of reliability is good enough to guide our actions, and it provides strong evidence of the hidden reality behind our perceptions.

To paraphrase,  science does give a reliable base for measuring reality, as well as being the principle tool for exploring quantum physics. The existence of one does not negate the measures in another, and using quantum mechanics as a sledgehammer to demolish the legitimacy of theories such as genetic evolution is the very definition of a "strawman" argument.

So perhaps you need another line of argument? Have at it Joe, I have the popcorn in the microwave as we speak.

[J70]

How do you get through the day Joe? You seem to believe that nothing is really knowable! And you didn't really answer about the relative validity of science and what most would consider pseudoscience. Do you really not make judgements and have solid opinions in real life about life and religion and science and medicine and engineering and so on?

And I think the point about the anti-vaxxers is that they never had a case in the first place. This isn't some holdouts clinging to some formerly accepted paradigm that science or medicine moved on from; it was discredited from the start. They're not owed any respect or serious consideration until they come up with legitimate evidence.

[J70]

Then again who says logic as we understand it holds.. after all quantum randomness and spooky action have bee detected in quantum mechanics and they are completely illogical, thus blowing the long held belief in science of a deterministic naturalist universe completely out of the water.

I don't get this. Please expand.

And why would this make the case for a non- naturalist universe, presumably creationist, any stronger?

[Hardy]

Joe disavows the God Of The Gaps proposition while, it seems to me, presenting an even more simplistic proposition – that which is unknown is unknowable.

He seems to think that because science hasn't developed a theory of consciousness, there never will be an explanation of how consciousness works. Therefore, mysticism must be considered as the alternative explanation.

And then, in a bizarre non-sequitur, quantum theory proves that it must be something "spooky" that's going on.

[stew]

OmaghJoe's argument is always simply to allow you to go to the edge of proven science and insist that God lives just beyond it.

There is no evidence, observation or even solid theory to work with.

Utter bollocks muppet as usual, have I even mentioned God in this thread? Tho to be fair a straw man is usually a more intricate fallacy than your usual red herring (tho maybe not in this case).

Tho I will reiterate what my point is and that is we can never be completely sure of anything.

And even if you do believe in a materialist world fine but why would you assume that empiricism can give you an accurate picture of that world? Its a massive jump in logic to assume that it does, and the discovery of the bizarre realm of quantum mechanics with spooky action and randomness more or less confirms that our empirical view of things aint accurate, and also begs the question is that realm a true picture of reality?

What is the thread about?

As for....

"we can never be completely sure of anything. "

This is exactly the point I was making and precisely where you go in any religious argument.

We can be sure of plenty. Scientific process, evidence, peer-review and most importantly, reproducibility, can prove some things with certainty.

Scientists believe they know about 4% of what there is to,know about the universe, what they do know is that there should be no universe because it should have winked out of existance after about four plano time because the elements were too heavy to support inflation, they also know we live in the goldilocks zone and have this tremendous planet called Jupiter which draws objects that would otherwise have destroyed eons ago the earth yet here we sit.

I do not believe in man because man is flawed, I read somewhere it will take scientists 100 000 000 years to get to 50% of what they would like to know about the universe, in other words we are infants when it comes to knowledge of the cosmos and it's connection to God.

[muppet]

If you don't believe in man, then forget quoting scientists and 'I read somewhere'.

However I agree that man is flawed. I think we will destroy ourselves and our planet pretty quickly. We are too stupid and too selfish to build a lasting society.

We are fooled by conmen in every country that the fella with a different hat, or jersey, or accent or whatever, is out to get us and our family. So we must pay the conmen to protect us. Religions and politics are both full these conmen.

Amber Rudd wants companyies to produce data regarding foreigners employed in the UK. 'Bad' employers are those who employ foreigners when they could employ a local. I have never seen so much naked jingoism in my lifetime. And Trump is using it as his main 'policy'. The German far-right just kicked Merkel's ass in elections.

I am praying this is merely electioneering aimed at getting votes from the easily fooled. Becuase if these people are serious........