Nick Seldon - A Quotation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-09-2015, 12:30 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(09-09-2015 12:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  However, looking at peer-reviewed research, we will find neither support for miracles nor denial of miracles, metaphysics and the rest. Science doesn't go there.

It does the moment that you start claiming that miracles happen.

And it very much denies that claim.

(09-09-2015 12:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You simply cannot predict all outcomes for all human subjects in any given scenario, ever. You can look to certain group dynamics, where people fall on a bell curve, leaders and followers, but you cannot (yet) use neuroscience to predict who will be Hitler or a pope or an atheist.

Your point being...?

(09-09-2015 12:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Here it comes--give me the "science of the gaps" argument about "we don't know how yet, but someday we will".

Well, yes. It stops being a gaps argument when you look at the fact that literally every piece of evidence we have, ever, on any subject, points to this being the case.

The brain is a computer and thoughts are neurochemical reactions. It is by necessity possible, though not necessarily easy or practical or possible with current technology, that this could be done.

(09-09-2015 12:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  PS. Drugs alter mood by and large by blocking neurochemicals, not by altering our mood at its source.

That is the source.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
11-09-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(09-09-2015 12:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 12:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  However, looking at peer-reviewed research, we will find neither support for miracles nor denial of miracles, metaphysics and the rest. Science doesn't go there.

It does the moment that you start claiming that miracles happen.

And it very much denies that claim.

(09-09-2015 12:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You simply cannot predict all outcomes for all human subjects in any given scenario, ever. You can look to certain group dynamics, where people fall on a bell curve, leaders and followers, but you cannot (yet) use neuroscience to predict who will be Hitler or a pope or an atheist.

Your point being...?

(09-09-2015 12:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Here it comes--give me the "science of the gaps" argument about "we don't know how yet, but someday we will".

Well, yes. It stops being a gaps argument when you look at the fact that literally every piece of evidence we have, ever, on any subject, points to this being the case.

The brain is a computer and thoughts are neurochemical reactions. It is by necessity possible, though not necessarily easy or practical or possible with current technology, that this could be done.

(09-09-2015 12:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  PS. Drugs alter mood by and large by blocking neurochemicals, not by altering our mood at its source.

That is the source.

And how does science "very much so" disprove ALL miracles ever recorded or claimed? For example, how does peer-reviewed science disprove Jesus fed thousands of people on two separate occasions miraculously from a small amount of food?

You are also begging other questions, like, did the scientists pray that God would show them the truth about miracles when they undertook their investigations? Drinking Beverage

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 09:59 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(09-09-2015 12:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 12:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  However, looking at peer-reviewed research, we will find neither support for miracles nor denial of miracles, metaphysics and the rest. Science doesn't go there.

It does the moment that you start claiming that miracles happen.

And it very much denies that claim.

(09-09-2015 12:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You simply cannot predict all outcomes for all human subjects in any given scenario, ever. You can look to certain group dynamics, where people fall on a bell curve, leaders and followers, but you cannot (yet) use neuroscience to predict who will be Hitler or a pope or an atheist.

Your point being...?

(09-09-2015 12:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Here it comes--give me the "science of the gaps" argument about "we don't know how yet, but someday we will".

Well, yes. It stops being a gaps argument when you look at the fact that literally every piece of evidence we have, ever, on any subject, points to this being the case.

The brain is a computer and thoughts are neurochemical reactions. It is by necessity possible, though not necessarily easy or practical or possible with current technology, that this could be done.

(09-09-2015 12:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  PS. Drugs alter mood by and large by blocking neurochemicals, not by altering our mood at its source.

That is the source.

What you said regarding gaps and the inductively demonstrated ability of science to solve all problems could be said by theists for God also. Theists can even point to theistic scientists who sought God during their resolution of scientific problems!

The source of moods and emotions is not MERELY biochemical, nor as I've mentioned repeatedly now, is it true that every person or even many persons in any given situation will exhibit the same emotional response to a given stimulus.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 12:09 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(11-09-2015 09:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And how does science "very much so" disprove ALL miracles ever recorded or claimed?

It doesn't need to.

You keep running head-first into the burden of proof.

(11-09-2015 09:59 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  What you said regarding gaps and the inductively demonstrated ability of science to solve all problems could be said by theists for God also.

No, it really can't.

(11-09-2015 09:59 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The source of moods and emotions is not MERELY biochemical

Bare assertion.

(11-09-2015 09:59 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  nor as I've mentioned repeatedly now, is it true that every person or even many persons in any given situation will exhibit the same emotional response to a given stimulus.

Irrelevant. Neuroscience does not claim that everyone will have identical reactions to identical stimuli. That would require identical brains.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
11-09-2015, 07:09 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 07:30 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(09-09-2015 12:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  PS. Drugs alter mood by and large by blocking neurochemicals, not by altering our mood at its source.

You are so dumb. My psycho pharmaceuticals work by modulating my neurotransmitters. For many people they need more serotonin, me I need more dopamine and less serotonin. You have no idea how psychiatric medication works. You have already claimed that psych meds are ineffective and it was pointed out that you are completely full of shit with zero qualifications to discuss this. And altering my neurotransmitter balances is altering my mood at the source because they are the fucking source of my mood. Stop embarrassing yourself. You are so dumb.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
13-09-2015, 02:10 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(11-09-2015 09:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 12:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It does the moment that you start claiming that miracles happen.

And it very much denies that claim.


Your point being...?


Well, yes. It stops being a gaps argument when you look at the fact that literally every piece of evidence we have, ever, on any subject, points to this being the case.

The brain is a computer and thoughts are neurochemical reactions. It is by necessity possible, though not necessarily easy or practical or possible with current technology, that this could be done.


That is the source.

And how does science "very much so" disprove ALL miracles ever recorded or claimed? For example, how does peer-reviewed science disprove Jesus fed thousands of people on two separate occasions miraculously from a small amount of food?

You are also begging other questions, like, did the scientists pray that God would show them the truth about miracles when they undertook their investigations? Drinking Beverage

"For example, how does peer-reviewed science disprove Jesus fed thousands of people on two separate occasions miraculously from a small amount of food?"

Unbelievable. Facepalm You have learned nothing by being here.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
13-09-2015, 02:38 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(09-09-2015 12:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And how does science "very much so" disprove ALL miracles ever recorded or claimed? For example, how does peer-reviewed science disprove Jesus fed thousands of people on two separate occasions miraculously from a small amount of food?

I don't know who said it first but, while I can't offer verifiable evidence that a particular paranormal claim is impossible, I *can* offer verifiable evidence why it should be impossible. Personally, since I argue more for the sake of the audience than for my correspondent, this approach seems to be more effective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jabeady's post
13-09-2015, 02:40 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(13-09-2015 02:10 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "For example, how does peer-reviewed science disprove Jesus fed thousands of people on two separate occasions miraculously from a small amount of food?"

Unbelievable. Facepalm You have learned nothing by being here.

He's not here to learn anything, he's here as an example to the rest of us how not to be a Christian. Same thing with BlowMe.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
14-09-2015, 01:51 PM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 02:01 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(11-09-2015 09:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 12:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It does the moment that you start claiming that miracles happen.

And it very much denies that claim.


Your point being...?


Well, yes. It stops being a gaps argument when you look at the fact that literally every piece of evidence we have, ever, on any subject, points to this being the case.

The brain is a computer and thoughts are neurochemical reactions. It is by necessity possible, though not necessarily easy or practical or possible with current technology, that this could be done.


That is the source.

And how does science "very much so" disprove ALL miracles ever recorded or claimed? For example, how does peer-reviewed science disprove Jesus fed thousands of people on two separate occasions miraculously from a small amount of food?

You are also begging other questions, like, did the scientists pray that God would show them the truth about miracles when they undertook their investigations? Drinking Beverage

"Yes, it's Superman, strange visitor from another planet, who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Superman, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way."

How does peer - reviewed science disprove this?

Because of lack of evidence.

Superman, like Jeebus, is a comic book character, so we can dismiss them both as not real.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
16-09-2015, 11:19 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(13-09-2015 02:38 PM)jabeady Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 12:30 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And how does science "very much so" disprove ALL miracles ever recorded or claimed? For example, how does peer-reviewed science disprove Jesus fed thousands of people on two separate occasions miraculously from a small amount of food?

I don't know who said it first but, while I can't offer verifiable evidence that a particular paranormal claim is impossible, I *can* offer verifiable evidence why it should be impossible. Personally, since I argue more for the sake of the audience than for my correspondent, this approach seems to be more effective.

You can offer verifiable inductive evidence only. Even a natural law is a statement that many times it has been observed but there may be exceptions. Example: it is a natural law inductively observed that matter cannot be created, yet it was at the Big Bang/Genesis.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: