• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Science Delusion

devildavid said:
I never presented my sentence as the evidence. The evidence is in the physical world that my words describe. If I say a robin is a bird I am not using those words as evidence that a robin is a bird.

Donald Trump is president of the USA. Are my words evidence of that fact? You tell me.
Click to expand...

Here is your problem. I don't need your sentence to know that a robin is a bird. I don't need your sentence to know that Donald J. Trump is the 45th President of the USA.

Like it or not you made a claim using a simplistic sentence concerning your idea that thoughts are physical.

So are you finally admitting you have no evidence concerning your idea that thoughts are physical and that I must just take your word for it?

Now, if you are not admitting you have no evidence for your original claim.

Let's move on to your new claim...

"The evidence is in the physical world that my words describe."

Can you please provide the evidence you have found in the physical world that your words have described... in your previous claim that thoughts are physical?

Or, do you expect me to once again, just take your word for it, concerning this new claim you have just made to replace your previous claim?

Roseann:)
 
CharisRose said:
Here is your problem. I don't need your sentence to know that a robin is a bird. I don't need your sentence to know that Donald J. Trump is the 45th President of the USA.

Like it or not you made a claim using a simplistic sentence concerning your idea that thoughts are physical.

So are you finally admitting you have no evidence concerning your idea that thoughts are physical and that I must just take your word for it?

Now, if you are not admitting you have no evidence for your original claim.

Let's move on to your new claim...

"The evidence is in the physical world that my words describe."

Can you please provide the evidence you have found in the physical world that your words have described... in your previous claim that thoughts are physical?

Or, do you expect me to once again, just take your word for it, concerning this new claim you have just made to replace your previous claim?

Roseann:)
Click to expand...
Why do you always put the onus on others? A bit of give and take would be welcome. Do you have any evidence showing that thoughts are non physical?
 
CharisRose said:
Here is your problem. I don't need your sentence to know that a robin is a bird. I don't need your sentence to know that Donald J. Trump is the 45th President of the USA.

Like it or not you made a claim using a simplistic sentence concerning your idea that thoughts are physical.

So are you finally admitting you have no evidence concerning your idea that thoughts are physical and that I must just take your word for it?

Now, if you are not admitting you have no evidence for your original claim.

Let's move on to your new claim...

"The evidence is in the physical world that my words describe."

Can you please provide the evidence you have found in the physical world that your words have described... in your previous claim that thoughts are physical?

Or, do you expect me to once again, just take your word for it, concerning this new claim you have just made to replace your previous claim?

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

No, I expect you to realize that I am stating a fact as plain as that a robin is a bird. I can't explai n to you what the word physical encompasses because you seem to think some real things don't fall under physical. If they are not physical, what are they?
 
devildavid said:
No, I expect you to realize that I am stating a fact as plain as that a robin is a bird. I can't explai n to you what the word physical encompasses because you seem to think some real things don't fall under physical. If they are not physical, what are they?
Click to expand...

She seems reluctant to share that information.
 
zyzygy said:
Why do you always put the onus on others? A bit of give and take would be welcome. Do you have any evidence showing that thoughts are non physical?
Click to expand...

The onus is on the ones making the claims.

Roseann:)
 
CharisRose said:
When you are declared brain dead, how do you know for a fact that you have no more thoughts?

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

If you are declared legs dead how do you know for a fact that you have no more walking? Well you do because legs are needed for walking, just as a brain is needed for thinking. Thinking is one of the things that brains evolved to do, not just for us homo sapiens, but for many, many other living things.
 
devildavid said:
No, I expect you to realize that I am stating a fact as plain as that a robin is a bird. I can't explai n to you what the word physical encompasses because you seem to think some real things don't fall under physical. If they are not physical, what are they?
Click to expand...

You may think you are stating a fact as plain as that robin but you are not. I know that thoughts exist. I have many thoughts.

What I don't know for a fact as plain as that robin... is that your idea that> "thoughts are physical" based on your simplistic sentence description is actually evidence that is as plain as that robin.

I do know for a fact, that you have yet to provided any evidence related to real science that backs up your statement that "thoughts are physical".

Why is that? Why do you continue to expect me to just take your word for it?

Roseann:)
 
zyzygy said:
She seems reluctant to share that information.
Click to expand...

You and devidavid seem to be reluctant to share the scientific evidence you know exists that has convinced you that thoughts are physical.

For some reason you both think, I should just take your words for it or that I should be answering your questions, when you can't answer my question using science to back up your idea, that I am questioning. Think of me as a skeptic seeking an answer concerning your idea that thoughts are physical and the onus is on both of you and not me, which you both seem to prefer putting on me.

Roseann:)
 
<alt>doxygen said:
That was not what I was trying to say at all. I don't expect objective proof of religious experience. The point I was (badly, I guess) trying to make is that the origination of a particular religion may or may not be based in religious experience. It might have grown from a seed of philosophical musing, for example. That is simply something that, at least in most cases (Scientology I would argue, need not apply) cannot be known.

L Ron Hubbard was a sci-fi writer and kook who sought to turn a moderately popular book (Dianetics) into a religion to make his profits tax exempt. Ergo, Scientology.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Given that you have no science background it is out of order for you to have such strong opinions about a subject you clearly have no clue about.

It would be reasonable to ask what is wrong with the prat's views. But then you would have to take on board what was said by those who hae repeatedly explained it to you.

You present deliberate refusal to consider anything that you don't already agree with is a form of deep none-honesty.
Click to expand...
Given that you know nothing about my background, can we agree that the opening statement in your post is, to use your favorite word, "drivel"?

And given that the opening statement is drivel, and given that in the statements that follow the opening statement you repeat errors in understanding twice corrected in earlier exchanges between us, can we agree that you are raising drivel to new levels of "none-honesty," to borrow your neologism?

Namaste.
 
CharisRose said:
You and devidavid seem to be reluctant to share the scientific evidence you know exists that has convinced you that thoughts are physical.

For some reason you both think, I should just take your words for it or that I should be answering your questions, when you can't answer my question using science to back up your idea, that I am questioning. Think of me as a skeptic seeking an answer concerning your idea that thoughts are physical and the onus is on both of you and not me, which you both seem to prefer putting on me.

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

Why would they not be physical?
 
zyzygy said:
Why would they not be physical?
Click to expand...
Because there is no immediate physical instantiation of thoughts.
The elliptical sentence I just wrote is mediately physical and only approximately the thought it expresses.
Neither the thought imperfectly captured in the elliptical sentence nor the elliptical sentence which you read as thought, neither the second sentence explaining the elliptical sentence nor the thought imperfectly captured in the second sentence -- none of these thoughts or mediated physical expressions of thoughts, which you read as thoughts, none of it is instantiated in the brain.
 
Angel said:
Because there is no immediate physical instantiation of thoughts.
The elliptical sentence I just wrote is mediately physical and only approximately the thought it expresses.
Neither the thought imperfectly captured in the elliptical sentence nor the elliptical sentence which you read as thought, neither the second sentence explaining the elliptical sentence nor the thought imperfectly captured in the second sentence -- none of these thoughts or mediated physical expressions of thoughts, which you read as thoughts, none of it is instantiated in the brain.
Click to expand...

Is that gibberish supposed to mean something?
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I agree that much of it is purported to have originated in the 1st century or a little into the second century. The problem is that the dated sections of texts are not nearly complete and they are not written in the language of the supposed authors. That would involve at least 2 points where errors could be introduced, and that best case scenario is assuming an "as told by" case where they were ghost authored using direct dictation from the named authors.
Click to expand...

OK, so you can't provide contradictory evidence for the resurrection.

Have a great life.
 
Logicman said:
OK, so you can't provide contradictory evidence for the resurrection.

Have a great life.
Click to expand...

And you can't provide any evidence of the resurrection.

What does contradictory evidence look like?
 
CharisRose said:
You may think you are stating a fact as plain as that robin but you are not. I know that thoughts exist. I have many thoughts.

What I don't know for a fact as plain as that robin... is that your idea that> "thoughts are physical" based on your simplistic sentence description is actually evidence that is as plain as that robin.

I do know for a fact, that you have yet to provided any evidence related to real science that backs up your statement that "thoughts are physical".

Why is that? Why do you continue to expect me to just take your word for it?

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

I didn't provide any evidence of the robin. Why don't you question those words?

Where are your thoughts? Where is a robin?
 
Angel said:
Because there is no immediate physical instantiation of thoughts.
The elliptical sentence I just wrote is mediately physical and only approximately the thought it expresses.
Neither the thought imperfectly captured in the elliptical sentence nor the elliptical sentence which you read as thought, neither the second sentence explaining the elliptical sentence nor the thought imperfectly captured in the second sentence -- none of these thoughts or mediated physical expressions of thoughts, which you read as thoughts, none of it is instantiated in the brain.
Click to expand...

This guy disagrees:

https://ronmurp.net/2012/01/19/ideas-concepts-thoughts-physical-instantiation-in-brains/
 
zyzygy said:
Is that gibberish supposed to mean something?
Click to expand...
To an avid reader like you, the meaning of that gibberish should be crystal clear. Look up the word instantiate in a good philosophy dictionary. At the end of the day you may have to temper certain exaggerations in self-concept.

Namaste.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
Given that you know nothing about my background, can we agree that the opening statement in your post is, to use your favorite word, "drivel"?

And given that the opening statement is drivel, and given that in the statements that follow the opening statement you repeat errors in understanding twice corrected in earlier exchanges between us, can we agree that you are raising drivel to new levels of "none-honesty," to borrow your neologism?

Namaste.
Click to expand...

Can you yet see that

The 10 Dogmas of Science
Click to expand...

Is drivel thus everything that follows is drivel?

Your total lack of any scientific understanding is evident in all of your posts.
 
Angel said:
Because there is no immediate physical instantiation of thoughts.
The elliptical sentence I just wrote is mediately physical and only approximately the thought it expresses.
Neither the thought imperfectly captured in the elliptical sentence nor the elliptical sentence which you read as thought, neither the second sentence explaining the elliptical sentence nor the thought imperfectly captured in the second sentence -- none of these thoughts or mediated physical expressions of thoughts, which you read as thoughts, none of it is instantiated in the brain.
Click to expand...

Evidence of your total lack of any scientific understanding.
 
zyzygy said:
Why do you always put the onus on others? A bit of give and take would be welcome. Do you have any evidence showing that thoughts are non physical?
Click to expand...

You're the one who's making those silly one-liner claims, and you got nothing to back them up.


If science hasn't ruled out the possibility of God (and in fact, made a public statement that suggests the possibility is real - Theistic Evolution)........


"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.
This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.
Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."
Click to expand...
https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html


.........then, the onus is on you to prove on what ground your ridiculous claim stands! You can't!


Because......there's nothing to back you up. You're simply promoting your fantasy.
 
Last edited:
<alt>doxygen said:
Once again, for the 1000th time, you are cherry picking and completely misrepresenting what NAS actually said, and their purpose in saying it.
Click to expand...

Cheery-pick my foot. Either you are having a hard time understanding what you read......or maybe, you're not reading at all.

Okay, here's the statement. Read it carefully.


"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."
Click to expand...
https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html


What do they refer to by "it?"



Don't they refer to Theistic Evolution? Yes or no.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Can you yet see that
Is drivel thus everything that follows is drivel?
Your total lack of any scientific understanding is evident in all of your posts.
Click to expand...
Tim the plumber said:
Evidence of your total lack of any scientific understanding.
Click to expand...

Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science
We are a group of internationally known scientists, from a variety of scientific fields (biology, neuroscience, psychology, medicine, psychiatry), who participated in an international summit on post-materialist science, spirituality and society. The summit was co-organized by Gary E. Schwartz, PhD and Mario Beauregard, PhD, the University of Arizona, and Lisa Miller, PhD, Columbia University. This summit was held at Canyon Ranch in Tucson, Arizona, on February 7-9, 2014. Our purpose was to discuss the impact of the materialist ideology on science and the emergence of a post-materialist paradigm for science, spirituality, and society. We have come to the following conclusions:
Click to expand...
Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science - Campaign for Open Science


Toward a Post-Materialistic Science
The latest issue of Explore — the Journal of Science and Healing — contains a bombshell of an essay. It’s titled “Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science,” and it could be to science what Luther’s 95 Theses were to religion.
Click to expand...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-pruett/toward-a-postmaterialistic-science_b_5842730.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom