Identifying Atheism

[Ray Martinez]

Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God; acceptance of abiogenesis; rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including the cosmos; rejection and opposition to the Bible.

There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

Well, except for Directed Panspermia, which I think is a lot of silly nonsense, I agree with the rest, atheist as I am.

[Jonathan]

I think atheism is the belief creation can be fully explained
or understood, someday or somehow.

But just as an animal could never hope to comprehend human
intelligence. We could never hope to comprehend the next
evolutionary step which emerges above us. For instance
the emergent property of collective intelligence, or wisdom.

Such collective properties do not exist within any single
person but only when countless individuals are connected.

And to assume human intelligence is as high as evolution
can go in all of the universe is the height of arrogance
and defies the plain and simple observations that life
on Earth found a way to go from microbes to Microsoft.

Even in the face of all kinds of set backs and obstacles.

There's nothing rational or logical about atheism.






s

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 03/01/2016 08:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence;

OK that's fine, but some of us are more ontological beyond method.

> acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God;

Green men DP guy is a closet creationist. He's one of you, not us. Don't
try to pawn him off, even if he poops on your rug. I don't want him. I
can see why you don't either.

> acceptance of abiogenesis;

Sure. Mother Earth did it homebrewing. No hops. *Natura non facit
saltum*, especially between planets in probes.

> rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including the cosmos;

Design exists. How else did you compose and send your post? It's just
the brain and hands you used to do it were cobbled together by Mr Magoo.

> rejection and opposition to the Bible.

To an extent yes. There might be some semblance of history there when
getting beyond the begetting. And perhaps a tincture of morally
reasonable storytelling, once you get past the stonings. Hell I hazard
that the binding of Isaiah may have been an attempt of self-righteous
self-definition against the surrounding groups perceived to be
sacrificers at Tophet. The Jewish God was better than that you see. What
appears to us as God acting hideous was actually a moral advance.

And similar with the pigs and shellfish for definition, but not really
as moral a choice. They weren't PETA.

> There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.

God blinds me to the truth because my hardened heart. Romans cloaking
device hides his existence from us evilutionists. Only you, Ray, can
fully see the light.

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/1/16 5:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God; acceptance of abiogenesis; rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including the cosmos; rejection and opposition to the Bible.
>
> There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.

So everybody in the world is an atheist, including you. Good to know.


--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[*Hemidactylus*]

That would more likely be the binding of Isaac :-) Oops.

[Ernest Major]

A definition of atheism that includes yourself is too broad to be useful.

--
alias Ernest Major

[walksalone]

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:nb68iv$lv6$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 02/03/2016 01:31, Ray Martinez wrote:

snip

>> There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates
>> brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>
> A definition of atheism that includes yourself is too broad to be
> useful.
>

How so? Do you have an active belief in any of the deity's claimed by
humanity? I am sure you are aware of the one common factor for the gods,
goddesses, devils & demons of humanity. They are supernatural. They may
share other traits,but that is the only required one.

Sadly, given their followers claims, they can't all be right. But they
can all be wrong.

walksalone who is really curious about this. After all, one is supposed
to be honest with oneself. Is it the social stigma found in some
society's?

ACKNOWLEDGE, v.t. To confess. Acknowledgement of one
another's faults is the highest duty imposed by our love of
truth. Devils dictionary

[Greg Guarino]

I disagree. Ray is wrong on most points. Lack of belief in God is what
identifies an atheist.

One can accept naturalism to explain or interpret evidence (most of it,
anyway), one can accept (or reject) Directed Panspermia, one can accept
(natural) abiogenesis and one can reject the Bible and can still believe
in God. Not Ray's God, to be sure, but belief in *any* sort of God
prevents one from being an atheist.

Rejecting *any* design in nature, even of the universe itself, does
sound like atheism. But, contrary to Ray's position, there is a great
deal of conceptual room in-between "no design at all" and "design of
every single thing". A person who thinks God designed a universe that
would produce life - without designing each species of creature - is not
an atheist.

[Bill Rogers]

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:39:12 AM UTC-5, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 3/1/2016 8:55 PM, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:34:14 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret
> >> evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a
> >> euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First
> >> Cause, not God; acceptance of abiogenesis; rejection of the concept
> >> of design existing in nature including the cosmos; rejection and
> >> opposition to the Bible.
> >>
> >> There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates
> >> brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.
> >>
> >> Ray
> >
> > Well, except for Directed Panspermia, which I think is a lot of silly
> > nonsense, I agree with the rest, atheist as I am.
> >
>
> I disagree. Ray is wrong on most points. Lack of belief in God is what
> identifies an atheist.

Perhaps I was not clear enough. I am saying that I, as an atheist, fit all of Ray's points except the one about panspermia. It seems obvious to me that Ray's definition of atheism sweeps in lots of folks who don't consider themselves atheists.

[jillery]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:47:29 -0800 (PST), Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:39:12 AM UTC-5, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 3/1/2016 8:55 PM, Bill Rogers wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:34:14 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret
>> >> evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a
>> >> euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First
>> >> Cause, not God; acceptance of abiogenesis; rejection of the concept
>> >> of design existing in nature including the cosmos; rejection and
>> >> opposition to the Bible.
>> >>
>> >> There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates
>> >> brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.
>> >>
>> >> Ray
>> >
>> > Well, except for Directed Panspermia, which I think is a lot of silly
>> > nonsense, I agree with the rest, atheist as I am.
>> >
>>
>> I disagree. Ray is wrong on most points. Lack of belief in God is what
>> identifies an atheist.
>
>Perhaps I was not clear enough. I am saying that I, as an atheist, fit all of Ray's points except the one about panspermia. It seems obvious to me that Ray's definition of atheism sweeps in lots of folks who don't consider themselves atheists.

IIUC Ray's claim is not a matter of definition, but instead there's a
logical conflict between those concepts he specified above, and a
belief in God. A complementary case would be for someone to say they
believe in biological evolution and also in contemporary Creationism,
ex. special pleading for the separate Creation of humans.

Even if Ray's claim is correct, such persons might be sincerely
ignorant of any conflict, or they might be deluding themselves, or
they might be deluding others.

>> One can accept naturalism to explain or interpret evidence (most of it,
>> anyway), one can accept (or reject) Directed Panspermia, one can accept
>> (natural) abiogenesis and one can reject the Bible and can still believe
>> in God. Not Ray's God, to be sure, but belief in *any* sort of God
>> prevents one from being an atheist.
>>
>> Rejecting *any* design in nature, even of the universe itself, does
>> sound like atheism. But, contrary to Ray's position, there is a great
>> deal of conceptual room in-between "no design at all" and "design of
>> every single thing". A person who thinks God designed a universe that
>> would produce life - without designing each species of creature - is not
>> an atheist.

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[raven1]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:31:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia,

Peter Nyikos is the only one here arguing for Directed Panspermia, as
far as I know, and he isn't an atheist.

> which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God;

That's self-contradictory. A biological first cause had to precede
space aliens by definition.

> acceptance of abiogenesis;

We both accept abiogenesis. You just think there was one more deity
involved than I do.

>rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including the cosmos;

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. You're complicating it by
throwing in "the concept of". Do you just mean "rejection of design"?

>rejection and opposition to the Bible.

I certainly reject and oppose using the Bible as a science text,
because it doesn't comport with the evidence. Other than that, I
really couldn't be bothered one way or the other about it.

>There isn't anything complicated here.

Nor much that's accurate.

> Resistance plainly indicates brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.

On your part, sure.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 21:01:38 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>:

>On 3/1/2016 8:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God; acceptance of abiogenesis; rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including the cosmos; rejection and opposition to the Bible.
>>
>> There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.

>I think atheism is the belief creation can be fully explained
>or understood, someday or somehow.

You are wrong, as is Ray (quelle surprise!). Atheism is the
lack of belief that any deities exist, no more, no less. It
has nothing to do with expectations of future discoveries.

>But just as an animal could never hope to comprehend human
>intelligence. We could never hope to comprehend the next
>evolutionary step which emerges above us. For instance
>the emergent property of collective intelligence, or wisdom.
>
>Such collective properties do not exist within any single
>person but only when countless individuals are connected.

Which has...what?...to do with atheism?

>And to assume human intelligence is as high as evolution
>can go in all of the universe is the height of arrogance
>and defies the plain and simple observations that life
>on Earth found a way to go from microbes to Microsoft.

Good thing no one makes that claim then, isn't it?

>Even in the face of all kinds of set backs and obstacles.
>
>There's nothing rational or logical about atheism.

Au contraire, mon cher, it is eminently rational and logical
to fail to believe in something for which no evidence
exists. Of course, most people are driven by emotion, not
rationality or logic, so religious belief of some sort is to
be expected. Which is not to condemn such beliefs, of
course; humans aren't computers.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Davej]

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 7:34:14 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or
> interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which
> epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for
> biological First Cause, not God; acceptance of abiogenesis;
> rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including
> the cosmos; rejection and opposition to the Bible.

I'd give you a 67% on that, which was probably your average grade
back in college.

[Jonathan]

On 3/2/2016 3:45 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 21:01:38 -0500, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 3/1/2016 8:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God; acceptance of abiogenesis; rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including the cosmos; rejection and opposition to the Bible.
>>>
>>> There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.
>
>> I think atheism is the belief creation can be fully explained
>> or understood, someday or somehow.
>
> You are wrong, as is Ray (quelle surprise!). Atheism is the
> lack of belief that any deities exist, no more, no less. It
> has nothing to do with expectations of future discoveries.
>

That's a cop out and you know it.

The weak or negative form atheists like to use means
atheism is nothing at all, agnosticism or merely
skepticism. Atheism in it's classic or strong form
however means the positive belief gods do not exist.

Take a stand!

Because the form you espouse means you can sit on the
sidelines and assert or refute nothing at all on
the issue at hand. And there's nothing scientific
about taking a position that 'ignorance is a
scientific view'.

Plus the glaring logical flaw in the atheist's
insistence on scientific proof of a deity is
easy to see. An emergent property such as wisdom
CANNOT be proved by scientific or /reductionist/
methods.

And that is not a convenient definition of deity
or emergence, but it's an established concept.
You can't reduce to facts that which is inherently
irreducible.


"In philosophy, emergence typically refers to
emergentism. Almost all accounts of emergentism
include a form of epistemic or ontological
irreducibility to the lower levels."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Atheists insist on proving an emergent property
using objective methods, that is a logical flaw.

So the atheist's demand on proof is like saying
prove to me intelligence exists using the science
called chemistry.

>> But just as an animal could never hope to comprehend human
>> intelligence. We could never hope to comprehend the next
>> evolutionary step which emerges above us. For instance
>> the emergent property of collective intelligence, or wisdom.
>>
>> Such collective properties do not exist within any single
>> person but only when countless individuals are connected.
>
> Which has...what?...to do with atheism?
>

You know nothing about religious philosophy, that
is the only thing you've demonstrated in your reply.
If I were to ask you to prove to me that calculus
is true I but didn't have the foggiest idea what
calculus was, needless to say you would never
convince me.

>> And to assume human intelligence is as high as evolution
>> can go in all of the universe is the height of arrogance
>> and defies the plain and simple observations that life
>> on Earth found a way to go from microbes to Microsoft.
>
> Good thing no one makes that claim then, isn't it?
>

You've just admitted you believe in God, the fact
you don't realize that only means you haven't
the first clue about the concept of deity. Yet you
profess to lack belief in what you don't understand.

God is not defined to be some wise old man out there
waving a magic wand, that is what is taught to
8 year old children.

Are you going to hang your debate on your childish
view of religion?

>> Even in the face of all kinds of set backs and obstacles.
>>
>> There's nothing rational or logical about atheism.
>
> Au contraire, mon cher, it is eminently rational and logical
> to fail to believe in something for which no evidence
> exists.

There's no evidence in the form of your...choosing, a form
not consistent with the concept. You're creating your
own logical contradiction by insisting one prove
apples exist using oranges.

> Of course, most people are driven by emotion, not
> rationality or logic, so religious belief of some sort is to
> be expected. Which is not to condemn such beliefs, of
> course; humans aren't computers.
>

"The Missionary to the Mole
Must prove there is a Sky
Location doubtless he would plead
But what excuse have I?"

[Rolf]

"Greg Guarino" <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nb712m$fha$1...@dont-email.me...

Can't it all be declared like "disbelief in one subject" doesn't default to
"belief in a different subject"

Come on Ray, prove that disbelief in Theism defaults to Atheism.
IMHO, agnosticisim would be a more appropriate term.

The simple fact is that rejection of Theism doesn't default to Atheism.

I reject Cognac and Whisky but don't mind a good Calvados.

See? My rejection doesn't make me a teetotaler.

There are as many images af god as there are people. That's why some
religions forbid making images of God. Very sensible.

I have a clear picture of God, but it isn't one that can be painted. It is
invisble both to mind and eye, but it is that what it is, as it says about
itself.

Got it?

OTOH, identifying idiots is very easy.

[August Rode]

True, but it does make you a heretic. Reject whiskey, indeed...

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 19:33:21 -0500, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>:

>On 3/2/2016 3:45 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 21:01:38 -0500, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 3/1/2016 8:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God; acceptance of abiogenesis; rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including the cosmos; rejection and opposition to the Bible.
>>>>
>>>> There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.
>>
>>> I think atheism is the belief creation can be fully explained
>>> or understood, someday or somehow.
>>
>> You are wrong, as is Ray (quelle surprise!). Atheism is the
>> lack of belief that any deities exist, no more, no less. It
>> has nothing to do with expectations of future discoveries.

>That's a cop out and you know it.

No, it's not. And your interpretation below is incorrect.

>The weak or negative form atheists like to use means
>atheism is nothing at all, agnosticism or merely
>skepticism. Atheism in it's classic or strong form
>however means the positive belief gods do not exist.

Atrheism comes in two varieties.

1) The "weak" form - "I have no belief that gods exist."
2) The "strong" form - "I have a positive belief that no
gods exist."

Classic agnosticism, as formulated by Huxley, simply says
that whether gods exist or not is unknown and probably
unknowable. There are atheists *and* believers who are
agnostic in this sense, which I consider the most rational
one.

Agnosticism is coming to mean "I'm undecided whether gods
exist or not". IMHO this is a poorer meaning for three
reasons. First, there would be no way to designate that
there are limits to religious knowledge without excessive
verbiage if this change becomes generally accepted. Second,
the etymology of the term favors the original meaning.
Third, "undecided" is already available.

>Take a stand!

I did: Words have meanings, and misusing them achieves only
confusion.

>Because the form you espouse means you can sit on the
>sidelines and assert or refute nothing at all on
>the issue at hand. And there's nothing scientific
>about taking a position that 'ignorance is a
>scientific view'.

Why should I assert something for which no evidence exists?
Alternatively, how can I refute something for which no
evidence either way exists? Science doesn't address the
existence of deities, as contrasted with claims made about
their actions, for that reason. If can't be investigated by
the methods of science it's not in the purview of science.

>Plus the glaring logical flaw in the atheist's
>insistence on scientific proof of a deity is
>easy to see. An emergent property such as wisdom
>CANNOT be proved by scientific or /reductionist/
>methods.

No one insists on scientific proof of anything *until*
someone claims that it exists, and that they have evidence
(by which, if they're making the claim in a scientific
venue, means *scientific* evidence). And your final sentence
is a statement of belief, not fact, since you're not
omnipotent.

>And that is not a convenient definition of deity
>or emergence, but it's an established concept.
>You can't reduce to facts that which is inherently
>irreducible.

Nice pithy claim, but what does it actually mean?

>"In philosophy, emergence typically refers to
>emergentism. Almost all accounts of emergentism
>include a form of epistemic or ontological
>irreducibility to the lower levels."
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
>
>Atheists insist on proving an emergent property
>using objective methods, that is a logical flaw.
>
>So the atheist's demand on proof is like saying
>prove to me intelligence exists using the science
>called chemistry.

But the important thing is, what does Emily have to say
about it?

Translation: Your statement "isn't even wrong".

>>> But just as an animal could never hope to comprehend human
>>> intelligence. We could never hope to comprehend the next
>>> evolutionary step which emerges above us. For instance
>>> the emergent property of collective intelligence, or wisdom.
>>>
>>> Such collective properties do not exist within any single
>>> person but only when countless individuals are connected.
>>
>> Which has...what?...to do with atheism?

>You know nothing about religious philosophy, that
>is the only thing you've demonstrated in your reply.
>If I were to ask you to prove to me that calculus
>is true I but didn't have the foggiest idea what
>calculus was, needless to say you would never
>convince me.

So you can't answer the question, and are reduced to claims
regarding what I know (of which you know nothing)? OK.

>>> And to assume human intelligence is as high as evolution
>>> can go in all of the universe is the height of arrogance
>>> and defies the plain and simple observations that life
>>> on Earth found a way to go from microbes to Microsoft.

>> Good thing no one makes that claim then, isn't it?

>You've just admitted you believe in God

Have I? Exactly where did I do that? Be specific, with
direct quotes.

>, the fact
>you don't realize that only means you haven't
>the first clue about the concept of deity. Yet you
>profess to lack belief in what you don't understand.

Did I say I lack belief? Exactly where did I do that? Be
specific, with direct quotes.

>
>God is not defined to be some wise old man out there
>waving a magic wand, that is what is taught to
>8 year old children.
>
>Are you going to hang your debate on your childish
>view of religion?

I stated a view of religion? Exactly where did I do that? Be
specific, with direct quotes.

>>> Even in the face of all kinds of set backs and obstacles.
>>>
>>> There's nothing rational or logical about atheism.
>>
>> Au contraire, mon cher, it is eminently rational and logical
>> to fail to believe in something for which no evidence
>> exists.

>There's no evidence in the form of your...choosing, a form
>not consistent with the concept. You're creating your
>own logical contradiction by insisting one prove
>apples exist using oranges.

So you have no rebuttal? OK

>> Of course, most people are driven by emotion, not
>> rationality or logic, so religious belief of some sort is to
>> be expected. Which is not to condemn such beliefs, of
>> course; humans aren't computers.

>"The Missionary to the Mole
> Must prove there is a Sky
>Location doubtless he would plead
> But what excuse have I?"

Emily? Is that you?

[Ray Martinez]

Your objectivity is appreciated.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 6:19:16 PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 03/01/2016 08:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence;
>
> OK that's fine, but some of us are more ontological beyond method.
>

Yet there exists plenty of people here at Talk.Origins who deny Naturalism/Materialism indicating Atheism! They do so because very many "Christians" accept the tenets of Naturalism.

> > acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God;
>
> Green men DP guy is a closet creationist. He's one of you, not us. Don't
> try to pawn him off, even if he poops on your rug. I don't want him. I
> can see why you don't either.

First: DPism is not any form of Deism.

Second: Peter Nyikos is a rare form of cancer. The good thing is the rarity. Yet he denies Atheism while accepting DPism and Naturalism! In fact, he has been on a crusade of ranting me a liar for making these most logical conclusions. When Peter came back to Talk.Origins and began propagating DPism he failed to account for God because Crick DPism assumes the non-existence of God. So after many rounds of criticism he amended his ensuing DP topics open to the possibility that a God may have or could have been responsible for life elsewhere in the universe, which is an ad hoc amendment. DPism is about first life on earth, not the universe because life has yet to be discovered outside our atmosphere. It specifically denies God as the cause while crediting space aliens (= Atheism). For Peter to say God **could** precede is only intended to evade Atheism. So the fact remains about DPism: space aliens started life on earth, not the supernatural. And I understand why you distance yourself from cancer, even rare cancer.

>
> > acceptance of abiogenesis;
>
> Sure. Mother Earth did it homebrewing. No hops. *Natura non facit
> saltum*, especially between planets in probes.
>
> > rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including the cosmos;
>
> Design exists.

Only talking about in nature.

> How else did you compose and send your post? It's just
> the brain and hands you used to do it were cobbled together by Mr Magoo.
>
> > rejection and opposition to the Bible.
>
> To an extent yes. There might be some semblance of history there when
> getting beyond the begetting. And perhaps a tincture of morally
> reasonable storytelling, once you get past the stonings. Hell I hazard
> that the binding of Isaiah may have been an attempt of self-righteous
> self-definition against the surrounding groups perceived to be
> sacrificers at Tophet. The Jewish God was better than that you see. What
> appears to us as God acting hideous was actually a moral advance.
>
> And similar with the pigs and shellfish for definition, but not really
> as moral a choice. They weren't PETA.
>
> > There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.
>
> God blinds me to the truth because my hardened heart. Romans cloaking
> device hides his existence from us evilutionists. Only you, Ray, can
> fully see the light.

My scientific views obtained from pre-1859 science: prior to this date almost all scientists, if not all scientists, accepted design in nature.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Typical Mark Isaak nonsense.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

This point assumes silently that Naturalism includes the man-made world----it does not. Naturalism in these context is about the natural world only.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 7:39:12 AM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 3/1/2016 8:55 PM, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:34:14 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret
> >> evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a
> >> euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First
> >> Cause, not God; acceptance of abiogenesis; rejection of the concept
> >> of design existing in nature including the cosmos; rejection and
> >> opposition to the Bible.
> >>
> >> There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates
> >> brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.
> >>
> >> Ray
> >
> > Well, except for Directed Panspermia, which I think is a lot of silly
> > nonsense, I agree with the rest, atheist as I am.
> >
>
> I disagree. Ray is wrong on most points. Lack of belief in God is what
> identifies an atheist.

Imagine that; the assumptions of Naturalism (non-existence of the supernatural in reality) do not indicate Atheism! Yet all Atheists accept Naturalism/Materialism. According to Greg synonyms for Atheism do not exist.

>
> One can accept naturalism to explain or interpret evidence (most of it,
> anyway), one can accept (or reject) Directed Panspermia, one can accept
> (natural) abiogenesis and one can reject the Bible and can still believe
> in God.

Wad of incredible contradiction with no awareness of the fact.

> Not Ray's God, to be sure, but belief in *any* sort of God
> prevents one from being an atheist.

As if the mainstream remotely cares about any other God. According to Greg if you believe in Zeus or the Wizard of Oz you're not an Atheist.

>
> Rejecting *any* design in nature, even of the universe itself, does
> sound like atheism.

More inanity; imagine that; rejecting that which infers an invisible Designer does not support Atheism!

> But, contrary to Ray's position, there is a great
> deal of conceptual room in-between "no design at all" and "design of
> every single thing". A person who thinks God designed a universe that
> would produce life - without designing each species of creature - is not
> an atheist.

Here Greg alludes to post 1800 Deism not to be confused with pre 1800 Deism. The latter accepted the design of nature. The former, during the life of Darwin, was only intended to evade a perception of Atheism. Go ahead and argue otherwise.

Ray

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:34:14 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence

For how you were born, sure. It is the EXCLUSIVE acceptance of materialism
[naturalism is essentially synonymous] that marks atheism.

> acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a euphemism:
> space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God;

Why don't you stop using misleading words like "biological First
Cause when all you mean is the origin of life ON EARTH? Is it
because you believe in the magic of words, as though giving
something a lofty-sounding name somehow made it far more
significant than it really is?

What you are talking about is not atheism, but a failure to
interpret Genesis 1 literally, especially the meaning of "kind"
which must hew to The Gospel According to Ray Martiez.

That Gospel interprets the term "the earth brought forth plants"
as "God created each individual kind of plant *de novo*".

And the microorganisms sent by panspermists according to the
DP hypothesis were even lower than plants, and so you are
constrained to give a non-literal meaning to Genesis 1:12.

But even that won't help you: you are forced by your ideology
to call everyone an Atheist who accepts the idea of common descent
(say, from microorganisms sent by panspermists) but who, like over
20 percent of all scientists, believe God intervened into evolution
to produce mutations that would ultimately lead to an intelligent
species -- which, on earth, means us humans.

> acceptance of abiogenesis;

And here you are banishing all deists to the realm of "Atheism".

> rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including the cosmos;

And here you are banishing pantheists to the realm of "Atheism", along
with the ancient Greeks who believed that the gods emerged from Chaos.

> rejection and opposition to the Bible.

And here you are an ideological bedfellow of fundamentalist Islam,
which teaches that all infidels except "People of the Book"
have only two choices: convert to Islam, or die.

People of the Book (the Bible) can avail themselves of a third option:
dhimmitude, a form of second class citizenship which forbids the holding
of public office and imposes a tax that Muslims do not have to pay.

Islam is not opposed to the Bible nor rejecting of it: it merely elevates
the Quran above the Bible, and Mohammed above Jesus.

> There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."

You are one piece of work, Ray. Anyway, I don't think anyone is resistant to
your concept to which you choose to affix the label "Atheism," although
the idea of labeling it "Atheism" would strike almost anyone in the world
as pointless and counterproductive.

However, with you having laid out the definition so plainly, we can all
see that any resemblance of "Atheism sensu Martinez" to true
atheism is essentially nonexistent.

I therefore recommend that you give a link to this post I am doing
every time you call someone an "Atheist" for the first time, so
that such people can plainly see what on God's green earth you are
calling them, and what other kinds of people share the label
with them.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

[Peter Nyikos]

Did you ever try to find out what DP is all about, instead of taking
pejorative descriptions like that of Martiez at face value?

Martinez never gave me a fair hearing on DP. The fact that it was
originated by a pair of "infidels" is enough for him to denounce it,
while using dishonest terms like biological First Cause to mislead people
about what it says about the ultimate beginning of ALL life -- NOTHING!

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Bill Rogers]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 9:04:08 PM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:59:16 PM UTC-5, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:34:14 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God; acceptance of abiogenesis; rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including the cosmos; rejection and opposition to the Bible.
> > >
> > > There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > Well, except for Directed Panspermia, which I think is a lot of silly nonsense, I agree with the rest, atheist as I am.
>
> Did you ever try to find out what DP is all about, instead of taking
> pejorative descriptions like that of Martiez at face value?

I would never take Ray's description of anything at all at face value. My opinion of DP is formed from your posts about it, not from Ray's.

[jillery]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 18:02:59 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:59:16 PM UTC-5, Bill Rogers wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:34:14 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God; acceptance of abiogenesis; rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including the cosmos; rejection and opposition to the Bible.
>> >
>> > There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.
>> >
>> > Ray
>>
>> Well, except for Directed Panspermia, which I think is a lot of silly nonsense, I agree with the rest, atheist as I am.
>
>Did you ever try to find out what DP is all about, instead of taking
>pejorative descriptions like that of Martiez at face value?

My impression is that Bill Roger's opinion of DP has nothing to do
with anything Ray says about it.

>Martinez never gave me a fair hearing on DP.

Martinez never gave anybody a fair hearing about anything. Why should
you and DP be any different?

>The fact that it was
>originated by a pair of "infidels" is enough for him to denounce it,
>while using dishonest terms like biological First Cause to mislead people
>about what it says about the ultimate beginning of ALL life -- NOTHING!

What I said about Bill Rogers above applies to other people as well.
No matter how hard you try, you can't reasonably blame their opinions
about DP on Ray. You given him way too much credit.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 9:19:16 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 03/01/2016 08:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence;
>
> OK that's fine, but some of us are more ontological beyond method.
>
> > acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God;
>
> Green men DP guy is a closet creationist.

Are you joking? or are you so para-xenophobic that just because I don't
overlook lies and hypocrisy, and join you in misrepresenting
Intelligent Design and its main proponents like Behe, I MUST
be a creationist?

> He's one of you, not us.

You've been petulantly asking me to answer some arcane questions
about Cuvier. Is this your idea of trying to force me to
answer them on YOUR timetable?

> Don't
> try to pawn him off, even if he poops on your rug. I don't want him.

You've also badgered me to answer some questions about Behe and IC and DP.
What's the point, if you are stupid enough to believe I am a closet
creationist? What's the point, if you don't want me anyway.

>I can see why you don't either.

Yes, people who are as habitually dishonest as Ray, or your buddy Ron O,
have no reason to want people like me around. I consider it far
more important for people to be honest and sincere, than to be smart
enough to believe in evolution. Evidently you do not, nor do Simpson,
Harshman, Gans, Camp, Isaak, Coffey, S.O.P., Okimoto, jillery, or Casanova.

Martinez agrees with y'all, except that he substitutes "creationism"
for "evolution." Also, he is far easier on the people I've named above
than he is on me or Dana Tweedy, because it is far more important
to him for someone to overlook his dishonesty and hypocrisy and cowardice
than it is for someone to be a Christian, or even to believe in God.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:49:10 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:

> First: DPism is not any form of Deism.

It is perfectly compatible with deism, theism, atheism, and agnosticism,
and even with never having an opinion on whether gods exist.

> Second: Peter Nyikos is a rare form of cancer. The good thing is the rarity.
> Yet he denies Atheism while accepting DPism and Naturalism!

I don't accept naturalism, and I've explained this so many times
that your claim that I accept Naturalism qualifies as an out
and out lie.

> In fact, he has been on a crusade of ranting me a liar for making
> these most logical conclusions.

The claim that I accept Naturalism is not a logical conclusion from any
true statement. It is something you decided off the top of your
head without any evidence, and even in defiance of all the evidence.

> When Peter came back to Talk.Origins and began propagating DPism
> he failed to account for God because Crick DPism assumes the
> non-existence of God.

It assumes nothing of the sort. You simply assume that just because
Crick and Orgel did not believe in God, that DP is a form of atheism.

Do you also think that because relativity was discovered by a
non-theist Jew, that it assumes the non-existence of God?

>So after many rounds of criticism he amended his ensuing DP topics
> open to the possibility that a God may have or could have been

> responsible for life elsewhere in the universe. which is an ad hoc amendment.

You are rewriting talk.origins history, but I'll temporarily
absolve you of an out and out lie here, because the events
in question happened over five years ago and you may have
totally screwed up your memory of what happened a week or
so after I returned to talk.origins in December 2010 and
we first got to know each other.

Back then, when you pronounced DP an atheistic belief,
I immediately tried to explain why it is compatible with
Christian belief. But you hardened your heart to me, and refused
to believe me. When I brought up CS Lewis's space trilogy,
you proclaimed Lewis a good Christian, even though the first
book left open the possibility that biological First Life
started on Mars before it started on earth.

There never was any ad hoc amendment. In fact, I had contemplated
doing an article on Directed Panspermia in some journal, but
I wanted it to be a thorough one, taking into account all
possible criticisms of it. The claim that it was incompatible
with Christianity was something I figured some Christians might make,
and what I told you back in December 2010
were arguments that I had figured out years before.

Will you ignore what I am writing here, and go on falsely
accusing me of *ad hoc* amendments? I believe you will:
you have been falsely accusing me of Naturalism even though
I have told you umpteen times that I am open to the possibility
that God created life on earth -- DP is something I merely
think more likely than earthly abiogenesis, and more likely
than a literal creation of microorganisms by God --
and that God had a liberal hand in the way evolution of
biological organisms progressed.

> open to the possibility that a God may have or could have been responsible for life elsewhere in the universe, which is an ad hoc amendment. DPism is about first life on earth, not the universe because life has yet to be discovered outside our atmosphere. It specifically denies God as the cause

I am not a DPist, I merely think it more likely than the alternatives.

> while crediting space aliens (= Atheism).

And according to you, "Atheism" with a capital A includes:
deism, any theism that rejects the Bible (hence Hinduism, Jainism,
Sikhism, Shintoism, Buddhism, etc. ) as well as pantheism, agnosticism,
and Gnosticism. And you had to smuggle favoring the DP hypothesis
in there, because you had hardened your heart to me and were
determined to call me an Atheist come hell or high water.

At the same time, also about a week after my return,
Ron Okimoto also hardened his heart to me and was determined
to call me a creationist come hell or high water.

Are you happy with that? Do you ever try to tell Ron O that
I am not a creationist?

> For Peter to say God **could** precede is only intended to evade Atheism.

As I've shown you, the truth is just the opposite: you decided to
pin the label of Atheist on me DESPITE my having argued that
it is compatible with Christianity. The only explanation I can
think of is that you love to label people "Atheists" at the
drop of a hat.

Peter Nyikos

[Earle Jones27]

On 2016-03-02 15:47:29 +0000, Bill Rogers said:

> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:39:12 AM UTC-5, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 3/1/2016 8:55 PM, Bill Rogers wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:34:14 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret
>>>> evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a
>>>> euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First
>>>> Cause, not God; acceptance of abiogenesis; rejection of the concept
>>>> of design existing in nature including the cosmos; rejection and
>>>> opposition to the Bible.
>>>>
>>>> There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates
>>>> brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.
>>>>
>>>> Ray
>>>
>>> Well, except for Directed Panspermia, which I think is a lot of silly
>>> nonsense, I agree with the rest, atheist as I am.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree. Ray is wrong on most points. Lack of belief in God is what
>> identifies an atheist.
>
> Perhaps I was not clear enough. I am saying that I, as an atheist, fit
> all of Ray's points except the one about panspermia. It seems obvious
> to me that Ray's definition of atheism sweeps in lots of folks who
> don't consider themselves atheists.

*
It's not what folks consider themselves. It's what Ray consider them.

And he says, "They are Goddam Atheists, Goddamit!"

"And they will die in the fires of hell, Goddammit!"

earle
*

[Earle Jones27]

*
Ray Martinez wants to be the only theist. The only one who will join
god in heaven.

All the rest of you infidels will burn in the fires of hell.

"Strait be the gate, and few be those who find it."

"'Many are called but few are chosen."

Seems Christ has planned a minority affair.

--Edward Norman

earle
*

[jillery]

"So get off my lawn!"

[Ernest Major]

Your statement is in error. While that assumption is true, it is not
necessary to recognise that your definition of atheism is so broad as to
include yourself, and wasn't made. All you've done is indicate that
you're an even more thorough-going atheist by your criteria.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/3/16 4:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 6:19:16 PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> On 03/01/2016 08:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence;
>>
>> OK that's fine, but some of us are more ontological beyond method.
>>
>
> Yet there exists plenty of people here at Talk.Origins who deny
> Naturalism/Materialism indicating Atheism! They do so because very
> many "Christians" accept the tenets of Naturalism.

Everybody, theist and atheist, accepts a large amount of naturalism.
Even you. Have you ever left your home and expected it to be in the
same place when you returned? That's you believing in naturalism.

> [...]

> Second: Peter Nyikos is a rare form of cancer. The good thing is
> the rarity. Yet he denies Atheism while accepting DPism and
> Naturalism! In fact, he has been on a crusade of ranting me a liar
> for making these most logical conclusions.

You might want to meditate on the fact that you call him a liar with no
better justification.

[Greg Guarino]

On 3/4/2016 1:40 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> Yet there exists plenty of people here at Talk.Origins who deny
>> Naturalism/Materialism indicating Atheism! They do so because very
>> many "Christians" accept the tenets of Naturalism.
>
> Everybody, theist and atheist, accepts a large amount of naturalism.

Not everybody.

> Even you. Have you ever left your home and expected it to be in the
> same place when you returned? That's you believing in naturalism.

There are at least some people in the world who believe that God
shepherds every subatomic particle, or perhaps that God *is* everything,
including things we perceive to be subatomic particles, planets,
radiation etc.

There was at least one former poster here - possibly (M)adman - who held
a position like that. And there was a Muslim scholar (whose name I can't
recall) who asserted that nothing material has any of the properties we
may think they have.

The sun shines today because God wishes it.

Water boils today when the thermometer shows 100 C because God wishes
the water to be vapor, wishes the mercury to expand in the glass and
wishes our eyes to perceive the light rays (that he also wishes into
existence) as a flame, a pot of water and a thermometer.

That what God wishes is generally consistent is for our convenience, not
because matter has intrinsic properties.

I've never seen a clear statement from Ray on this, even though many
have asked the question. Ray has a problem with anything that falls
between "all" and "none".

I'll ask again, if Ray is reading this: Do material things have
intrinsic properties such that once God has created them, they behave
according to those properties without further action from God? If so -
if hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water without attention from God,
according to their intrinsic properties - then that is *some* naturalism.

[Jonathan]

First you need to define what you would accept
for evidence. And that requires a detailed
definition of God, else how can you know
whether evidence exists or not?

> Alternatively, how can I refute something for which no
> evidence either way exists? Science doesn't address the
> existence of deities,

Which science? The science you hold to, or the
science I espouse? Objective reductionism or
(holistic) systems theory?

as contrasted with claims made about
> their actions, for that reason. If can't be investigated by
> the methods of science it's not in the purview of science.
>
>> Plus the glaring logical flaw in the atheist's
>> insistence on scientific proof of a deity is
>> easy to see. An emergent property such as wisdom
>> CANNOT be proved by scientific or /reductionist/
>> methods.
>
> No one insists on scientific proof of anything *until*
> someone claims that it exists,

But you won't accept the definition of God
as stated by mainstream religious philosophy.
Can you state what that definition of God is?

Or are you going to say you lack belief in that
which you don't understand?

and that they have evidence
> (by which, if they're making the claim in a scientific
> venue, means *scientific* evidence). And your final sentence
> is a statement of belief, not fact, since you're not
> omnipotent.
>
>> And that is not a convenient definition of deity
>> or emergence, but it's an established concept.
>> You can't reduce to facts that which is inherently
>> irreducible.
>
> Nice pithy claim, but what does it actually mean?
>

I gave you a link to a detailed explanation
of emergence, I bet you haven't the first
clue what it means, else you wouldn't be
insisting on classical objective evidence
as you apparently are, although you seem
to refuse to discuss the definition of God
or what evidence you would accept, yet
somehow come to the conclusion there's
no evidence.

>> "In philosophy, emergence typically refers to
>> emergentism. Almost all accounts of emergentism
>> include a form of epistemic or ontological
>> irreducibility to the lower levels."
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
>>


>> Atheists insist on proving an emergent property
>> using objective methods, that is a logical flaw.
>>
>> So the atheist's demand on proof is like saying
>> prove to me intelligence exists using the science
>> called chemistry.
>
> But the important thing is, what does Emily have to say
> about it?
>
> Translation: Your statement "isn't even wrong".
>
>>>> But just as an animal could never hope to comprehend human
>>>> intelligence. We could never hope to comprehend the next
>>>> evolutionary step which emerges above us. For instance
>>>> the emergent property of collective intelligence, or wisdom.
>>>>
>>>> Such collective properties do not exist within any single
>>>> person but only when countless individuals are connected.
>>>
>>> Which has...what?...to do with atheism?

Do you believe there is, or is not, a greater intelligence
or wisdom than that of any single person?

Can you answer that without talking out both sides
of your mouth?

>
>> You know nothing about religious philosophy, that
>> is the only thing you've demonstrated in your reply.
>> If I were to ask you to prove to me that calculus
>> is true I but didn't have the foggiest idea what
>> calculus was, needless to say you would never
>> convince me.
>
> So you can't answer the question, and are reduced to claims
> regarding what I know (of which you know nothing)? OK.
>
>>>> And to assume human intelligence is as high as evolution
>>>> can go in all of the universe is the height of arrogance
>>>> and defies the plain and simple observations that life
>>>> on Earth found a way to go from microbes to Microsoft.
>
>>> Good thing no one makes that claim then, isn't it?
>
>> You've just admitted you believe in God
>
> Have I? Exactly where did I do that? Be specific, with
> direct quotes.
>

You just said no one is claiming human intelligence
defines the upper limit of the universe. That is
essentially a belief in God. But since you won't
define God, or attempt to learn how religion defines
God you can sit back from a position of ignorance
and just deny whatever you like, regardless.

>> , the fact
>> you don't realize that only means you haven't
>> the first clue about the concept of deity. Yet you
>> profess to lack belief in what you don't understand.
>
> Did I say I lack belief? Exactly where did I do that? Be
> specific, with direct quotes.
>>
>> God is not defined to be some wise old man out there
>> waving a magic wand, that is what is taught to
>> 8 year old children.
>>
>> Are you going to hang your debate on your childish
>> view of religion?
>
> I stated a view of religion? Exactly where did I do that? Be
> specific, with direct quotes.
>

As most atheists, you don't say anything at all either way
about anything at all. Take a stand! How do you define
God, how does that differ from religious philosophy and
then define what evidence that definition would require
to make a winning argument.

But you won't as that would mean you'd have to think
about the topics and take a stand on the questions.

And atheists don't do that.

>>>> Even in the face of all kinds of set backs and obstacles.
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing rational or logical about atheism.
>>>
>>> Au contraire, mon cher, it is eminently rational and logical
>>> to fail to believe in something for which no evidence
>>> exists.
>
>> There's no evidence in the form of your...choosing, a form
>> not consistent with the concept. You're creating your
>> own logical contradiction by insisting one prove
>> apples exist using oranges.
>
> So you have no rebuttal? OK
>

Can you grasp the difference between proving an object
exists, and an emergent system property? Do you understand
the difference between the two and how that difference
would translate in terms of evidence?

>>> Of course, most people are driven by emotion, not
>>> rationality or logic, so religious belief of some sort is to
>>> be expected. Which is not to condemn such beliefs, of
>>> course; humans aren't computers.
>


>> "The Missionary to the Mole
>> Must prove there is a Sky
>> Location doubtless he would plead
>> But what excuse have I?"
>
> Emily? Is that you?
>

No, you're the Mole. And what's your excuse
for denying what you can't see?




s

[Jonathan]

On 3/3/2016 10:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:


>
> Will you ignore what I am writing here, and go on falsely
> accusing me of *ad hoc* amendments? I believe you will:
> you have been falsely accusing me of Naturalism even though
> I have told you umpteen times that I am open to the possibility
> that God created life on earth -- DP is something I merely
> think more likely than earthly abiogenesis, and more likely
> than a literal creation of microorganisms by God --
> and that God had a liberal hand in the way evolution of
> biological organisms progressed.
>

How could it be more likely aliens found a way
to travel faster than light /and/ came here to seed
life, than life spontaneously forming on a planet
with clearly ideal conditions?

And if you think mainstream religion believes
God directly creates organisms as if with a
magic wand, you are seriously mistaken in
your definition of God.

There is nothing inconsistent between the mainstream
definition of God and modern cosmology or biology.

God is merely the uncaused-cause, or 'step one'
just as science obsesses over finding step one.
The main difference is religion figured out
long ago step one must be, and will always be
mysterious and not open to objective proof.

For instance, step one could merely be
a system that has the tendency to wobble
at a certain speed.

A system tendency has no independent existence
or physical form, and it vanishes the moment
the system is stopped long enough to detail
the components for objective proof.

Yet such emergent properties are the cause
and driving force for all being.

It can only be subjectively known or analyzed
just like any emergent system property.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Such as a smooth soup, information rich systems
(with a high level of uncertainty) that tends to
organized when disturbed (to less uncertainty), like
an interstellar cloud of gas and dust, the
'primordial soup', or plain water.

From the infinite (information rich or uncertain)
to the finite (certain).


Relation of God to the Universe
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06614a.htm


Step one must define the pinnacle of information rich
or the most uncertain possible. As as such is
unknowable from an objective perspective.

God is the one point at which objective methods
utterly fail. That is not a God of the Gaps
argument, it is an argument for ONE GAP ONLY
which is intractable forever from an objective
view.

And watching objective science obsess over
finding step one would be funny if it wasn't
such a sad statement on the collective ignorance
of nature that exists still today.






>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[Ernest Major]

When atheists do define God, what they get is the Courtier's Reply -
that they're using the wrong definition of God. People like you have led
me to consider changing my stance from weak atheism to ignosticism.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Jonathan]

On 3/5/2016 4:32 AM, Ernest Major wrote:


> Courtier's Reply


I knew the flying spaghetti monster argument
would enter into this sooner or later.

And people like you make me believe science
today is too arrogant to debate a topic
honestly or to conclusion, but merely
deflect when challenged to explain
their ideas or beliefs. Such is the
firmness of their...faith in science, it's
above reproach.


The definition of God is not irrelevant to the
discussion of whether God or proof exists.

But it's central to the discussion. The atheists
entire line of reasoning is based on the claim that
religion assumes God exists /without justification/
so that all that follows can be dismissed.

But what you utterly fail to debate is the
/justification/ for the assumption of God.
Have you bothered to look at the line of
reasoning of religion for this assumption?

Yes or no would be nice, for once, from
an atheist.

The justification is the VERY SAME that science uses
to assume a big bang, or assume a missing link, or
assume that life started from simpler forms.

Here is the justification for the assumption
of God, can you, or would you care to
criticize it? Or is that beneath the atheist too?

Please point out the parts that you find
incorrect????????



"The principle states that whatever exists or happens
must have a sufficient reason for its existence or
occurrence either in itself or in something else;
in other words that whatever does not exist of
absolute necessity - whatever is not self-existent —
cannot exist without a proportionate cause external
to itself; and if this principle is valid when employed
by the scientist to explain the phenomena of physics
it must be equally valid when employed by the philosopher
for the ultimate explanation of the universe as a whole.

In the universe we observe that certain things are effects,
i.e. they depend for their existence on other things,
and these again on others; but, however far back we may
extend this series of effects and dependent causes, we must,
if human reason is to be satisfied, come ultimately
to a cause that is not itself an effect, in other words
to an uncaused cause or self-existent being which
is the ground and cause of all being."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm#I


Heal thyself!

If you wish to dismiss that which you don't
understand, that's your business, but there's
nothing scientific or rational about running away
from a debate in order to convince yourself
you've won.

The truth is that the basic assumption of your science
is what's fundamentally flawed, which is the assumption
nature or reality can be understood by reducing to
parts/facts or first principles, from a contructionist
approach.

And if that assumption is flawed, which is easy to
prove, then all that follows is hooey. And the
current sorry state of the globe is clear evidence
of the utterly misguided state of science today.

That is the flaw in the debate between science and
religion, care to debate that? Or is that beneath
the atheist too. I await your empty hand waving
dismissive response.




Courtier's Reply


The first known instance of the use of this phrase was in
response to criticism of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins;
a standard criticism was that Dawkins had not studied theology
and was therefore unqualified to discuss evidence for or
against the existence of God.

Which PZ Myers derisively transposed to Andersen's fable as:


"Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan,
until he has learned to tell the difference between a
ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all
pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor’s
taste."


The fallaciousness of the Courtier's Reply is evident:
the study of couture is only relevant to the Emperor's
New Clothes if such clothes actually exist. No such
knowledge is necessary to question their very existence.


Dawkins himself once said, when referring to the fact that
he is not a theologian:[3]

“”Most of us happily disavow fairies, astrology, and the
Flying Spaghetti Monster without first immersing ourselves
in books of Pastafarian theology.

Likewise, the bulk of theology rests on the assumption that
a god exists. Without this assumption, it has no logical basis
and can be safely ignored. Using those theological arguments
requires accepting the premise that God exists: that is
begging the question.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier's_Reply






Jonathan


s

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 21:24:58 -0500, the following appeared in

Try providing what you consider to be evidence. That's the
first step.

>> Alternatively, how can I refute something for which no
>> evidence either way exists? Science doesn't address the
>> existence of deities,

>Which science? The science you hold to, or the
>science I espouse? Objective reductionism or
>(holistic) systems theory?

Both are scientific. Neither addresses the existence of
deities. Note that I'm talking about actual systems theory.

> as contrasted with claims made about
>> their actions, for that reason. If can't be investigated by
>> the methods of science it's not in the purview of science.
>>
>>> Plus the glaring logical flaw in the atheist's
>>> insistence on scientific proof of a deity is
>>> easy to see. An emergent property such as wisdom
>>> CANNOT be proved by scientific or /reductionist/
>>> methods.
>>
>> No one insists on scientific proof of anything *until*
>> someone claims that it exists,

>But you won't accept the definition of God
>as stated by mainstream religious philosophy.

Of course I will. Just to be clear, *which* religious
philosophy? They vary considerably.

>Can you state what that definition of God is?

Again, which religion are you referring to?

>Or are you going to say you lack belief in that
>which you don't understand?

Understanding isn't the issue.

> and that they have evidence
>> (by which, if they're making the claim in a scientific
>> venue, means *scientific* evidence). And your final sentence
>> is a statement of belief, not fact, since you're not
>> omnipotent.
>>
>>> And that is not a convenient definition of deity
>>> or emergence, but it's an established concept.
>>> You can't reduce to facts that which is inherently
>>> irreducible.
>>
>> Nice pithy claim, but what does it actually mean?

>I gave you a link to a detailed explanation
>of emergence, I bet you haven't the first
>clue what it means, else you wouldn't be
>insisting on classical objective evidence
>as you apparently are, although you seem
>to refuse to discuss the definition of God
>or what evidence you would accept, yet
>somehow come to the conclusion there's
>no evidence.

Emergence, as the term is used in science, has nothing to do
with deities, but with effects apparent only due to the
interaction of parts which become "greater than the "whole".

>>> "In philosophy, emergence typically refers to
>>> emergentism. Almost all accounts of emergentism
>>> include a form of epistemic or ontological
>>> irreducibility to the lower levels."
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
>>>
>
>
>>> Atheists insist on proving an emergent property
>>> using objective methods, that is a logical flaw.
>>>
>>> So the atheist's demand on proof is like saying
>>> prove to me intelligence exists using the science
>>> called chemistry.
>>
>> But the important thing is, what does Emily have to say
>> about it?
>>
>> Translation: Your statement "isn't even wrong".
>>
>>>>> But just as an animal could never hope to comprehend human
>>>>> intelligence. We could never hope to comprehend the next
>>>>> evolutionary step which emerges above us. For instance
>>>>> the emergent property of collective intelligence, or wisdom.
>>>>>
>>>>> Such collective properties do not exist within any single
>>>>> person but only when countless individuals are connected.
>>>>
>>>> Which has...what?...to do with atheism?

>Do you believe there is, or is not, a greater intelligence
>or wisdom than that of any single person?

Do you have evidence that such an intelligence exists? If
so, please provide it. What I believe has nothing to do with
whether it exists.

>Can you answer that without talking out both sides
>of your mouth?

Can you accept that I don't know? And more importantly, that
*you* don't know either?

>>> You know nothing about religious philosophy, that
>>> is the only thing you've demonstrated in your reply.
>>> If I were to ask you to prove to me that calculus
>>> is true I but didn't have the foggiest idea what
>>> calculus was, needless to say you would never
>>> convince me.
>>
>> So you can't answer the question, and are reduced to claims
>> regarding what I know (of which you know nothing)? OK.
>>
>>>>> And to assume human intelligence is as high as evolution
>>>>> can go in all of the universe is the height of arrogance
>>>>> and defies the plain and simple observations that life
>>>>> on Earth found a way to go from microbes to Microsoft.
>>
>>>> Good thing no one makes that claim then, isn't it?
>>
>>> You've just admitted you believe in God
>>
>> Have I? Exactly where did I do that? Be specific, with
>> direct quotes.

>You just said no one is claiming human intelligence
>defines the upper limit of the universe. That is
>essentially a belief in God.

No, it doesn't.

> But since you won't
>define God, or attempt to learn how religion defines
>God you can sit back from a position of ignorance
>and just deny whatever you like, regardless.

Your unwarranted assumptions regarding what I understand,
and what I believe or don't, are not my problem. You make
the same mistake Ray does when he refers to me as an
"atheist" because I don't accept his version of reality as a
given.

>>> , the fact
>>> you don't realize that only means you haven't
>>> the first clue about the concept of deity. Yet you
>>> profess to lack belief in what you don't understand.
>>
>> Did I say I lack belief? Exactly where did I do that? Be
>> specific, with direct quotes.
>>>
>>> God is not defined to be some wise old man out there
>>> waving a magic wand, that is what is taught to
>>> 8 year old children.
>>>
>>> Are you going to hang your debate on your childish
>>> view of religion?
>>
>> I stated a view of religion? Exactly where did I do that? Be
>> specific, with direct quotes.

>As most atheists

And again, you make the same error Ray does. You should stop
making assumptions.

>, you don't say anything at all either way
>about anything at all. Take a stand! How do you define
>God, how does that differ from religious philosophy and
>then define what evidence that definition would require
>to make a winning argument.
>
>But you won't as that would mean you'd have to think
>about the topics and take a stand on the questions.
>
>And atheists don't do that.

Some do; some don't; you tend, again like Ray, to
overgeneralize. The same (other than "taking a stand")
applies to theists of various flavors. "Taking a stand"
means, at bottom, "expressing an opinion".

>>>>> Even in the face of all kinds of set backs and obstacles.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's nothing rational or logical about atheism.
>>>>
>>>> Au contraire, mon cher, it is eminently rational and logical
>>>> to fail to believe in something for which no evidence
>>>> exists.
>>
>>> There's no evidence in the form of your...choosing, a form
>>> not consistent with the concept. You're creating your
>>> own logical contradiction by insisting one prove
>>> apples exist using oranges.
>>
>> So you have no rebuttal? OK

>Can you grasp the difference between proving an object
>exists, and an emergent system property? Do you understand
>the difference between the two and how that difference
>would translate in terms of evidence?

Why don't you explain how you think it would work? No
references, please, just *your* take on it.

>>>> Of course, most people are driven by emotion, not
>>>> rationality or logic, so religious belief of some sort is to
>>>> be expected. Which is not to condemn such beliefs, of
>>>> course; humans aren't computers.

>>> "The Missionary to the Mole
>>> Must prove there is a Sky
>>> Location doubtless he would plead
>>> But what excuse have I?"
>>
>> Emily? Is that you?

>No, you're the Mole. And what's your excuse
>for denying what you can't see?

I need no "excuse"; all I claim is that I don't see it,
which is true. What's yours for theorizing in the absence of
evidence?

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:19:13 AM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:31:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia,
> >

> Peter Nyikos is the only one here arguing for Directed Panspermia, as
> far as I know, and he isn't an atheist.

Peter is indeed an Atheist. Propagation of DPism says it directly. And Peter thinks when he says a God could or might have done some thing that the same extricates him from Atheism. The preceding does not constitute a genuine claim because he isn't arguing that God did something----just the opposite. The ONLY time he says God might or could have done something is when someone observes him arguing pro-Atheist claims, which renders his "could or might" to also be ad hoc.

>
> > which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God;
>

> That's self-contradictory. A biological first cause had to precede
> space aliens by definition.

Since DPism is about life on earth and the impossibility or abiogenesis, negative. So you, like Peter, change the subject to the universe in order to implicate the possibility of Deism behind space aliens. Since you're an Atheist Deism is not an option to explain alleged origin of life in the universe.

>
> > acceptance of abiogenesis;
>
> We both accept abiogenesis. You just think there was one more deity
> involved than I do.

Nonsense above and below; I'm done.

>
> >rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including the cosmos;
>

> I don't know what this is supposed to mean. You're complicating it by
> throwing in "the concept of". Do you just mean "rejection of design"?

>
> >rejection and opposition to the Bible.
>

> I certainly reject and oppose using the Bible as a science text,
> because it doesn't comport with the evidence. Other than that, I
> really couldn't be bothered one way or the other about it.

>
> >There isn't anything complicated here.
>

> Nor much that's accurate.

>
> > Resistance plainly indicates brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.
>

> On your part, sure.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 5:49:10 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:34:14 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence
>
> For how you were born, sure.

Naturalism/Materialism reject the process as designed, unlike Supernaturalism/Theism.

> It is the EXCLUSIVE acceptance of materialism
> [naturalism is essentially synonymous] that marks atheism.
>

Agreed; non-exclusivity marks confusion. You accept Naturalism/Materialism exclusively as seen in your acceptance of evolutionary theory and space aliens as responsible for first life on earth.

> > acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a euphemism:
> > space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God;
>
> Why don't you stop using misleading words like "biological First
> Cause when all you mean is the origin of life ON EARTH? Is it
> because you believe in the magic of words, as though giving
> something a lofty-sounding name somehow made it far more
> significant than it really is?
>

Trivial criticism at best, will ignore.

> What you are talking about is not atheism, but a failure to
> interpret Genesis 1 literally, especially the meaning of "kind"
> which must hew to The Gospel According to Ray Martiez.

Don't know what Peter is talking about here. I sure wish he'd consider time and precision valuable commodities.

>
> That Gospel interprets the term "the earth brought forth plants"
> as "God created each individual kind of plant *de novo*".
>

This comment says Textual context is irrelevant.

> And the microorganisms sent by panspermists according to the
> DP hypothesis were even lower than plants, and so you are
> constrained to give a non-literal meaning to Genesis 1:12.

Ad hoc claim and/or argument. If you can show us where these types of arguments or claims exist in scholarly writingS I will retract.

>
> But even that won't help you: you are forced by your ideology
> to call everyone an Atheist who accepts the idea of common descent
> (say, from microorganisms sent by panspermists) but who, like over
> 20 percent of all scientists, believe God intervened into evolution
> to produce mutations that would ultimately lead to an intelligent
> species -- which, on earth, means us humans.

The objective claims of common descent are pro-Atheism because common descent, as accepted by science, is based on the assumptions of Naturalism/Materialism. When Theists accept common descent they become a living contradiction. Where is God IN common descent? Saying or asserting one believes God created this way is subjective and does not constitute a claim about common descent or reality. Anyone can believe anything. In this case, since God has no role in common descent, saying one believes God created this way equates to an egregious contradiction because the claims of common descent specifically say Intelligence is NOT involved.

>
> > acceptance of abiogenesis;
>
> And here you are banishing all deists to the realm of "Atheism".

Deists do not accept abiogenesis, ridiculous. Deists accept Deity as responsible for biological First Cause.

>
> > rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including the cosmos;
>

> And here you are banishing pantheists to the realm of "Atheism"....

Where did you obtain the idea that panTHEISTS reject a designed nature? More of your illogical thinking.

> ....along

> with the ancient Greeks who believed that the gods emerged from Chaos.

If true, this means Peter had to go back in time thousands of years to find support for his criticism. Thanks, Peter.

>
> > rejection and opposition to the Bible.
>
> And here you are an ideological bedfellow of fundamentalist Islam,
> which teaches that all infidels except "People of the Book"
> have only two choices: convert to Islam, or die.

Atheists in the West reject and oppose the Bible way more than they do the Koran.

>
> People of the Book (the Bible) can avail themselves of a third option:
> dhimmitude, a form of second class citizenship which forbids the holding
> of public office and imposes a tax that Muslims do not have to pay.
>
> Islam is not opposed to the Bible nor rejecting of it: it merely elevates
> the Quran above the Bible, and Mohammed above Jesus.
>
>
> > There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.
>
> "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."
>
> You are one piece of work, Ray. Anyway, I don't think anyone is resistant to
> your concept to which you choose to affix the label "Atheism," although
> the idea of labeling it "Atheism" would strike almost anyone in the world
> as pointless and counterproductive.
>
> However, with you having laid out the definition so plainly, we can all
> see that any resemblance of "Atheism sensu Martinez" to true
> atheism is essentially nonexistent.
>
> I therefore recommend that you give a link to this post I am doing
> every time you call someone an "Atheist" for the first time, so
> that such people can plainly see what on God's green earth you are
> calling them, and what other kinds of people share the label
> with them.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina

Peter ends with sloppy and meaningless criticism.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 1:24:01 PM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:19:13 AM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:31:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia,
> > >
> > Peter Nyikos is the only one here arguing for Directed Panspermia, as
> > far as I know, and he isn't an atheist.
>
> Peter is indeed an Atheist. Propagation of DPism says it directly. And Peter thinks when he says a God could or might have done some thing that the same extricates him from Atheism. The preceding does not constitute a genuine claim because he isn't arguing that God did something----just the opposite. The ONLY time he says God might or could have done something is when someone observes him arguing pro-Atheist claims, which renders his "could or might" to also be ad hoc.
>
> >
> > > which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God;
> >
> > That's self-contradictory. A biological first cause had to precede
> > space aliens by definition.
>
> Since DPism is about life on earth and the impossibility or abiogenesis, negative. So you, like Peter, change the subject to the universe in order to implicate the possibility of Deism behind space aliens. Since you're an Atheist Deism is not an option to explain alleged origin of life in the universe.
>

CORRECTION; should say: "and the impossibility OF abiogenesis."

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:19:08 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:49:10 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > First: DPism is not any form of Deism.
>
> It is perfectly compatible with deism, theism, atheism, and agnosticism,
> and even with never having an opinion on whether gods exist.

Egregious contradiction: space aliens causing first life on earth is not compatible with Deism or Theism because these accept God as the cause of first life on earth. Asserting compatibility does not render compatible.

>
> > Second: Peter Nyikos is a rare form of cancer. The good thing is the rarity.
> > Yet he denies Atheism while accepting DPism and Naturalism!
>
> I don't accept naturalism, and I've explained this so many times
> that your claim that I accept Naturalism qualifies as an out
> and out lie.
>

Peter accepts evolutionary theory which is a by-product of Naturalism/Materialism. He deliberately acts to obscure or complicate a simple fact.

>
> > In fact, he has been on a crusade of ranting me a liar for making
> > these most logical conclusions.
>
> The claim that I accept Naturalism is not a logical conclusion from any
> true statement.

It's a logical conclusion based on your known acceptance of evolutionary theory.

> It is something you decided off the top of your
> head without any evidence, and even in defiance of all the evidence.

Peter accepts evolutionary theory therefore he accepts the interpretive philosophy known as Naturalism/Materialism, which in turn renders him an Atheist. So the evidence is acceptance of evolutionary theory.

>
> > When Peter came back to Talk.Origins and began propagating DPism
> > he failed to account for God because Crick DPism assumes the
> > non-existence of God.
>
> It assumes nothing of the sort.

Francis Crick was a well known Atheist. Moreover let's pretend John Doe propagated DPism. Since DPism says space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause the same means God wasn't. In reply Peter would attempt to complicate this simple deduction as if God wasn't a well known and accepted option.

> You simply assume that just because
> Crick and Orgel did not believe in God, that DP is a form of atheism.

An absolutely logical and correct assumption; how is it not? Of course my question is rhetorical. Remember: You claim to never lie, so watch it.

>
> Do you also think that because relativity was discovered by a
> non-theist Jew, that it assumes the non-existence of God?
>

From Einstein's perspective yes, of course. Like gravity, relativity is designed phenomena.

> >So after many rounds of criticism he amended his ensuing DP topics
> > open to the possibility that a God may have or could have been

> > responsible for life elsewhere in the universe, which is an ad hoc amendment.
>

> You are rewriting talk.origins history, but I'll temporarily
> absolve you of an out and out lie here, because the events
> in question happened over five years ago and you may have
> totally screwed up your memory of what happened a week or
> so after I returned to talk.origins in December 2010 and
> we first got to know each other.
>
> Back then, when you pronounced DP an atheistic belief,
> I immediately tried to explain why it is compatible with
> Christian belief. But you hardened your heart to me, and refused
> to believe me.

I already knew DPism a pro-Atheism doctrine, so I disagreed with your ad hoc assertions that said otherwise. DP says space aliens, not God, caused first life on earth (= pro-Atheism).

> When I brought up CS Lewis's space trilogy,
> you proclaimed Lewis a good Christian, even though the first
> book left open the possibility that biological First Life
> started on Mars before it started on earth.
>

You've never explained how works of science fiction support your scientific claims?

> There never was any ad hoc amendment. In fact, I had contemplated
> doing an article on Directed Panspermia in some journal, but
> I wanted it to be a thorough one, taking into account all
> possible criticisms of it. The claim that it was incompatible
> with Christianity was something I figured some Christians might make,
> and what I told you back in December 2010
> were arguments that I had figured out years before.
>
> Will you ignore what I am writing here, and go on falsely
> accusing me of *ad hoc* amendments?

Since I can't really prove otherwise I have to accept what you say. But defeating specific ad hoc criticism doesn't help your explanations or answers concerning alleged compatibility.

> I believe you will:
> you have been falsely accusing me of Naturalism even though
> I have told you umpteen times that I am open to the possibility
> that God created life on earth -- DP is something I merely
> think more likely than earthly abiogenesis, and more likely
> than a literal creation of microorganisms by God --
> and that God had a liberal hand in the way evolution of
> biological organisms progressed.
>

"open to the possibility" doesn't constitute a claim. If Naturalism explains life on earth then you cannot contradict and say the supernatural might have unleashed the natural.

Finish ASAP.

Ray

[raven1]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 13:21:55 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:19:13 AM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:31:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia,
>> >
>> Peter Nyikos is the only one here arguing for Directed Panspermia, as
>> far as I know, and he isn't an atheist.
>
>Peter is indeed an Atheist. Propagation of DPism says it directly.

No, it doesn't, and Peter says he isn't.

> And Peter thinks when he says a God could or might have done some thing that the same extricates him from Atheism.
>The preceding does not constitute a genuine claim because he isn't arguing that God did something----just the opposite.
>The ONLY time he says God might or could have done something is when someone observes him arguing pro-Atheist claims,
> which renders his "could or might" to also be ad hoc.

Ray, as has been explained to you innumerable times by dozens of
people, "God created life" and "space aliens propagated it throughout
the universe" are not incompatible claims. I don't personally
subscribe to either, but there's no reason a person couldn't subscribe
to both without contradiction.

>> > which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God;
>>
>> That's self-contradictory. A biological first cause had to precede
>> space aliens by definition.
>
>Since DPism is about life on earth and the impossibility or abiogenesis, negative.

DP says nothing about the likelihood of abiogenesis.

> So you, like Peter, change the subject to the universe in order to implicate the possibility of Deism behind space aliens.

I am doing nothing of the kind; I am pointing out that your statement
is self-contradictory. Where did the space aliens come from if they
preceded a biological "first cause", whether that cause was
abiogenesis, or Goddidit?

> Since you're an Atheist Deism is not an option to explain alleged origin of life in the universe.

It's not an option to explain anything, as far as science is
concerned.

>> > acceptance of abiogenesis;
>>
>> We both accept abiogenesis. You just think there was one more deity
>> involved than I do.
>
>Nonsense above and below; I'm done.

Ray, do you accept the Genesis creation story? The one where God forms
Adam out of the dust of the Earth, and puts the breath of life in him?
That's abiogenesis, by definition.

[raven1]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 14:20:21 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 1:24:01 PM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:19:13 AM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
>> > On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:31:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia,
>> > >
>> > Peter Nyikos is the only one here arguing for Directed Panspermia, as
>> > far as I know, and he isn't an atheist.
>>
>> Peter is indeed an Atheist. Propagation of DPism says it directly. And Peter thinks when he says a God could or might have done some thing that the same extricates him from Atheism. The preceding does not constitute a genuine claim because he isn't arguing that God did something----just the opposite. The ONLY time he says God might or could have done something is when someone observes him arguing pro-Atheist claims, which renders his "could or might" to also be ad hoc.
>>
>> >
>> > > which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God;
>> >
>> > That's self-contradictory. A biological first cause had to precede
>> > space aliens by definition.
>>
>> Since DPism is about life on earth and the impossibility or abiogenesis, negative. So you, like Peter, change the subject to the universe in order to implicate the possibility of Deism behind space aliens. Since you're an Atheist Deism is not an option to explain alleged origin of life in the universe.
>>
>
>CORRECTION; should say: "and the impossibility OF abiogenesis."

I think everyone got that.

>
>Ray

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:19:08 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:49:10 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> First: DPism is not any form of Deism.
>>
>> It is perfectly compatible with deism, theism, atheism, and agnosticism,
>> and even with never having an opinion on whether gods exist.
>
> Egregious contradiction: space aliens causing first life on earth is not compatible with Deism or Theism because these accept God as the cause of first life on earth. Asserting compatibility does not render compatible.

Of course they are compatible. They may not be compatible with
(interpretations of) Christian conceptions of God, but DP is perfectly
consistent with a lot of deities that have been venerated over the
centuries. Not all deities are creator deities, so all religions/gods
that are not described as responsible for creating any life are
compatible with DP.

And in addition, of course any religion that states that their deity
created life on another planet first, with the goal for these beings
then to populate the universe, would be a theistic religion compatible
with DP

>
>>
>>> Second: Peter Nyikos is a rare form of cancer. The good thing is the rarity.
>>> Yet he denies Atheism while accepting DPism and Naturalism!
>>
>> I don't accept naturalism, and I've explained this so many times
>> that your claim that I accept Naturalism qualifies as an out
>> and out lie.
>>
>
> Peter accepts evolutionary theory which is a by-product of Naturalism/Materialism. He deliberately acts to obscure or complicate a simple fact.
>
>>
>>> In fact, he has been on a crusade of ranting me a liar for making
>>> these most logical conclusions.
>>
>> The claim that I accept Naturalism is not a logical conclusion from any
>> true statement.
>
> It's a logical conclusion based on your known acceptance of evolutionary theory.
>
>> It is something you decided off the top of your
>> head without any evidence, and even in defiance of all the evidence.
>
> Peter accepts evolutionary theory therefore he accepts the interpretive philosophy known as Naturalism/Materialism, which in turn renders him an Atheist. So the evidence is acceptance of evolutionary theory.
>
>>
>>> When Peter came back to Talk.Origins and began propagating DPism
>>> he failed to account for God because Crick DPism assumes the
>>> non-existence of God.
>>
>> It assumes nothing of the sort.
>
> Francis Crick was a well known Atheist. Moreover let's pretend John Doe propagated DPism. Since DPism says space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause the same means God wasn't. In reply Peter would attempt to complicate this simple deduction as if God wasn't a well known and accepted option.
>
>> You simply assume that just because
>> Crick and Orgel did not believe in God, that DP is a form of atheism.
>
> An absolutely logical and correct assumption; how is it not?

Because whatever people think privately about metaphysics has no bearing
on the content of the theories they develop.

[Ernest Major]

On 05/03/2016 21:21, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:19:13 AM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:31:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia,
>>>
>> Peter Nyikos is the only one here arguing for Directed Panspermia, as
>> far as I know, and he isn't an atheist.
>
> Peter is indeed an Atheist. Propagation of DPism says it directly. And Peter thinks when he says a God could or might have done some thing that the same extricates him from Atheism. The preceding does not constitute a genuine claim because he isn't arguing that God did something----just the opposite. The ONLY time he says God might or could have done something is when someone observes him arguing pro-Atheist claims, which renders his "could or might" to also be ad hoc.
>

On the basis of other positions he has espoused here he may well be an
atheist (even if he prefers the label of agnostic), but he might also be
some sort of non-conventional d/theist; advocacy of directed panspermia
is insufficient to identify him as an atheist, just as your
characterisation of the Epistle of James as righteous-sounding heresey
is insufficent to identify you as an atheist.

>
> Ray
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Jonathan]

The first step must be defining what it is you're
trying to prove. How can one prove something
for which no definition is debated or agreed?

Prove evolution exists to someone that won't even
entertain a discussion on the definition of evolution
and see how far you get.

>>> Alternatively, how can I refute something for which no
>>> evidence either way exists? Science doesn't address the
>>> existence of deities,
>
>> Which science? The science you hold to, or the
>> science I espouse? Objective reductionism or
>> (holistic) systems theory?
>
> Both are scientific. Neither addresses the existence of
> deities. Note that I'm talking about actual systems theory.
>

That's like me asking you to prove evolution exists
using both relativity and biology. One is appropriate
for the discussion, the other is not.

Take a stand!

Typical atheist tactic, debate nothing, agree to nothing
then you can dismiss everything.

>> as contrasted with claims made about
>>> their actions, for that reason. If can't be investigated by
>>> the methods of science it's not in the purview of science.
>>>
>>>> Plus the glaring logical flaw in the atheist's
>>>> insistence on scientific proof of a deity is
>>>> easy to see. An emergent property such as wisdom
>>>> CANNOT be proved by scientific or /reductionist/
>>>> methods.
>>>
>>> No one insists on scientific proof of anything *until*
>>> someone claims that it exists,
>
>> But you won't accept the definition of God
>> as stated by mainstream religious philosophy.
>
> Of course I will. Just to be clear, *which* religious
> philosophy? They vary considerably.
>

There are many different ideas on evolution, if you
name which one you'll defend, I'll merely say
the fact others exist means your definition
must be wrong.

>> Can you state what that definition of God is?
>
> Again, which religion are you referring to?
>
>> Or are you going to say you lack belief in that
>> which you don't understand?
>
> Understanding isn't the issue.
>

Huh!

>> and that they have evidence
>>> (by which, if they're making the claim in a scientific
>>> venue, means *scientific* evidence). And your final sentence
>>> is a statement of belief, not fact, since you're not
>>> omnipotent.
>>>
>>>> And that is not a convenient definition of deity
>>>> or emergence, but it's an established concept.
>>>> You can't reduce to facts that which is inherently
>>>> irreducible.
>>>
>>> Nice pithy claim, but what does it actually mean?
>
>> I gave you a link to a detailed explanation
>> of emergence, I bet you haven't the first
>> clue what it means, else you wouldn't be
>> insisting on classical objective evidence
>> as you apparently are, although you seem
>> to refuse to discuss the definition of God
>> or what evidence you would accept, yet
>> somehow come to the conclusion there's
>> no evidence.


>
> Emergence, as the term is used in science, has nothing to do
> with deities, but with effects apparent only due to the
> interaction of parts which become "greater than the "whole".
>

Like the soul!



"When and how the first seeds of life were implanted
in matter, we, indeed, do not know. The Christian theory
of evolution also demands a creative act for the origin
of the human soul, since the soul cannot have its origin
in matter. The atheistic theory of evolution, on the
contrary, rejects the assumption of a soul separate
from matter, and thereby sinks into blank materialism."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm



And that these emergent (creative) effects cannot be seen
in any of the individual parts, they are distinct from
the components /and/ define higher level properties
such as intelligence or individuality.



"What anti-Theists refuse to admit is not the existence of
a First Cause in an indeterminate sense, but the existence
of an intelligent and free First Cause, a personal God, distinct
from the material universe and the human mind. But the very
same reason that compels us to postulate a First Cause at all
requires that this cause should be a free and intelligent being.
The spiritual world of intellect and free will must be
recognized by the sane philosopher to be as real as the world
of matter; man knows that he has a spiritual nature and
performs spiritual acts as clearly and as certainly as
he knows that he has eyes to see with and ears to hear with;
and the phenomena of man's spiritual nature can only be
explained in one way — by attributing spirituality, i.e.
intelligence and free will, to the First Cause, in other
words by recognizing a personal God. For the cause in all
cases must be proportionate to the effect, i.e. must contain
somehow in itself every perfection of being that is
realized in the effect."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm



And if emergence is the scientific way of explaining the
ancient concept of God, what would you say then?

Are you going to claim you don't accept the concept of
collective intelligence, wisdom or emergence?

>> Can you answer that without talking out both sides
>> of your mouth?
>
> Can you accept that I don't know? And more importantly, that
> *you* don't know either?
>

And how is that refuting the concept of God?

Which is that no one knows, no one can know
or will ever know exactly or scientifically
the ultimate source of creation.

Yet we know that at some point creation had
an ultimate beginning.

And the concept of emergence shows us that
ultimate impetus for creation also happens
to be the very same driving force for the
constant process of evolution.

They are one in the same.

And giving such a universal inherent tendency
to create and evolve over to any specific
discipline only shows the idea isn't understood.

A suitably generic and reverential name is
entirely appropriate for the inherent creative
property of the universe.

And humanity gave it a perfectly good name
long ago, but if you prefer some other name
that's fine, but it doesn't change the simple
fact that God/emergence exists and is the
source and cause of all being.

Read this with an open mind...


Emergence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence


Or read this from a world class biologist
and mathematician who was a primary founder
of the world changing concept of self organization.


BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: REINVENTING THE SACRED
By Stuart A. Kauffman
https://edge.org/conversation/stuart_a_kauffman-beyond-reductionism-reinventing-the-sacred


There isn't any contradiction between science and
religion anymore, science has finally caught up.

>>>> You know nothing about religious philosophy, that
>>>> is the only thing you've demonstrated in your reply.
>>>> If I were to ask you to prove to me that calculus
>>>> is true I but didn't have the foggiest idea what
>>>> calculus was, needless to say you would never
>>>> convince me.
>>>
>>> So you can't answer the question, and are reduced to claims
>>> regarding what I know (of which you know nothing)? OK.
>>>
>>>>>> And to assume human intelligence is as high as evolution
>>>>>> can go in all of the universe is the height of arrogance
>>>>>> and defies the plain and simple observations that life
>>>>>> on Earth found a way to go from microbes to Microsoft.
>>>
>>>>> Good thing no one makes that claim then, isn't it?
>>>
>>>> You've just admitted you believe in God
>>>
>>> Have I? Exactly where did I do that? Be specific, with
>>> direct quotes.
>
>> You just said no one is claiming human intelligence
>> defines the upper limit of the universe. That is
>> essentially a belief in God.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>

Yes it does!

See how easy it is to win a debate? Like children
in a sandbox, so who takes their bat and ball and
goes crying home to momma first?

You should start making some assertions, so others don't
have to assume. But then nailing an atheist down on anything
is like swimming in quicksand.

One takes the form proving an object exists.
The other takes the form of proving, say, they
love their mother.

One can be proven, clearly expressed and demonstrated
the other is only provable to yourself.

No one can convince you God exists, you have
to explore the concept for yourself all the
way to the end, and come to your own
conclusions.

The point being, you have to open the door and
walk down that path, atheists refuse to even
enter the room.

>>>>> Of course, most people are driven by emotion, not
>>>>> rationality or logic, so religious belief of some sort is to
>>>>> be expected. Which is not to condemn such beliefs, of
>>>>> course; humans aren't computers.
>
>>>> "The Missionary to the Mole
>>>> Must prove there is a Sky
>>>> Location doubtless he would plead
>>>> But what excuse have I?"
>>>
>>> Emily? Is that you?
>
>> No, you're the Mole. And what's your excuse
>> for denying what you can't see?
>
> I need no "excuse"; all I claim is that I don't see it,
> which is true.

That's because you're waiting for the concept to find you.

> What's yours for theorizing in the absence of
> evidence?
>

The utter absence of direct evidence, no matter how
thoroughly or long it's sought...is the proof.

Like a black hole, or a singularity, we can figure out
what must be inside or came first by the indirect evidence
it leaves in its wake, but that's as far as it will
ever go.

You must look at the effects, not wait for proof of
the cause. Nature, or our physical reality, isn't
all there is, and it deserves a name.

Just for fun..

Download the slow flight mpeg of the Millennium Simulation
http://wwwmpa.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/virgo/millennium/

...and wonder if a collection of neurons like below can create
intelligence, what might those 20 million galaxies create?

http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-neurons-animation/499919






s

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 20:11:22 -0500, the following appeared in

Since you persist in failing to define what you mean,
accusing me of beliefs I haven't (and won't) discuss, and
tapdancing around serious questions while accusing me of
failing to "take a stand" (however one can rationally "take
a stand" while believing that objective evidence is, and
will continue to be, unavailable, other than by faith,
resulting in an interminable round of opinion-spouting),
I'll leave you to your fun.

HAND.

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:19:08 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[....snip....]

> >
> > > open to the possibility that a God may have or could have been responsible for life elsewhere in the universe, which is an ad hoc amendment. DPism is about first life on earth, not the universe because life has yet to be discovered outside our atmosphere. It specifically denies God as the cause
> >
> > I am not a DPist, I merely think it more likely than the alternatives.

You've propagated DPism relentlessly; now you say you're not a DPist (= egregious contradiction).

> >
> > > while crediting space aliens (= Atheism).
> >
> > And according to you, "Atheism" with a capital A includes:
> > deism, any theism that rejects the Bible (hence Hinduism, Jainism,
> > Sikhism, Shintoism, Buddhism, etc. ) as well as pantheism, agnosticism,
> > and Gnosticism. And you had to smuggle favoring the DP hypothesis
> > in there, because you had hardened your heart to me and were
> > determined to call me an Atheist come hell or high water.

Wad of nonsense.

> >
> > At the same time, also about a week after my return,
> > Ron Okimoto also hardened his heart to me and was determined
> > to call me a creationist come hell or high water.

Only because you defend the Discovery Institute; but in reality you do not accept design existing in nature or any evidence supporting the existence of God, which makes you an Atheist. When you tangle with Ron, a fellow Atheist, you get a taste of your own deliberate misrepresentation medicine.

> >
> > Are you happy with that? Do you ever try to tell Ron O that
> > I am not a creationist?

He knows you're not a Creationist. When Ron refers to you as a Creationist he is venting his anger because you defend the D.I. and refuse to accept his "bait-and-switch" broken record nonsense. Moreover Ron denies Atheism as well, but his fanatical opposition to the intelligence of his alleged God existing in nature plainly demonstrates that he is a prime example of a deluded liar.

> >
> > > For Peter to say God **could** precede is only intended to evade Atheism.
> >
> > As I've shown you, the truth is just the opposite: you decided to
> > pin the label of Atheist on me DESPITE my having argued that
> > it is compatible with Christianity. The only explanation I can
> > think of is that you love to label people "Atheists" at the
> > drop of a hat.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos

Peter, our Atheist, repeats his ad hoc and egregiously contradictory claim that space aliens responsible for first life on earth, not God, is still somehow compatible with Christianity.

This is why Atheists have always been known as brazen liars.

Ray (Christian)

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 5:09:02 PM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 13:21:55 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:19:13 AM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:31:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia,
> >> >
> >> Peter Nyikos is the only one here arguing for Directed Panspermia, as
> >> far as I know, and he isn't an atheist.
> >
> >Peter is indeed an Atheist. Propagation of DPism says it directly.
>
> No, it doesn't, and Peter says he isn't.

Advocacy of space aliens as responsible for first life on earth, as opposed to God, is clearly a pro-Atheism claim whether you ever acknowledge or not. Peter's advocacy, in and of itself, means he is an Atheist just like famed Atheist Francis Crick who popularized Directed Panspermia.

>
> > And Peter thinks when he says a God could or might have done some thing that the same extricates him from Atheism.
> >The preceding does not constitute a genuine claim because he isn't arguing that God did something----just the opposite.
> >The ONLY time he says God might or could have done something is when someone observes him arguing pro-Atheist claims,
> > which renders his "could or might" to also be ad hoc.
>
> Ray, as has been explained to you innumerable times by dozens of
> people, "God created life" and "space aliens propagated it throughout
> the universe" are not incompatible claims.

Deliberate misrepresentation; nobody has explained anything of the sort; the same was asserted ad hoc, by a few people, in response to pointing out that space aliens responsible for biological First Cause, on earth, as opposed to God, is a pro-Atheism claim. And no one was talking about the universe. You only bring that up to try and obscure the pro-Atheism claim of space aliens. Deism has NEVER been about alleged origin of life in the universe because life has not been discovered outside our atmosphere. And everyone knows that. You're looking like the stereotypical Atheist liar. And I understand why you attempt these transparent lies and misrepresentations: they work; millions of "Christians" accept the same origin of species theory that you as an Atheist MUST accept.

> I don't personally
> subscribe to either, but there's no reason a person couldn't subscribe
> to both without contradiction.

Subjective dismissal while evading all the facts and logic which say otherwise.

>
> >> > which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God;
> >>
> >> That's self-contradictory. A biological first cause had to precede
> >> space aliens by definition.
> >
> >Since DPism is about life on earth and the impossibility or abiogenesis, negative.
>
> DP says nothing about the likelihood of abiogenesis.

You're inexcusably ignorant----that's precisely WHY DPism exists: abiogenesis is judged to be IMPOSSIBLE. Crick came to the conclusion that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a DNA replication machine to materialize into existence via non-living matter, so he advocated space aliens. You need to do some homework.

>
> > So you, like Peter, change the subject to the universe in order to implicate the possibility of Deism behind space aliens.
>
> I am doing nothing of the kind; I am pointing out that your statement
> is self-contradictory. Where did the space aliens come from if they
> preceded a biological "first cause", whether that cause was
> abiogenesis, or Goddidit?
>

More evasion of what was actually said.

> > Since you're an Atheist Deism is not an option to explain alleged origin of life in the universe.
>
> It's not an option to explain anything, as far as science is
> concerned.
>
> >> > acceptance of abiogenesis;
> >>
> >> We both accept abiogenesis. You just think there was one more deity
> >> involved than I do.
> >
> >Nonsense above and below; I'm done.
>
> Ray, do you accept the Genesis creation story? The one where God forms
> Adam out of the dust of the Earth, and puts the breath of life in him?
> That's abiogenesis, by definition.

Then you don't know what abiogenesis is....so maybe you're not a liar but just plain ignorant or stupid.

I'm not here to give 101 lessons in scientific claims.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

But you can't infer Atheism from a position that says X was responsible for biological First Cause as opposed to God?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 2:29:01 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:19:08 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:49:10 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>
> >>> First: DPism is not any form of Deism.
> >>
> >> It is perfectly compatible with deism, theism, atheism, and agnosticism,
> >> and even with never having an opinion on whether gods exist.
> >
> > Egregious contradiction: space aliens causing first life on earth is not compatible with Deism or Theism because these accept God as the cause of first life on earth. Asserting compatibility does not render compatible.
>
> Of course they are compatible. They may not be compatible with

> (interpretations of) Christian conceptions of God....

Thank you.

> ....but DP is perfectly

> consistent with a lot of deities that have been venerated over the
> centuries. Not all deities are creator deities, so all religions/gods
> that are not described as responsible for creating any life are
> compatible with DP.

Thanks again.

And we had no reason to believe Peter was talking about these "deities." Obviously the "we" didn't include you. Maybe Peter will enlighten us now that you've made this key distinction.

>
> And in addition, of course any religion that states that their deity
> created life on another planet first, with the goal for these beings
> then to populate the universe, would be a theistic religion compatible
> with DP

Of course.

> >
> >>
> >>> Second: Peter Nyikos is a rare form of cancer. The good thing is the rarity.
> >>> Yet he denies Atheism while accepting DPism and Naturalism!
> >>
> >> I don't accept naturalism, and I've explained this so many times
> >> that your claim that I accept Naturalism qualifies as an out
> >> and out lie.
> >>
> >
> > Peter accepts evolutionary theory which is a by-product of Naturalism/Materialism. He deliberately acts to obscure or complicate a simple fact.
> >
> >>
> >>> In fact, he has been on a crusade of ranting me a liar for making
> >>> these most logical conclusions.
> >>
> >> The claim that I accept Naturalism is not a logical conclusion from any
> >> true statement.
> >
> > It's a logical conclusion based on your known acceptance of evolutionary theory.
> >
> >> It is something you decided off the top of your
> >> head without any evidence, and even in defiance of all the evidence.
> >
> > Peter accepts evolutionary theory therefore he accepts the interpretive philosophy known as Naturalism/Materialism, which in turn renders him an Atheist. So the evidence is acceptance of evolutionary theory.
> >
> >>
> >>> When Peter came back to Talk.Origins and began propagating DPism
> >>> he failed to account for God because Crick DPism assumes the
> >>> non-existence of God.
> >>
> >> It assumes nothing of the sort.
> >
> > Francis Crick was a well known Atheist. Moreover let's pretend John Doe propagated DPism. Since DPism says space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause the same means God wasn't. In reply Peter would attempt to complicate this simple deduction as if God wasn't a well known and accepted option.
> >
> >> You simply assume that just because
> >> Crick and Orgel did not believe in God, that DP is a form of atheism.
> >
> > An absolutely logical and correct assumption; how is it not?
>
>
> Because whatever people think privately about metaphysics has no bearing
> on the content of the theories they develop.

Except DPism is wholly metaphysical; and your comment equates to an illogical assumption. Where did you obtain the idea that what people advocate is NOT their position?

Ray

[Bill Rogers]

Ray, things have multiple causes. It's perfectly possible to believe that God and little green men caused life on earth. God caused the little green men and then they caused life on earth. God caused life by means of little green men. It's not my cup of tea, but it's not atheism, either.

[Ray Martinez]

You keep forgetting the fact that I accept the canonicity of the Book of James, as the will of God, to showcase a prime example of gospel-negating heresy. So God included the non-inspired Book of James, in the canon, for this very purpose, despite the fact that the Church placed James in the canon for having been inspired. The Church has always made mistakes----it isn't perfect. This has been my position for about 10 years.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Until you or anyone can produce citations of the claim already existing in scholarship the claim, as I observed, is ad hoc, subjective.

Directed Panspermia is not a doctrine belonging to any form of Western Deism.

In essence, no one needs your permission or Peter's to possess and advocate subjective ideas.

Waiting...

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray, that's not what "ad hoc" or "subjective" mean. Just because you
haven't considered something that does not mean it is "subjective". Ad
hoc means exceptions to the general rule for no good reason.

>
> Directed Panspermia is not a doctrine belonging to any form of Western Deism.

Whether it is, or is not, is irrelevant to the fact that it does not
rule out belief in some type of deity.

>
> In essence, no one needs your permission or Peter's to possess and advocate subjective ideas.

And no one needs your permission, Ray to hold ideas you don't like.
Your assumption that anyone who does not believe exactly the same way
you do is an atheist is unfounded, and absurd.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 3/7/16 3:45 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 5:09:02 PM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 13:21:55 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:19:13 AM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:31:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia,
>>>>>
>>>> Peter Nyikos is the only one here arguing for Directed Panspermia, as
>>>> far as I know, and he isn't an atheist.
>>>
>>> Peter is indeed an Atheist. Propagation of DPism says it directly.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, and Peter says he isn't.
>
> Advocacy of space aliens as responsible for first life on earth, as opposed to God, is clearly a pro-Atheism claim whether you ever acknowledge or not. Peter's advocacy, in and of itself, means he is an Atheist just like famed Atheist Francis Crick who popularized Directed Panspermia.
>
>>
>>> And Peter thinks when he says a God could or might have done some thing that the same extricates him from Atheism.
>>> The preceding does not constitute a genuine claim because he isn't arguing that God did something----just the opposite.
>>> The ONLY time he says God might or could have done something is when someone observes him arguing pro-Atheist claims,
>>> which renders his "could or might" to also be ad hoc.
>>
>> Ray, as has been explained to you innumerable times by dozens of
>> people, "God created life" and "space aliens propagated it throughout
>> the universe" are not incompatible claims.
>
> Deliberate misrepresentation; nobody has explained anything of the sort; the same was asserted ad hoc, by a few people, in response to pointing out that space aliens responsible for biological First Cause, on earth, as opposed to God, is a pro-Atheism claim. And no one was talking about the universe.

Ray, you do know that Earth is part of the Universe, don't you?

> You only bring that up to try and obscure the pro-Atheism claim of space aliens.

There aren't any "pro atheism claims" involved here, Ray.

> Deism has NEVER been about alleged origin of life in the universe because life has not been discovered outside our atmosphere.

It's not been discovered by humans. It may well have been discovered
elsewhere by other life forms, outside our little corner of the
universe. You don't seem to have the slightest idea of the size of the
universe, and how insignificant out little solar system is to the
universe as a whole.

> And everyone knows that.

Ray, there is a huge gulf between what you think you know, and what
everyone else knows.

> You're looking like the stereotypical Atheist liar. And I understand why you attempt these transparent lies and misrepresentations: they work; millions of "Christians" accept the same origin of species theory that you as an Atheist MUST accept.

Ray, you remain the most transparent liar here, and your attempts to
claim that everyone else lies as much as you do just shows your
disregard for the truth.

>
>> I don't personally
>> subscribe to either, but there's no reason a person couldn't subscribe
>> to both without contradiction.
>
> Subjective dismissal while evading all the facts and logic which say otherwise.

You haven't offered any facts or logic, Ray.

>
>>
>>>>> which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God;
>>>>
>>>> That's self-contradictory. A biological first cause had to precede
>>>> space aliens by definition.
>>>
>>> Since DPism is about life on earth and the impossibility or abiogenesis, negative.
>>
>> DP says nothing about the likelihood of abiogenesis.
>
> You're inexcusably ignorant----that's precisely WHY DPism exists: abiogenesis is judged to be IMPOSSIBLE.

Ray, other than calling names, you don't have any evidence to support
your assertion. You don't know that abiogenesis is impossible.

> Crick came to the conclusion that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a DNA replication machine to materialize into existence via non-living matter, so he advocated space aliens.

Wrong again, Ray. Crick never claimed that aliens were more reasonable
than abiogenesis on Earth.

> You need to do some homework.

Ray, your own mistaken assumptions, and inexplicable opinions do not ad
up to 'homework'.

>
>>
>>> So you, like Peter, change the subject to the universe in order to implicate the possibility of Deism behind space aliens.
>>
>> I am doing nothing of the kind; I am pointing out that your statement
>> is self-contradictory. Where did the space aliens come from if they
>> preceded a biological "first cause", whether that cause was
>> abiogenesis, or Goddidit?
>>
>
> More evasion of what was actually said.

How is that an evasion?

>
>>> Since you're an Atheist Deism is not an option to explain alleged origin of life in the universe.
>>
>> It's not an option to explain anything, as far as science is
>> concerned.
>>
>>>>> acceptance of abiogenesis;
>>>>
>>>> We both accept abiogenesis. You just think there was one more deity
>>>> involved than I do.
>>>
>>> Nonsense above and below; I'm done.
>>
>> Ray, do you accept the Genesis creation story? The one where God forms
>> Adam out of the dust of the Earth, and puts the breath of life in him?
>> That's abiogenesis, by definition.
>
> Then you don't know what abiogenesis is....so maybe you're not a liar but just plain ignorant or stupid.

Ray, you are the one who keeps showing your own ignorance. Other than
name calling, do you have anything to say?

>
> I'm not here to give 101 lessons in scientific claims.

You don't know anything to be able to give lessons, Ray. Your
assumptions, bizarre conspiracy theories, and name calling don't
suddenly become scientific claims.


DJT

[jillery]

Do little green men serve little cups of green tea?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 5:23:56 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:19:08 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [....snip....]
> > >
> > > > open to the possibility that a God may have or could have been responsible for life elsewhere in the universe, which is an ad hoc amendment.

Wrong: it is part of my belief system since I became an adult.

> DPism is about first life on earth, not the universe because life has yet to be discovered outside our atmosphere. It specifically denies God as the cause
> > >
> > > I am not a DPist, I merely think it more likely than the alternatives.
>
> You've propagated DPism relentlessly; now you say you're not a DPist (= egregious contradiction).

There is no contradiction, unless you use the Marxist definition
of "contradiction" as "a somewhat counterintuitive situation."

Do you think it is more likely that there is life on Mars than
that there isn't? If so, by your own standards, you are a Martianist;
if not, then you are a Mars Life Denier, also by your own
Black and White Meltdown standards.

> > >
> > > > while crediting space aliens (= Atheism).
> > >
> > > And according to you, "Atheism" with a capital A includes:
> > > deism, any theism that rejects the Bible (hence Hinduism, Jainism,
> > > Sikhism, Shintoism, Buddhism, etc. ) as well as pantheism, agnosticism,
> > > and Gnosticism. And you had to smuggle favoring the DP hypothesis
> > > in there, because you had hardened your heart to me and were
> > > determined to call me an Atheist come hell or high water.
>
> Wad of nonsense.

I'd like to see you try to justify this egregious insult.

> > >
> > > At the same time, also about a week after my return,
> > > Ron Okimoto also hardened his heart to me and was determined
> > > to call me a creationist come hell or high water.
>
> Only because you defend the Discovery Institute;

I don't defend it, I just keep insisting that Ron O has posted
laughably inadequate evidence for the "bait" part of the
"bait and switch scam" that he alleges to have been in place
from 2005 (maybe 2002) to 2014.

Any time he posts adequate evidence, what you and he mistakenly
call my "defense" of DI will be at an end.

> but in reality you do not accept design existing in nature

...due to supernatural beings, yes, but neither do I reject it; I keep an
open mind while being on the lookout for any evidence either way.

> or any evidence supporting the existence of God,

I accept plenty of evidence, but there is also evidence against it,
such as the alleged existence of eternal torment for offenses of a
far lesser nature. Do you believe that Atheists will suffer eternal
unremitting torture in the hereafter? Then you believe in Ahriman,
not the God of C.S. Lewis.

> which makes you an Atheist. When you tangle with Ron, a fellow Atheist, you get a taste of your own deliberate misrepresentation medicine.

Your reasoning is kaput unless you admit that you are either
a complete believer in the existence of life on Mars or a complete
disbeliever. Anything in between would constitute reasoning like
a rational adult, which your last two sentences do not do.

> > > Are you happy with that? Do you ever try to tell Ron O that
> > > I am not a creationist?
>
> He knows you're not a Creationist.

Why do you think that? He relentlessly accuses me of going to Church regularly
"to worship the God so He will save [my] immortal soul." By his reasoning, the
mere fact that I am a practicing Roman Catholic automatically makes me
a Creationist.

Wacky, but no more wacky than your concept of an "Atheist" or your
arguments that I am an "Atheist">

> When Ron refers to you as a Creationist he is venting his anger because you defend the D.I.

...only in the following sense:

> and refuse to accept his "bait-and-switch" broken record nonsense.

You got that much right, see above.

> Moreover Ron denies Atheism as well, but his fanatical opposition to the intelligence of his alleged God existing in nature plainly demonstrates that he is a prime example of a deluded liar.

I won't argue with that, and I've even tried twice to engage Dana Tweedy
in conversation about that possiblility, but unsuccessfully so far.

HOWEVER, I point out that I have long and hard tried to show Harshman that
there is plenty of appearance of design in the incredible fine-tuning
of the physical constants, but he has deliberately blinded himself to
this evidence FOR the existence of a creator, as opposed to the evidence
AGAINST that is provided by the doctrine of Hell. If God is good, why
doesn't he correct the innumerable people who believe that Hell is
unrelieved torment?

> > >
> > > > For Peter to say God **could** precede is only intended to evade Atheism.
> > >
> > > As I've shown you, the truth is just the opposite: you decided to
> > > pin the label of Atheist on me DESPITE my having argued that
> > > it is compatible with Christianity. The only explanation I can
> > > think of is that you love to label people "Atheists" at the
> > > drop of a hat.
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos
>
> Peter, our Atheist, repeats his ad hoc

"ad hoc" apparently means "directed at what he believes to
be mistaken comments by others" in your lexicon.

> and egregiously contradictory claim that space aliens responsible for first life on earth, not God,

...is not a claim, and I don't claim there is life on Mars, either;
and neither do I claim there is no life on Mars.

> is still somehow compatible with Christianity.

I'd like to see you try to refute what I wrote just now. If you
don't try, then your claim below will metamorphose into a lie
unless it is retracted, e.g. by retracting the claim that I am
an Atheist.

>
> This is why Atheists have always been known as brazen liars.

Since you have a personal definition of "Atheist" which perhaps
no one else on earth shares, your statement is nonsense unless
"known as" means "known by my talk.origins persona as".

> Ray (Christian)

You cease to follow Christ every time you tell a lie; and you have
told many about me. I denounce you for the times you cease to follow
Christ, not the times you do follow him (as you probably do in your
statements about Ron O up there).

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics
Univ. of S. Carolina, Columbia -- standard disclaimer--

[Bill Rogers]

Ray, finding citations of a claim just means that some other guy said the same thing. But the other guy is just some guy, like you or me. Citations prove nothing much at all, only that someone else said something similar to what we are saying. So what?

[Peter Nyikos]

My scholarship (as a Professor who has come up with lots of new proofs
in mathematics and philosophy) is responsible for the claim of
compatibility long before I ever encountered you. The fact that I
did not publish such an elementary fact before I encountered
you does not make it either ad hoc or subjective.

And you have never tried to refute the compatibility. While it is
incompatible with a fundie interpretation of scripture, I join
St. Augustine as scoffing at the fundie interpretation.

Similarly, I don't believe in a literalist
interpretation of Hell as being a place of unrelieved torment
that lasts forever -- an interpretation rejected by C. S. Lewis also.

> Waiting...
>
> Ray

I'm sure you weren't waiting for this reply, but here it is anyway.
Deal with it.

[Jonathan]

On 3/7/2016 7:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:


> ...is not a claim, and I don't claim there is life on Mars, either;
> and neither do I claim there is no life on Mars.
>
>> is still somehow compatible with Christianity.
>
> I'd like to see you try to refute what I wrote just now. If you
> don't try, then your claim below will metamorphose into a lie
> unless it is retracted, e.g. by retracting the claim that I am
> an Atheist.
>

That's the problem with atheism, most use the weak
form and that means nothing is asserted, nothing is
refuted and nothing discussed.

Just blank pages.

That's a cop out, either Mars has life or not and
there's plenty of evidence to work with.

Take a stand and defend it, else stop pretending
atheism is the product of scientific reasoning.

Weak atheism places unreasonable strawman demands
for proof then claim they haven't been met.

For instance, the concept of God deals with
emergent properties, yet atheists demand
objective proof.

That's like asking me to prove apples exist
using oranges, that's what I mean by the
....dishonest atheist, as in dishonest debating
tactics.



s

[Jonathan]

On 3/7/2016 1:49 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:


> Since you persist in failing to define what you mean,
> accusing me of beliefs I haven't (and won't) discuss, and
> tapdancing around serious questions while accusing me of
> failing to "take a stand" (however one can rationally "take
> a stand" while believing that objective evidence is, and
> will continue to be, unavailable, other than by faith,
> resulting in an interminable round of opinion-spouting),
> I'll leave you to your fun.
>
> HAND.
>

It's your objective evidence that is faith-based.
You still cling to the outdated notion complex
adaptive systems and their emergent properties
can be understood by reductionist objective
methods.

Your faith in this method is unshakable but
only due to all the shiny trinkets and precise
equations objective science has produced.
Such simplicity is cherished due to our
instinctive need for certainty.

Not by rational thought, which would realize
that subjective methods, what you term faith
is the only way to understand the real live
evolving/emergent universel

Your a caveman scientifically speaking, it's like
discussing astronomy with someone that has yet
to learn that telescopes exist.

Your surrender (empty atheist-like response) is noted.



Jonathan


s

[Jonathan]

On 3/7/2016 7:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> HOWEVER, I point out that I have long and hard tried to show Harshman
that
> there is plenty of appearance of design in the incredible fine-tuning
> of the physical constants,

Everything in the universe evolves. A complex system
is highly sensitive to initial conditions, a minor change
in initial conditions can create a massive change in
the future. The butterfly effect.

BUT a CAS can form within a /wide range/ of environmental conditions.

They are robust to surrounding conditions once at criticality.
So the physical constants should evolve too, they /should be/
finely tuned as they are also part of a coevolutionary system.

The initial conditions hardly matter at all for...starting
the process of self organization.

Life can start just about anywhere conditions are reasonable
and then producing just the right conditions as they shape
its environment until 'finely tuned'.

A fact of evolution people around here seem to have missed.


14. What is Self-Organised Criticality (SOC) ?

The ability of a system to evolve in such a way as to
approach a critical point and then maintain itself at
that point.
http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/archive/sosfaq.html



A quintessential introduction to dark energy
By Paul J. Steinhardt
Director Department of Physics, Princeton University


3. Fine-tuning, cosmic coincidence, and the
quintessential solution


First, the nature of an attractor equation is that the
evolution of the scalar field is completely insensitive
to the initial value of the field and its time derivatives.

As indicated in figure 1, the evolution of the dark energy
component rapidly approaches an attractor solution which
depends only on the action itself. What is more
remarkable is that the attractor solution depends on what
is happening in the rest of the Universe.

So, not only is the evolution independent of the initial
conditions, but the tracking behaviour ensures that the
energy density of the k-essence field remains negligible
compared with the radiation density throughout the
radiation-dominated epoch. We have a dynamical explanation
for why the dark energy did not overtake the Universe for
the first 10 000 years.

But, then, something truly remarkable happens to k-essence
models when the Universe becomes matter dominated. The
radiation-like attractor solution becomes unstable,
and the energy density in the k-essence field begins
to drop several orders of magnitude until a new
matter-dominated attractor solution is found.


In this scenario, the coincidence problem is beautifully addressed.

Why did the Universe begin to accelerate just as humans started
to evolve? Cosmic acceleration and human evolution are both linked
to the onset of matter domination. The k-essence component has
the property that it only behaves as a negative pressure
component after matter{radiation equality, so that it can
only overtake the matter density and induce cosmic acceleration
after the matter has dominated the Universe for some period,
at about the present epoch. And, of course, human evolution
is linked to matter domination because the formation of
planets, stars, galaxies and large-scale structure only occurs
after the beginning of the matter-dominated epoch.

http://physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/steinhardt.pdf

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:13:55 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
> On 3/7/2016 7:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>
> > ...is not a claim, and I don't claim there is life on Mars, either;
> > and neither do I claim there is no life on Mars.
> >
> >> is still somehow compatible with Christianity.
> >
> > I'd like to see you try to refute what I wrote just now. If you
> > don't try, then your claim below will metamorphose into a lie
> > unless it is retracted, e.g. by retracting the claim that I am
> > an Atheist.
> >
>
>
>
> That's the problem with atheism, most use the weak
> form and that means nothing is asserted, nothing is
> refuted and nothing discussed.
>
> Just blank pages.

Fortunately, I'm not even a weak atheist, let alone a
strong one. I could write a whole book on the various
arguments for and against the existence of God, for
or against the existence of life after death. And I would
be going against my conscience if I claimed either side
has been proven.

> That's a cop out, either Mars has life or not and
> there's plenty of evidence to work with.

The evidence I've seen is too fragmentary for anyone but a naive
fool to take a stand. Have you seen some evidence that
I have not?

> Take a stand and defend it, else stop pretending
> atheism is the product of scientific reasoning.

I deny that it is.

> Weak atheism places unreasonable strawman demands
> for proof then claim they haven't been met.
>
> For instance, the concept of God deals with
> emergent properties, yet atheists demand
> objective proof.
>
> That's like asking me to prove apples exist
> using oranges, that's what I mean by the
> ....dishonest atheist, as in dishonest debating
> tactics.

It is your vague talk that is a cop out. Your definition of "God"
is more akin to pantheism than to theism.

But here is the real bottom line: I've yet to
see you take a stand on whether you will go on having conscious
experiences after your physical body decomposes or is cremated.

I don't think you'll ever take a stand on that, because it
is too concrete, and not amenable to the kind of poetic
evasiveness that you are so good at.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of S. Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

PS For the rest of this month my participation in talk.origins
will be rather spotty; I may not post at all for a week or more
at a time; but I'll try to keep up with the threads I've been
involved in, to lurk if not to post.

[jillery]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 21:11:41 -0500, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 3/7/2016 7:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>
>> ...is not a claim, and I don't claim there is life on Mars, either;
>> and neither do I claim there is no life on Mars.
>>
>>> is still somehow compatible with Christianity.
>>
>> I'd like to see you try to refute what I wrote just now. If you
>> don't try, then your claim below will metamorphose into a lie
>> unless it is retracted, e.g. by retracting the claim that I am
>> an Atheist.
>>
>
>
>
>That's the problem with atheism, most use the weak
>form and that means nothing is asserted, nothing is
>refuted and nothing discussed.
>
>Just blank pages.
>
>That's a cop out, either Mars has life or not and
>there's plenty of evidence to work with.
>
>Take a stand and defend it, else stop pretending
>atheism is the product of scientific reasoning.
>
>Weak atheism places unreasonable strawman demands
>for proof then claim they haven't been met.
>
>For instance, the concept of God deals with
>emergent properties, yet atheists demand
>objective proof.

Why do you think emergent properties are incompatible with objective
proof? Is it not reasonable to expect you to show that and how your
alleged emergent properties actually emerge from what you claim they
emerge?

>That's like asking me to prove apples exist
>using oranges, that's what I mean by the
>....dishonest atheist, as in dishonest debating
>tactics.
>
>
>
>s

[jillery]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 18:45:01 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>PS For the rest of this month my participation in talk.origins
>will be rather spotty; I may not post at all for a week or more
>at a time; but I'll try to keep up with the threads I've been
>involved in, to lurk if not to post.

That should give you more time to spend with your Momma. Dog knows
you need it.

[*Hemidactylus*]

One guess as to the orifice.

[David Canzi]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 21:24:58 -0500, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 3/3/2016 3:40 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> Atrheism comes in two varieties.
>>
>> 1) The "weak" form - "I have no belief that gods exist."
>> 2) The "strong" form - "I have a positive belief that no
>> gods exist."
>>
>> Classic agnosticism, as formulated by Huxley, simply says
>> that whether gods exist or not is unknown and probably
>> unknowable. There are atheists *and* believers who are
>> agnostic in this sense, which I consider the most rational
>> one.

[...]

>> Why should I assert something for which no evidence exists?
>
>First you need to define what you would accept
>for evidence. And that requires a detailed
>definition of God, else how can you know
>whether evidence exists or not?

You seem to think you have knowledge that the rest of humanity
lacks, and you seem to want to teach that knowledge to others.
Let's look at a historical example of men who had knowledge
that the rest of humanity lacked, and successfully taught their
knowledge to others.

500 years ago, nobody knew that bacteria existed. First a few
men saw the tiny cells in the newly invented microscopes, then
they defined the word "bacteria" as the name for those cells.

They showed others what they had seen. They told others what
they had decided to call it, ie. those who knew provided the
definition to those who didn't know.

It was not then, and is not now, up to those who don't know to
provide the definitions of terminology to those who know.

--
David Canzi | Life is too short to point out every mistake. |

[Mark Isaak]

Your first step must be defining what you're trying to prove. You might
add to that a statement about why you even bother arguing so much about
stuff that means nothing anyway.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_

[Rolf]

"Dana Tweedy" <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:woqdnbnzvaiAhkPL...@giganews.com...

I don't know how many times I've tried to knock some common sense into Ray's
skull but IMHO, it is tougher than fort Knox.

Is he gifted with the the world's largest cognitive scotoma? Just asking.



>
> DJT
>

[Rolf]

"Bill Rogers" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1900f41a-ec37-4c0e...@googlegroups.com...

Ray never make claims no existing in scholarship? That would've been a great
relief.

Rolf

[Burkhard]

neither ad hoc nor subjective, and neither is dependent on whether there
is an existing scholarly debate. The theory does not claim an
unmotivated exception to a general rue, so it is not ad hoc. And as for
subjective, every component of the claim is a simple statement of fact,
that can be analysed objectively, like any other statement.


Maybe you confuse "subjective" with "idiosyncratic". Idiosyncratic it
would be, but tha tells you little or nothing about whether it is true
or not.

>
> Directed Panspermia is not a doctrine belonging to any form of Western Deism.

So what?

[Burkhard]

No, pretty physical. We may be doing it soon,Craug Venter is just the
guy who might do that sort of thing for publicity reasons, and put some
deigned organism on the next space flight. Indeed, we may inadvertently
already have done it (if one of our

>and your comment equates to an illogical assumption. Where did you obtain the idea that what people advocate is NOT their position?
>

I'm not saying that what they advocate is not their position. I'm
arguing that theories are true or false, convincing or unconvincing,
based on what they explicitly claim alone - their objective content.
The subjective hopes, beliefs, motives, desires of the person who
formulates a theory are irrelevant for that question.


> Ray
>

[raven1]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:45:53 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 5:09:02 PM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 13:21:55 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:19:13 AM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:31:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia,
>> >> >
>> >> Peter Nyikos is the only one here arguing for Directed Panspermia, as
>> >> far as I know, and he isn't an atheist.
>> >
>> >Peter is indeed an Atheist. Propagation of DPism says it directly.
>>
>> No, it doesn't, and Peter says he isn't.
>
>Advocacy of space aliens as responsible for first life on earth, as opposed to God, is clearly a pro-Atheism claim whether you ever acknowledge or not.

No, it is not. It says nothing one way or the other about the
existence of a deity.

> Peter's advocacy, in and of itself, means he is an Atheist just like famed Atheist Francis Crick who popularized Directed Panspermia.
>
>>
>> > And Peter thinks when he says a God could or might have done some thing that the same extricates him from Atheism.
>> >The preceding does not constitute a genuine claim because he isn't arguing that God did something----just the opposite.
>> >The ONLY time he says God might or could have done something is when someone observes him arguing pro-Atheist claims,
>> > which renders his "could or might" to also be ad hoc.
>>
>> Ray, as has been explained to you innumerable times by dozens of
>> people, "God created life" and "space aliens propagated it throughout
>> the universe" are not incompatible claims.
>
>Deliberate misrepresentation; nobody has explained anything of the sort; the same was asserted ad hoc, by a few people,

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it
means.

> in response to pointing out that space aliens responsible for biological First Cause, on earth, as opposed to God, is a pro-Atheism claim. And no one was talking about the universe. You only bring that up to try and obscure the pro-Atheism claim of space aliens. Deism has NEVER been about alleged origin of life in the universe because life has not been discovered outside our atmosphere. And everyone knows that. You're looking like the stereotypical Atheist liar. And I understand why you attempt these transparent lies and misrepresentations: they work; millions of "Christians" accept the same origin of species theory that you as an Atheist MUST accept.

Millions of Christians accept biological evolution, yes, for the same
reasons they accept gravity, germ theory, quantum mechanics, et al:
the evidence for them is overwhelming.

>> I don't personally
>> subscribe to either, but there's no reason a person couldn't subscribe
>> to both without contradiction.
>
>Subjective dismissal while evading all the facts and logic which say otherwise.

You haven't presented either facts or logic yet.

>> >> > which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God;
>> >>
>> >> That's self-contradictory. A biological first cause had to precede
>> >> space aliens by definition.
>> >
>> >Since DPism is about life on earth and the impossibility or abiogenesis, negative.
>>
>> DP says nothing about the likelihood of abiogenesis.
>
>You're inexcusably ignorant----that's precisely WHY DPism exists: abiogenesis is judged to be IMPOSSIBLE. Crick came to the conclusion that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a DNA replication machine to materialize into existence via non-living matter, so he advocated space aliens.

Where did Crick's space aliens come from?

>You need to do some homework.
>
>>
>> > So you, like Peter, change the subject to the universe in order to implicate the possibility of Deism behind space aliens.
>>
>> I am doing nothing of the kind; I am pointing out that your statement
>> is self-contradictory. Where did the space aliens come from if they
>> preceded a biological "first cause", whether that cause was
>> abiogenesis, or Goddidit?
>>
>
>More evasion of what was actually said.

Yes, on your part.

>> > Since you're an Atheist Deism is not an option to explain alleged origin of life in the universe.
>>
>> It's not an option to explain anything, as far as science is
>> concerned.
>>
>> >> > acceptance of abiogenesis;
>> >>
>> >> We both accept abiogenesis. You just think there was one more deity
>> >> involved than I do.
>> >
>> >Nonsense above and below; I'm done.
>>
>> Ray, do you accept the Genesis creation story? The one where God forms
>> Adam out of the dust of the Earth, and puts the breath of life in him?
>> That's abiogenesis, by definition.
>
>Then you don't know what abiogenesis is...

I don't know what personal definition of it you may be using, but life
from non-living material is exactly what is described in the Genesis
account. That's abiogenesis.

>.so maybe you're not a liar but just plain ignorant or stupid.
>
>I'm not here to give 101 lessons in scientific claims.

Nor are you capable of doing so.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 22:42:12 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Why do you think (if you do) that he actually thinks?

His comment that the concept of God deals with emergent
properties shows that he understands neither.

> Is it not reasonable to expect you to show that and how your
>alleged emergent properties actually emerge from what you claim they
>emerge?

It's eminently reasonable, but it won't happen if he can
simply assert it.

>>That's like asking me to prove apples exist
>>using oranges, that's what I mean by the
>>....dishonest atheist, as in dishonest debating
>>tactics.
>>
>>
>>
>>s
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 21:18:31 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>:

>On 3/7/2016 1:49 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>
>> Since you persist in failing to define what you mean,
>> accusing me of beliefs I haven't (and won't) discuss, and
>> tapdancing around serious questions while accusing me of
>> failing to "take a stand" (however one can rationally "take
>> a stand" while believing that objective evidence is, and
>> will continue to be, unavailable, other than by faith,
>> resulting in an interminable round of opinion-spouting),
>> I'll leave you to your fun.
>>
>> HAND.

>It's your objective evidence that is faith-based.
>You still cling to the outdated notion complex
>adaptive systems and their emergent properties
>can be understood by reductionist objective
>methods.

I'd *love* to know where that came from. Is it the same
source where Ray gets his definition (and apparently, so do
you) of "atheist"?

>Your faith in this method is unshakable but
>only due to all the shiny trinkets and precise
>equations objective science has produced.
>Such simplicity is cherished due to our
>instinctive need for certainty.

Is that the same "instinctive need for certainty" which
powers most religions, and which makes the idea that we can
never know some things (aka, "agnosticism") such a dirty
word?

>Not by rational thought, which would realize
>that subjective methods, what you term faith
>is the only way to understand the real live
>evolving/emergent universel

And yet science deals with, and studies, emergent properties
constantly. They leave out the gee-whiz woo; is that your
objection?

>Your a caveman scientifically speaking

IronyMeter survived again...

>, it's like
>discussing astronomy with someone that has yet
>to learn that telescopes exist.
>
>Your surrender (empty atheist-like response) is noted.

It's not a "surrender" to realize, and acknowledge, that the
other party isn't interested in actual communication, but
only in empty troll-like preaching.

HAND.

No, on second thought HARCD; you deserve it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 10:31:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com>:

>On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:45:53 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>Advocacy of space aliens as responsible for first life on earth, as opposed to God, is clearly a pro-Atheism claim whether you ever acknowledge or not.

>No, it is not. It says nothing one way or the other about the
>existence of a deity.

Of course it doesn't, but it *does* contradict Ray's
particular belief and his personal concept of the deity on
which that belief is based, which to Ray makes it
"pro-atheism" (pardon me; "pro-Atheism"). Note that *any*
position which contradicts Ray is, to Ray, atheistic, since
Ray doesn't accept what "atheistic" actually means.

<snip>

[Earle Jones27]

>> Your a caveman scientifically speaking...

*
I think you mean "you're" a caveman.

Brush up on your English.

earle
*

[Earle Jones27]

*
You will, for Ray's sake, probably have to tell him what a scotoma is.

earle
*

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:33:54 AM UTC-5, raven1 wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:45:53 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 5:09:02 PM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:

> >> Ray, as has been explained to you innumerable times by dozens of
> >> people, "God created life" and "space aliens propagated it throughout
> >> the universe" are not incompatible claims.

"the universe" is not what I had in mind; "galaxy" is about all that
is within the ability of a technological civilization, given our
current knowledge of physics.

However, if life was created by a supernatural entity, it might
well have been separately created in each galaxy and so collectively,
the intelligent beings that arose via evolution, might hove propagated
it throughout the galaxy.

> >Deliberate misrepresentation; nobody has explained anything of the sort; the same was asserted ad hoc, by a few people,
>
> You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it
> means.
>
> > in response to pointing out that space aliens responsible for biological First Cause, on earth, as opposed to God, is a pro-Atheism claim. And no one was talking about the universe. You only bring that up to try and obscure the pro-Atheism claim of space aliens.

Notice how suspicious Martinez is about your motives. On the other
hand, some of the most aggressively suspicious people in this newsgroup
with respect to others are the very ones who refuse
to be as suspicious about Martinez's motives as he is of yours.

> > Deism has NEVER been about alleged origin of life in the universe because life has not been discovered outside our atmosphere.

Typical Martinez "logic." It would take a long time to explain all
the things that are wrong with it, but the only one with the requisite
patience is Dana Tweedy, whom Martinez has been boycotting for about
a year now on highly dubious grounds.


> > And everyone knows that.

Of course, nobody in his right mind would buy into the preceding gibberish
sentence by Ray. I wonder whether he himself buys into it, or is
indulging in sheer polemical opportunism, saying something just
because it sounds good and not giving a damn as to whether it is
true or even coherent.

> > You're looking like the stereotypical Atheist liar. And I understand why you attempt these transparent lies and misrepresentations: they work; millions of "Christians" accept the same origin of species theory that you as an Atheist MUST accept.

> Millions of Christians accept biological evolution, yes, for the same
> reasons they accept gravity, germ theory, quantum mechanics, et al:
> the evidence for them is overwhelming.

Absolutely, and Ray doesn't know the first thing about the evidence.
He also knows next to nothing about the arguments creationists
typically use. He claims to have knockdown arguments from both
scripture and science for species immutability, but adamantly
refuses to reveal what these are, claiming they will appear
in a book he claims to be working on.

In short, he is a typical con artist, except that he's sized up
his "marks" all wrong.

> >> I don't personally
> >> subscribe to either, but there's no reason a person couldn't subscribe
> >> to both without contradiction.
> >
> >Subjective dismissal while evading all the facts and logic which say otherwise.
>
> You haven't presented either facts or logic yet.

And he never will, at the rate he is going.

> >> >> > which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God;
> >> >>
> >> >> That's self-contradictory. A biological first cause had to precede
> >> >> space aliens by definition.
> >> >
> >> >Since DPism is about life on earth and the impossibility or abiogenesis, negative.
> >>
> >> DP says nothing about the likelihood of abiogenesis.
> >
> >You're inexcusably ignorant----that's precisely WHY DPism exists: abiogenesis is judged to be IMPOSSIBLE. Crick came to the conclusion that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a DNA replication machine to materialize into existence via non-living matter,

Crick came to no such conclusion. His stance, and that of
the co-hypothesizer of directed panspermia, is that our present
state of knowledge is inadequate to tell how easy or how
difficult abiogenesis might be (understood: without supernatural
intervention). It could be very common or it could be a once in
a universe occurrence, they wrote. And in the latter case, any
technologically advanced species would have a powerful motivation
to spread it around.

Touche.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of S. Carolina at Columbia

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS The reason I am replying to you instead of to Ray
is that he is incorrigible, and since you are not a very frequent
participant in talk.origins, you may have missed out on some
background info about him that might save you a lot of back-and-forth
with him. I did a similarly focused reply to you back in December:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/FTdqre6dfvM/ccAeO76HBAAJ

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 2:18:52 PM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:33:54 AM UTC-5, raven1 wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:45:53 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 5:09:02 PM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
>
> > >> Ray, as has been explained to you innumerable times by dozens of
> > >> people, "God created life" and "space aliens propagated it throughout
> > >> the universe" are not incompatible claims.
>
> "the universe" is not what I had in mind; "galaxy" is about all that
> is within the ability of a technological civilization, given our
> current knowledge of physics.
>
> However, if life was created by a supernatural entity, it might
> well have been separately created in each galaxy and so collectively,

> the intelligent beings that arose via evolution, might [have] propagated
> it throughout the galaxy.

I meant "throughout the universe," of course.

Peter Nyikos

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 20:48:53 UTC+2, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> On 2016-03-08 18:34:34 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
>
> > On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 21:18:31 -0500, the following appeared in
> > talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >

> >> Your a caveman scientifically speaking...
>

> I think you mean "you're" a caveman.
>
> Brush up on your English.

You replied to Bob Casanova to complain about typographic errors of
Jonathan? :D

The "Your a caveman scientifically speaking" really did sound like
self-irony or even (unknown to me) self-ironic cultural reference.
However Jonathan lacks self-irony I suspect so it was typo.

[jillery]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 11:24:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

For sufficiently broad definitions of "think"...

>His comment that the concept of God deals with emergent
>properties shows that he understands neither.
>
>> Is it not reasonable to expect you to show that and how your
>>alleged emergent properties actually emerge from what you claim they
>>emerge?
>
>It's eminently reasonable, but it won't happen if he can
>simply assert it.

Which is why I remark on his failure to show it.

>>>That's like asking me to prove apples exist
>>>using oranges, that's what I mean by the
>>>....dishonest atheist, as in dishonest debating
>>>tactics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>s
--

[Jonathan]

Two things, first what everyone knows, that...
'the whole is greater than the sum of its part's.

But that's not enough to make an argument for God.

It requires showing that the 'more' in that truism, is
also the where creation and evolution receive their
ultimate impetus.

The concept of emergence is enough to show both
statements are true. Which translates into a
'mysterious' or irreducible top-down force
that is /also/ the source and cause of all being.

Or God.



Emergence
from Wiki


"Almost all accounts of emergentism include a form
of epistemic or ontological irreducibility to the
lower levels."

"The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws
does not imply the ability to start from those laws and
reconstruct the universe. The constructionist hypothesis
breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties
of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity
entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied
biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see
that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different
from the sum of its parts."

The plausibility of strong emergence is questioned by some
as contravening our usual understanding of physics.
Mark A. Bedau observes:

"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is
uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but
supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition
it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level
potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike
anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates
how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism.
Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional
worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting
something from nothing."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

You might
> add to that a statement about why you even bother arguing so much about
> stuff that means nothing anyway.
>

Oh, I can't think of a more interesting debate
then 'nothing at all' or the unreal.

As the unreal is another name for what is possible
in the future.

And 'nothing at all' happens to be the starting point
for creation and evolution.

This requires the ability to quantify uncertainty, as in
being able to mathematically represent when a system
finds it's most unquantifiable or unknowable/complex point.

For instance, what's the equation for confusion?
Or the point where a system will appear differently
to each and every observer?

Things like that, as it's at such points where
reality, nature and spirit begins.

For instance, look at these charts, the first two
1 year charts couldn't be more different from
each other in terms of direction.
One tanking, the other taking off

1 year chart of SUNE
https://www.tradingview.com/x/zzlvwAv3/

1 year chart of WTW
https://www.tradingview.com/x/YCmkBnxm/



Now here are the roughly 2 week charts of the
same 2 stocks, they couldn't be more alike.
In addition notice the incredible swings of
50% drops and 100% rises sometimes taking
only minutes while hundreds of millions
of dollars are changing hands.


2 week chart of SUNE
https://www.tradingview.com/x/YtqgM7N8/

2 week chart of WTW
https://www.tradingview.com/x/Z8jhVPD0/


Now try to imagine how one would predict
the future of either of these two stocks?

Since the pasts are entirely different
past performance is useless.

Since valuation and earnings are also
entirely different they are no help either.

What's left?

This is bird flocking or group psychology that
is taking over the behavior of these stocks
for a short time. As a result volatility skyrockets
and with it they become unpredictable or
....complex.

The reason bird flocking has taken over is due
to the fact these systems happen to display a
maximum level of uncertainty concerning their
future. No one can objectively tell whether
one is about to go bust or take off.

Both opposites in possibility are equally
likely right now, as in the Mona Lisa smile.

That elegant level of uncertainty, or a system
at maximum complexity where no objective
methods can possibly predict or quantify
is where a system spontaneously
'boils over' or...

....where 'the whole becomes greater than it's sum'.

Uncertainty or complexity is the source of that
added value in the truism, and that added value
is what drives a system to it's edge state or
transition point between opposing possibilities.

And at that transition point is where the butterfly
effect and fractal period doubling emerges, and where
feedback mechanisms suddenly form and the system
begins adapting and evolving, and as if by magic.



The source and cause of all being can be seen in
those charts. In what appears to most as utter
confusion and chaos, or no order at all (nothing).




s

[Jonathan]

Maybe I should have said 'we' need to debate and
agree on a definition of God before anything else
can happen.

I was trying to get him to state his idea of God and
then I'd give mine, and from there a debate
could begin until both sides agree.

Most atheists won't even entire into such a debate.
The insist on the cartoon version of God where one must
point to a wise old man waving a magic wand as proof.
And then say 'see' no proof.

I'll repeat a reply from this thread as it explains
my idea of what God looks like, and I've included
....charts <g>



Two things are required to show God exists, first

what everyone knows, that...'the whole is greater
than the sum of its part's.

But that's not enough to make an argument for God.

It requires showing that the 'more' in that truism, is

/also/ the where creation and evolution receive their

ultimate impetus.

The concept of emergence is enough to show both
statements are true. Which translates into a

'mysterious' or irreducible top-down force that's

As the unreal is another name for what's possible

in the future.

And 'nothing at all' happens to be the starting point
for creation and evolution.

This requires the ability to quantify uncertainty, as in
being able to mathematically represent when a system
finds it's most unquantifiable or unknowable/complex point.

For instance, what's the equation for confusion?
Or the point where a system will appear differently
to each and every observer?

Things like that, as it's at such points where

reality, nature and spirit begins. Where God is
found imo.

For instance, look at these charts, the first two
1 year charts couldn't be more different from
each other in terms of direction.

One tanking, the other taking off

1 year chart of SUNE
https://www.tradingview.com/x/zzlvwAv3/

1 year chart of WTW
https://www.tradingview.com/x/YCmkBnxm/



Now here are the roughly 2 week charts of the

....same 2 stocks, they couldn't be more alike.

In addition notice the incredible swings of
50% drops and 100% rises sometimes taking

only minutes while millions of dollars are

changing hands.


2 week chart of SUNE
https://www.tradingview.com/x/YtqgM7N8/

2 week chart of WTW
https://www.tradingview.com/x/Z8jhVPD0/


Now try to imagine how one would predict
the future of either of these two stocks?

Since the 1 year charts are entirely different
/the past/ performance is useless for
prediction.

Since valuation and earnings are also entirely different
they are no help either.

What's left?

This is bird-flocking or group psychology that

is taking over the behavior of these stocks
for a short time. As a result volatility skyrockets
and with it they become unpredictable or

.....complex.

The reason bird-flocking has taken over is due

to the fact these systems happen to display a
maximum level of uncertainty concerning their
future. No one can objectively tell whether
one is about to go bust or take off.

Both opposites in possibility are equally
likely right now, as in the Mona Lisa smile.

Any little hint comes out about which possibility
might happen and huge swings occur, often
just the opening bell is enough to send
them reeling.

That elegant level of uncertainty, or a system
at maximum complexity where no objective
methods can possibly predict or quantify
is where a system spontaneously 'boils over'
or...

.....where 'the whole becomes greater than it's sum'.

Uncertainty or complexity is the source of that

added value in the truism, attracting speculators
far and wide to swoop in, and that added value

is what drives a system to it's edge state or
transition point between opposing possibilities.

And /at that transition point/ is where the butterfly
effect and fractal behavior emerges, where feedback

mechanisms suddenly form and the system begins
adapting and evolving, and as if by magic.

The new speculators seem to come out of nowhere.

The source and cause of all being can be seen in
those charts. In what appears to most as utter
confusion and chaos, or no order at all (nothing).

But to me that's where things become simple and calm.
Look at the short term charts again, the extreme
volatility force the system to display its short term
limits whether low and high.

So when low, buy, when high sell. If in the middle
between extremes, wait for something dramatic to
happen then respond accordingly.

A child could trade these stocks when maximum system
uncertainty initiates complex or self organized behavior.

At least for as long as the storm lasts.

Reductionists obsess over finding 'what came first'.

But what comes first are such storms, where objective
methods are useless. Where 'nothing at all' or
zero order is thriving.

Objective methods don't realize what came first
is invisible to them, yet constantly scratch
their heads why they just can't seem to nail down
the first cause, or creation.

Creation is best represented by the Mona-Lisa smile.
That's the problem which needs to be solved to
understand the ultimate source of reality and
life.


Jonathan


s





s

[Bill Rogers]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:38:51 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
<snip>

> I was trying to get him to state his idea of God and
> then I'd give mine, and from there a debate
> could begin until both sides agree.
>
> Most atheists won't even entire into such a debate.
> The insist on the cartoon version of God where one must
> point to a wise old man waving a magic wand as proof.
> And then say 'see' no proof.

Haven't talked to many atheists, I guess, have you?

>
<snip>

[Jonathan]

On 3/7/2016 9:45 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:13:55 PM UTC-5, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 3/7/2016 7:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ...is not a claim, and I don't claim there is life on Mars, either;
>>> and neither do I claim there is no life on Mars.
>>>
>>>> is still somehow compatible with Christianity.
>>>
>>> I'd like to see you try to refute what I wrote just now. If you
>>> don't try, then your claim below will metamorphose into a lie
>>> unless it is retracted, e.g. by retracting the claim that I am
>>> an Atheist.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That's the problem with atheism, most use the weak
>> form and that means nothing is asserted, nothing is
>> refuted and nothing discussed.
>>
>> Just blank pages.
>
> Fortunately, I'm not even a weak atheist, let alone a
> strong one. I could write a whole book on the various
> arguments for and against the existence of God, for
> or against the existence of life after death. And I would
> be going against my conscience if I claimed either side
> has been proven.
>

Whether for God or life on Mars, no objective
proof is going to be coming along anytime soon.

So the choice is to use the available evidence
and especially reasoning to come to the best
possible conclusion. It's either that or nothing
and such questions are too interesting and
important to ignore until ~Christ returns
or aliens land~

Insisting on definitive proof for God is an
unreasonable demand, emergent properties
will never be open to clear objective
proof.

>> That's a cop out, either Mars has life or not and
>> there's plenty of evidence to work with.
>
> The evidence I've seen is too fragmentary for anyone but a naive
> fool to take a stand. Have you seen some evidence that
> I have not?
>

I've looked at pretty much all of the evidence and
there's a very good circumstantial case to be
made that life is there to be found.

But just as a teaser, before the Opportunity rover
landed the field of astrobiology was an almost
non existent discipline.

The Nasa Astrobiology Conference in 2004
consisted of a couple dozen posters mostly
by wide-eyed grad students.

2004 Astrobiology Conference
http://www.noao.edu/meetings/abgradcon/


After the rovers landed, in 2012 the conference
looks like below, voluminous cutting edge research
from many of the premier institutions in the world.
That doesn't happen because the evidence the rovers
returned was a 'fools errand'. But because those
researchers looked at the pics and realized life
....should be there.

Astrobiology Conference 2012
http://abscicon2012.arc.nasa.gov/media/cms_page_media/29/downloadable%20science%20program.pdf

It's exceedingly rare for a discipline to explode
as astrobiology did after the rovers.


Literally half the planet is an ideal environment
for microbial life, almost the entire northern
hemisphere is wet and warm and chock full of
sulfur, iron and silicone just a few meters
....underground.

Up to 50% water ice just two meters underground
by many estimates over vast stretches, and as
you go deeper, the temps increase as does the
protection from the sun...ideal conditions.

There must be a 'water zone' at some point
as you go deeper in most of the northern
hemisphere.


And just for fun, explain these pics from Mars
with non-living explanations? No one has yet
after all these years, and by the best and
brightest.


http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06ASP2956M2M1.HTML

(Sphere Garden - an incredible pic)
http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/012/tn/1P129250922EFF0224P2374L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html


http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131648550EFF0544P2953M2M1.HTML


A few more pics for reference, explain their
incredible abundance, their relative pristine
condition and how they're found in widely
different settings. Concretions on Earth
take geologic time to form and weather out
and their shapes and sizes are /highly/
site specific. But not on Mars, they come
in only two class of sizes and Meridiani
is coated with them from horizon to horizon.

The only explanation is they formed in wet soil
not inside rocks as concretions do on Earth.
And not in geologic time as on Earth but
relatively quickly, over ice-age time spans.

That has all the hallmarks of self organization, not
geology.



Various Wide Angle Images of Spheres


http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/136/tn/1P140262288EFF3174P2376L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/180/tn/1P144166325EFF3342P2537L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/012/tn/1P129250922EFF0224P2374L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/123/tn/1P139098299EFF2809P2267L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/530/tn/1P175233200ESF5702P2566L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/183/tn/1P144428432EFF3370P2540L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/131/tn/1P139815096EFF3100P2368L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/020/tn/1P129964932EFF0352P2563L5M1_L4L5L6.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/569/tn/1P178697872EFF5900P2599L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/013/tn/1P129343005EFF0300P2376L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/533/tn/1P175500101EFF57BTP2568L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/389/tn/1P162715517ESF4700P2560L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/440/tn/1P167246122ESF55B0P2596L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/505/tn/1P173013913EFF55VWP2559L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/152/tn/1P141673159EFF3200P2380L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/162/tn/1P142568768EFF3221P2388L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/164/tn/1P142744292EFF3221P2391L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/164/tn/1P142746411EFF3221P2392L5M1_L2L5L5L7L7.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/170/tn/1P143263578ESF3243P2598L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html





Various Micro Images of Spheres

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_m014.html

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/105/1M137503553EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/106/1M137593860EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/028/1M130673077EFF0454P2933M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131648550EFF0544P2953M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_m182.html

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/029/1M130761497EFF0454P2953M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/019/1M129869769EFF0338P2953M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/034/1M131212713EFF0500P2959M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/158/1M142209017EFF3215P2957M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/039/1M131649674EFF0544P2933M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/177/1M143896735EFF3336P2957M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/048/1M132444465EFF05AMP2956M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/053/1M132896352EFF06ASP2956M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/073/1M134672193EFF1000P2936M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/084/1M135646668EFF1300P2956M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/152/1M141691416EFF3200P2907M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/174/1M143629974EFF3300P2977M2M1.HTML

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/199/1M145850153EFF3505P2977M2M1.HTML

>> Take a stand and defend it, else stop pretending
>> atheism is the product of scientific reasoning.
>
> I deny that it is.
>
>> Weak atheism places unreasonable strawman demands
>> for proof then claim they haven't been met.
>>
>> For instance, the concept of God deals with
>> emergent properties, yet atheists demand
>> objective proof.
>>
>> That's like asking me to prove apples exist
>> using oranges, that's what I mean by the
>> ....dishonest atheist, as in dishonest debating
>> tactics.
>
> It is your vague talk that is a cop out. Your definition of "God"
> is more akin to pantheism than to theism.
>
> But here is the real bottom line: I've yet to
> see you take a stand on whether you will go on having conscious
> experiences after your physical body decomposes or is cremated.
>

Our souls or spirit can live on in others, that
is what mainstream religion means by resurrection.
That the soul is separate from the body.


Note below they say the soul is a 'principle'
which lives on.


From the Catholic Encyclopedia

Soul

"The question of the reality of the soul and its distinction
from the body is among the most important problems of philosophy,
for with it is bound up the doctrine of a future life.
Various theories as to the nature of the soul have claimed
to be reconcilable with the tenet of immortality, but
it is a sure instinct that leads us to suspect every attack
on the substantiality or spirituality of the soul as an
assault on the belief in existence after death.

The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle
by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies
are animated.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm



Like the definition of God, atheists tend to use
the most /literal/ definitions possible, as that is
easiest to refute. But even the Ayatollahs chastise
their followers for taking the Koran literally as
that leads to extreme views.

> I don't think you'll ever take a stand on that, because it
> is too concrete, and not amenable to the kind of poetic
> evasiveness that you are so good at.
>

On the contrary~



"How good to be alive!
How infinite to be
Alive -- two-fold -- The Birth I had
And this besides, in Thee!"

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/8/16 5:11 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> On 3/8/2016 1:13 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:

>> [...]

>> Your first step must be defining what you're trying to prove.
>
> Two things, first what everyone knows, that...
> 'the whole is greater than the sum of its part's.
>
> But that's not enough to make an argument for God.
>
> It requires showing that the 'more' in that truism, is
> also the where creation and evolution receive their
> ultimate impetus.
>
> The concept of emergence is enough to show both
> statements are true. Which translates into a
> 'mysterious' or irreducible top-down force
> that is /also/ the source and cause of all being.
>
> Or God.

In other words, you define God to be emergence. It's not the worst
definition of God I have heard, but I expect most people will not accept it.

> [...]

>> You might
>> add to that a statement about why you even bother arguing so much about
>> stuff that means nothing anyway.
>
> Oh, I can't think of a more interesting debate
> then 'nothing at all' or the unreal.
>
> As the unreal is another name for what is possible
> in the future.
>
> And 'nothing at all' happens to be the starting point
> for creation and evolution.

> [...]

What you are speaking of is speculation, not debate. And I find
speculation to be tremendously uninteresting if it does not lead to
anything besides more speculation.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 18:27:14 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com>:

Why should he, when he can simply make unwarranted
assertions? "Ray Light", as it were...

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 16:41:57 -0500, the following appeared

....to include "emote"?

>>His comment that the concept of God deals with emergent
>>properties shows that he understands neither.
>>
>>> Is it not reasonable to expect you to show that and how your
>>>alleged emergent properties actually emerge from what you claim they
>>>emerge?
>>
>>It's eminently reasonable, but it won't happen if he can
>>simply assert it.
>
>
>Which is why I remark on his failure to show it.
>
>
>>>>That's like asking me to prove apples exist
>>>>using oranges, that's what I mean by the
>>>>....dishonest atheist, as in dishonest debating
>>>>tactics.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>s
--

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 4:38:55 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 5:23:56 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:19:08 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > [....snip....]
> > > >
> > > > > open to the possibility that a God may have or could have been responsible for life elsewhere in the universe, which is an ad hoc amendment.
>
> Wrong: it is part of my belief system since I became an adult.
>

Evasion....the point I made was that DPism is only about first life on earth. The fact that Peter answered an edited point says much. And we were not talking about Peter's subjective views of DP but the objective claims of DP.

> > DPism is about first life on earth, not the universe because life has yet to be discovered outside our atmosphere. It specifically denies God as the cause
> > > >
> > > > I am not a DPist, I merely think it more likely than the alternatives.
> >
> > You've propagated DPism relentlessly; now you say you're not a DPist (= egregious contradiction).
>
> There is no contradiction, unless you use the Marxist definition
> of "contradiction" as "a somewhat counterintuitive situation."

You've advocated DPism relentlessly, now you say you're not a DPist (= egregious contradiction).

Pretending you don't understand is a lie.

>
> Do you think it is more likely that there is life on Mars than
> that there isn't? If so, by your own standards, you are a Martianist;
> if not, then you are a Mars Life Denier, also by your own
> Black and White Meltdown standards.
>
> > > >
> > > > > while crediting space aliens (= Atheism).
> > > >
> > > > And according to you, "Atheism" with a capital A includes:
> > > > deism, any theism that rejects the Bible (hence Hinduism, Jainism,
> > > > Sikhism, Shintoism, Buddhism, etc. ) as well as pantheism, agnosticism,
> > > > and Gnosticism. And you had to smuggle favoring the DP hypothesis
> > > > in there, because you had hardened your heart to me and were
> > > > determined to call me an Atheist come hell or high water.
> >
> > Wad of nonsense.
>
> I'd like to see you try to justify this egregious insult.
>
> > > >
> > > > At the same time, also about a week after my return,
> > > > Ron Okimoto also hardened his heart to me and was determined
> > > > to call me a creationist come hell or high water.
> >
> > Only because you defend the Discovery Institute;
>
> I don't defend it, I just keep insisting that Ron O has posted
> laughably inadequate evidence for the "bait" part of the
> "bait and switch scam" that he alleges to have been in place
> from 2005 (maybe 2002) to 2014.

Which is defending.

>
> Any time he posts adequate evidence, what you and he mistakenly
> call my "defense" of DI will be at an end.
>
> > but in reality you do not accept design existing in nature
>
> ...due to supernatural beings, yes, but neither do I reject it; I keep an
> open mind while being on the lookout for any evidence either way.

Contradiction: Peter rejects design then says the exact opposite. You've now made several egregious contradictions. Unless one already knew that you were a Professor one could not deduce from these replies that you were even educated.

>
> > or any evidence supporting the existence of God,
>
> I accept plenty of evidence, but there is also evidence against it,

What evidence for God do you accept?

> such as the alleged existence of eternal torment for offenses of a
> far lesser nature.

This comment indicates that Peter disagrees with the Bible.....all Atheists do.

> Do you believe that Atheists will suffer eternal
> unremitting torture in the hereafter?

The Bible says the wrath of God abides on anyone who denies Him credit as the Creator/Designer. Saying "could have" does not comply. It stops short of positive recognition. The ToE says nature was not created, but evolved, that's why all Atheists are fanatical Darwinists.

> Then you believe in Ahriman,
> not the God of C.S. Lewis.
>
> > which makes you an Atheist. When you tangle with Ron, a fellow Atheist, you get a taste of your own deliberate misrepresentation medicine.
>
> Your reasoning is kaput unless you admit that you are either
> a complete believer in the existence of life on Mars or a complete
> disbeliever. Anything in between would constitute reasoning like
> a rational adult, which your last two sentences do not do.
>
> > > > Are you happy with that? Do you ever try to tell Ron O that
> > > > I am not a creationist?
> >
> > He knows you're not a Creationist.
>
> Why do you think that? He relentlessly accuses me of going to Church regularly
> "to worship the God so He will save [my] immortal soul." By his reasoning, the
> mere fact that I am a practicing Roman Catholic automatically makes me
> a Creationist.

I've never seen him say that. How often do you attend Mass?

>
> Wacky, but no more wacky than your concept of an "Atheist" or your
> arguments that I am an "Atheist">
>
> > When Ron refers to you as a Creationist he is venting his anger because you defend the D.I.
>
> ...only in the following sense:
>
> > and refuse to accept his "bait-and-switch" broken record nonsense.
>
> You got that much right, see above.
>
> > Moreover Ron denies Atheism as well, but his fanatical opposition to the intelligence of his alleged God existing in nature plainly demonstrates that he is a prime example of a deluded liar.
>
> I won't argue with that, and I've even tried twice to engage Dana Tweedy
> in conversation about that possiblility, but unsuccessfully so far.
>
> HOWEVER, I point out that I have long and hard tried to show Harshman that
> there is plenty of appearance of design in the incredible fine-tuning
> of the physical constants....

Do you accept these claims? Or are you merely conveying these claims?

> ....but he has deliberately blinded himself to
> this evidence FOR the existence of a creator....

I COMPLETELY agree! That's PRECISELY why Atheists like him are going to hell: they know the truth but choose to give God the finger. (I suspect you might re-phrase what you said, we'll see.)

> ....as opposed to the evidence
> AGAINST that is provided by the doctrine of Hell. If God is good, why
> doesn't he correct the innumerable people who believe that Hell is
> unrelieved torment?

The Doctrine of Hell does not contradict the evidence of fine-tuning. Just the opposite is true: fine-tuning supports the existence of the Biblical God which in turn supports the Doctrine of Hell as accurate. By definition God IS good/Good/God. Very many people testify, including myself, that He has saved us from eternity in hell.

>
> > > >
> > > > > For Peter to say God **could** precede is only intended to evade Atheism.
> > > >
> > > > As I've shown you, the truth is just the opposite: you decided to
> > > > pin the label of Atheist on me DESPITE my having argued that
> > > > it is compatible with Christianity. The only explanation I can
> > > > think of is that you love to label people "Atheists" at the
> > > > drop of a hat.
> > > >
> > > > Peter Nyikos
> >
> > Peter, our Atheist, repeats his ad hoc
>
> "ad hoc" apparently means "directed at what he believes to
> be mistaken comments by others" in your lexicon.

It means what you said is made up on the spot for a special purpose.

>
> > and egregiously contradictory claim that space aliens responsible for first life on earth, not God,

>
> ...is not a claim, and I don't claim there is life on Mars, either;
> and neither do I claim there is no life on Mars.
>
> > is still somehow compatible with Christianity.
>
> I'd like to see you try to refute what I wrote just now.

I'm not sure what you're arguing; too ambiguous. If you take the time to explain more then I will respond.

> If you
> don't try, then your claim below will metamorphose into a lie
> unless it is retracted, e.g. by retracting the claim that I am
> an Atheist.
>
> >

> > This is why Atheists have always been known as brazen liars.
>
> Since you have a personal definition of "Atheist" which perhaps
> no one else on earth shares, your statement is nonsense unless
> "known as" means "known by my talk.origins persona as".
>
> > Ray (Christian)
>
> You cease to follow Christ every time you tell a lie; and you have
> told many about me. I denounce you for the times you cease to follow
> Christ, not the times you do follow him (as you probably do in your
> statements about Ron O up there).
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor of Mathematics
> Univ. of S. Carolina, Columbia -- standard disclaimer--

Based on the fact that you accept Naturalism interpretive philosophy, as seen in your acceptance of the theory of evolution, and based on the fact that you promote Directed Panspermia----a doctrine that says space aliens were responsible for First Cause, not God, you're an Atheist. Moreover the fact that you reject design in nature indicates Atheism as well.

All of your Atheism denials are ad hoc and/or subjective. There isn't anything remotely complicated here at all

Ray

[eridanus]

El jueves, 3 de marzo de 2016, 0:34:10 (UTC), Jonathan escribió:
> On 3/2/2016 3:45 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 21:01:38 -0500, the following appeared in
> > talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> On 3/1/2016 8:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God; acceptance of abiogenesis; rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including the cosmos; rejection and opposition to the Bible.
> >>>
> >>> There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.
> >
> >> I think atheism is the belief creation can be fully explained
> >> or understood, someday or somehow.
> >
> > You are wrong, as is Ray (quelle surprise!). Atheism is the
> > lack of belief that any deities exist, no more, no less. It
> > has nothing to do with expectations of future discoveries.
> >
>
>
>
>
> That's a cop out and you know it.
>
> The weak or negative form atheists like to use means
> atheism is nothing at all, agnosticism or merely
> skepticism. Atheism in it's classic or strong form
> however means the positive belief gods do not exist.
>
> Take a stand!
>
> Because the form you espouse means you can sit on the
> sidelines and assert or refute nothing at all on
> the issue at hand. And there's nothing scientific
> about taking a position that 'ignorance is a
> scientific view'.
>
> Plus the glaring logical flaw in the atheist's
> insistence on scientific proof of a deity is
> easy to see. An emergent property such as wisdom
> CANNOT be proved by scientific or /reductionist/
> methods.
>
> And that is not a convenient definition of deity
> or emergence, but it's an established concept.
> You can't reduce to facts that which is inherently
> irreducible.
>
>
> "In philosophy, emergence typically refers to
> emergentism. Almost all accounts of emergentism

> include a form of epistemic or ontological
> irreducibility to the lower levels."
>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
>
> Atheists insist on proving an emergent property
> using objective methods, that is a logical flaw.
>
> So the atheist's demand on proof is like saying
> prove to me intelligence exists using the science
> called chemistry.

In the same way we cannot prove god, we cannot prove many other things,
property of living beings, like memory.
For you must try "to define intelligence", first to know what really is.
Then, if intelligence is a form of memory, or a property of memory,
there is not a problem if we cannot explain how memory works. There are
a lot of things we cannot explain about the material universe. Our
intelligence is rather limited, and we can understand just a handful of
things compared to the whole universe.

The priest of any religion had learned to say, we cannot understand god,
or why he does or does not what we desire. There is a tradition of praying
god for a reason or other, but there is not any guaranty that god would
reply to our prayers.
This impotence of explaining god, or why god exist, is also proper for the
case of most questions of the universe.
On the other hand, a great deal of what we consider intelligence is not
other than the art of making speeches. That is your specialty, make speeches.
But a speak can superficially look fine, so far as we do not dig in the
meaning of some abstracts words used.

What we really are doing is too intelligent by making nice speeches.
eridanus

>
> >> But just as an animal could never hope to comprehend human
> >> intelligence. We could never hope to comprehend the next
> >> evolutionary step which emerges above us. For instance
> >> the emergent property of collective intelligence, or wisdom.
> >>
> >> Such collective properties do not exist within any single
> >> person but only when countless individuals are connected.
> >
> > Which has...what?...to do with atheism?
> >
>
>
> You know nothing about religious philosophy, that
> is the only thing you've demonstrated in your reply.
> If I were to ask you to prove to me that calculus
> is true I but didn't have the foggiest idea what
> calculus was, needless to say you would never
> convince me.
>
>
>
>
> >> And to assume human intelligence is as high as evolution
> >> can go in all of the universe is the height of arrogance
> >> and defies the plain and simple observations that life
> >> on Earth found a way to go from microbes to Microsoft.
> >
> > Good thing no one makes that claim then, isn't it?
> >
>
>
>
> You've just admitted you believe in God, the fact
> you don't realize that only means you haven't
> the first clue about the concept of deity. Yet you
> profess to lack belief in what you don't understand.
>
> God is not defined to be some wise old man out there
> waving a magic wand, that is what is taught to
> 8 year old children.
>
> Are you going to hang your debate on your childish
> view of religion?
>
>
>
> >> Even in the face of all kinds of set backs and obstacles.
> >>
> >> There's nothing rational or logical about atheism.
> >
> > Au contraire, mon cher, it is eminently rational and logical
> > to fail to believe in something for which no evidence
> > exists.
>
>
>
> There's no evidence in the form of your...choosing, a form
> not consistent with the concept. You're creating your
> own logical contradiction by insisting one prove
> apples exist using oranges.
>
>
>
> > Of course, most people are driven by emotion, not
> > rationality or logic, so religious belief of some sort is to
> > be expected. Which is not to condemn such beliefs, of
> > course; humans aren't computers.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> "The Missionary to the Mole
> Must prove there is a Sky
> Location doubtless he would plead
> But what excuse have I?"

[eridanus]

El jueves, 3 de marzo de 2016, 20:44:08 (UTC), Bob Casanova escribió:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 19:33:21 -0500, the following appeared in

> talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On 3/2/2016 3:45 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 21:01:38 -0500, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> On 3/1/2016 8:31 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>> Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia, which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God; acceptance of abiogenesis; rejection of the concept of design existing in nature including the cosmos; rejection and opposition to the Bible.
> >>>>
> >>>> There isn't anything complicated here. Resistance plainly indicates brazen dishonesty and/or an agenda.
> >>
> >>> I think atheism is the belief creation can be fully explained
> >>> or understood, someday or somehow.
> >>
> >> You are wrong, as is Ray (quelle surprise!). Atheism is the
> >> lack of belief that any deities exist, no more, no less. It
> >> has nothing to do with expectations of future discoveries.
>
> >That's a cop out and you know it.
>

> No, it's not. And your interpretation below is incorrect.

>
> >The weak or negative form atheists like to use means
> >atheism is nothing at all, agnosticism or merely
> >skepticism. Atheism in it's classic or strong form
> >however means the positive belief gods do not exist.
>

> Atrheism comes in two varieties.
>
> 1) The "weak" form - "I have no belief that gods exist."
> 2) The "strong" form - "I have a positive belief that no
> gods exist."
>
> Classic agnosticism, as formulated by Huxley, simply says
> that whether gods exist or not is unknown and probably
> unknowable. There are atheists *and* believers who are
> agnostic in this sense, which I consider the most rational
> one.
>

> Agnosticism is coming to mean "I'm undecided whether gods
> exist or not". IMHO this is a poorer meaning for three
> reasons. First, there would be no way to designate that
> there are limits to religious knowledge without excessive
> verbiage if this change becomes generally accepted. Second,
> the etymology of the term favors the original meaning.
> Third, "undecided" is already available.
>
> >Take a stand!
>
> I did: Words have meanings, and misusing them achieves only
> confusion.

>
> >Because the form you espouse means you can sit on the
> >sidelines and assert or refute nothing at all on
> >the issue at hand. And there's nothing scientific
> >about taking a position that 'ignorance is a
> >scientific view'.
>

> Why should I assert something for which no evidence exists?
> Alternatively, how can I refute something for which no
> evidence either way exists? Science doesn't address the
> existence of deities, as contrasted with claims made about
> their actions, for that reason. If can't be investigated by
> the methods of science it's not in the purview of science.

>
> >Plus the glaring logical flaw in the atheist's
> >insistence on scientific proof of a deity is
> >easy to see. An emergent property such as wisdom
> >CANNOT be proved by scientific or /reductionist/
> >methods.
>

> No one insists on scientific proof of anything *until*
> someone claims that it exists, and that they have evidence
> (by which, if they're making the claim in a scientific
> venue, means *scientific* evidence). And your final sentence
> is a statement of belief, not fact, since you're not
> omnipotent.

>
> >And that is not a convenient definition of deity
> >or emergence, but it's an established concept.
> >You can't reduce to facts that which is inherently
> >irreducible.
>

> Nice pithy claim, but what does it actually mean?

It must be like god; it is irreducible. We cannot explain
god but we can make speeches about god. When nobody understood how to
translate the Egyptian hieroglyphs there were a few daring people trying
to explain the meaning of them.
A bogus form of intelligence consist in making speeches about something
that we do not understand. I understand that science is an intent of
explaining some facts of nature. But sometimes, those facts are easy to
understand, but most times are not. Science started when humans were able
to discover that a stone would have some properties as to extract some
food from a dead animal. Later on, intelligence was to alter a stone in
some way, that it could cut thick skin, and cut meat from a dead animal
to eat. In some moment they had intelligence to use pointed sticks to kill
animals of to fend off others that were threatening you. Later on, someone
invented to put a piercing stone in the extreme of wooden stick. This stick
worked better with a little cutting stone in the tip. But this was a wordless
intelligence. You do not needed to make beautiful speeches to explain how
a stick with a sharp stone in the tip was so useful. It was evident just
by watching. It worked. But if we jump to the present, we do not need to
understand how a plane flies to know it flies. You see that thing and say,
this is plane up there flying. But you could not make a rational speech on
how or why the plane is flying. It simply flies. You ask a hunter gatherer
"but why this thing is flying?"
And he can tell you, "because it is a thing of the white man".
"Then, all the things of the white man fly?"
"No, some run like a hypo on the land and the desert."
"What other things the white man have?"
"The white men have stick that makes 'boom' and he kills a lion, or a hypo
from some distance."
"Does it mean the white men are like gods?"
"No, they are humans, they have eat, and drink water, and have to shit, like
all humans."
"But how the white man have so many things?"
"He has some magic. A white man robbed the secrets of magic to the gods."

This hunter gatherer "is making a speech" about the white man. Some sentences
make sense, others not.
If you ask a hunter of the Kalahari for the meaning of the stars in the
sky, they have a sensible explanation: "these lights are the fires that
hunters make during the night in the plains of the sky." It is a good
explanation, it is basically analogical with our experience of the night
in the desert of Kalahari. Quite often, we use analogies of our experience
to explain the things we do not understand. This is the idea of a god
creator, and the idea of "intelligent design". Intelligence design is like
magic. Some actor, with total control of the magic, created this or that.
And this is all that can be said, apparently.
It does not make any sense to reject magic as an explanation for we have
not yet a better alternative to the person that believes in magic.

So, far a person that believes in god have not any problems to see that a
plain flies, because some technology a few man master. Or a machine gun
or some cannon shoots bullets because someone with a technology made them.
In this case technology is a form of magic. It is the magic that some humans
can master. The rest of us have not even a faint idea.

eridanus

>
> >"In philosophy, emergence typically refers to
> >emergentism. Almost all accounts of emergentism
> >include a form of epistemic or ontological
> >irreducibility to the lower levels."
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
> >
> >Atheists insist on proving an emergent property
> >using objective methods, that is a logical flaw.
> >
> >So the atheist's demand on proof is like saying
> >prove to me intelligence exists using the science
> >called chemistry.
>

> But the important thing is, what does Emily have to say
> about it?
>
> Translation: Your statement "isn't even wrong".

>
> >>> But just as an animal could never hope to comprehend human
> >>> intelligence. We could never hope to comprehend the next
> >>> evolutionary step which emerges above us. For instance
> >>> the emergent property of collective intelligence, or wisdom.
> >>>
> >>> Such collective properties do not exist within any single
> >>> person but only when countless individuals are connected.
> >>
> >> Which has...what?...to do with atheism?
>
> >You know nothing about religious philosophy, that
> >is the only thing you've demonstrated in your reply.
> >If I were to ask you to prove to me that calculus
> >is true I but didn't have the foggiest idea what
> >calculus was, needless to say you would never
> >convince me.
>

> So you can't answer the question, and are reduced to claims
> regarding what I know (of which you know nothing)? OK.

>
> >>> And to assume human intelligence is as high as evolution
> >>> can go in all of the universe is the height of arrogance
> >>> and defies the plain and simple observations that life
> >>> on Earth found a way to go from microbes to Microsoft.
>
> >> Good thing no one makes that claim then, isn't it?
>
> >You've just admitted you believe in God
>

> Have I? Exactly where did I do that? Be specific, with
> direct quotes.

>
> >, the fact
> >you don't realize that only means you haven't
> >the first clue about the concept of deity. Yet you
> >profess to lack belief in what you don't understand.
>

> Did I say I lack belief? Exactly where did I do that? Be
> specific, with direct quotes.

> >
> >God is not defined to be some wise old man out there
> >waving a magic wand, that is what is taught to
> >8 year old children.
> >
> >Are you going to hang your debate on your childish
> >view of religion?
>

> I stated a view of religion? Exactly where did I do that? Be
> specific, with direct quotes.

>
> >>> Even in the face of all kinds of set backs and obstacles.
> >>>
> >>> There's nothing rational or logical about atheism.
> >>
> >> Au contraire, mon cher, it is eminently rational and logical
> >> to fail to believe in something for which no evidence
> >> exists.
>
> >There's no evidence in the form of your...choosing, a form
> >not consistent with the concept. You're creating your
> >own logical contradiction by insisting one prove
> >apples exist using oranges.
>

> So you have no rebuttal? OK

>
> >> Of course, most people are driven by emotion, not
> >> rationality or logic, so religious belief of some sort is to
> >> be expected. Which is not to condemn such beliefs, of
> >> course; humans aren't computers.
>
> >"The Missionary to the Mole
> > Must prove there is a Sky
> >Location doubtless he would plead
> > But what excuse have I?"
>

> Emily? Is that you?

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 7:33:54 AM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:45:53 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 5:09:02 PM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 13:21:55 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:19:13 AM UTC-8, raven1 wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:31:15 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> >> >> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Acceptance of Naturalism and/or Materialism to explain or interpret evidence; acceptance of Directed Panspermia,
> >> >> >
> >> >> Peter Nyikos is the only one here arguing for Directed Panspermia, as
> >> >> far as I know, and he isn't an atheist.
> >> >
> >> >Peter is indeed an Atheist. Propagation of DPism says it directly.
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't, and Peter says he isn't.
> >
> >Advocacy of space aliens as responsible for first life on earth, as opposed to God, is clearly a pro-Atheism claim whether you ever acknowledge or not.
>
> No, it is not. It says nothing one way or the other about the
> existence of a deity.

The part where space aliens are responsible for first life on earth, which means a God wasn't. Suddenly your feigning ignorance, which is a common tactic of Atheists.

>
> > Peter's advocacy, in and of itself, means he is an Atheist just like famed Atheist Francis Crick who popularized Directed Panspermia.
> >
> >>
> >> > And Peter thinks when he says a God could or might have done some thing that the same extricates him from Atheism.
> >> >The preceding does not constitute a genuine claim because he isn't arguing that God did something----just the opposite.
> >> >The ONLY time he says God might or could have done something is when someone observes him arguing pro-Atheist claims,
> >> > which renders his "could or might" to also be ad hoc.
> >>
> >> Ray, as has been explained to you innumerable times by dozens of
> >> people, "God created life" and "space aliens propagated it throughout
> >> the universe" are not incompatible claims.
> >
> >Deliberate misrepresentation; nobody has explained anything of the sort; the same was asserted ad hoc, by a few people,
>
> You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it
> means.
>

More feigning ignorance.

> > in response to pointing out that space aliens responsible for biological First Cause, on earth, as opposed to God, is a pro-Atheism claim. And no one was talking about the universe. You only bring that up to try and obscure the pro-Atheism claim of space aliens. Deism has NEVER been about alleged origin of life in the universe because life has not been discovered outside our atmosphere. And everyone knows that. You're looking like the stereotypical Atheist liar. And I understand why you attempt these transparent lies and misrepresentations: they work; millions of "Christians" accept the same origin of species theory that you as an Atheist MUST accept.
>
> Millions of Christians accept biological evolution, yes, for the same
> reasons they accept gravity, germ theory, quantum mechanics, et al:
> the evidence for them is overwhelming.

When Christians and Atheists accept the same life production theory some thing is terribly amiss. The fact of acceptance means these "Christians" reject the Bible (quote marks justified). Atheists, of course, reject the Bible.

>
> >> I don't personally
> >> subscribe to either, but there's no reason a person couldn't subscribe
> >> to both without contradiction.
> >
> >Subjective dismissal while evading all the facts and logic which say otherwise.
> >
> You haven't presented either facts or logic yet.
>
> >> >> > which epitomizes a euphemism: space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause, not God;
> >> >>
> >> >> That's self-contradictory. A biological first cause had to precede
> >> >> space aliens by definition.
> >> >
> >> >Since DPism is about life on earth and the impossibility or abiogenesis, negative.
> >>
> >> DP says nothing about the likelihood of abiogenesis.
> >
> >You're inexcusably ignorant----that's precisely WHY DPism exists: abiogenesis is judged to be IMPOSSIBLE. Crick came to the conclusion that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a DNA replication machine to materialize into existence via non-living matter, so he advocated space aliens.
>
> Where did Crick's space aliens come from?

What is the name of the theory that posits an answer? The reason I ask is because I don't know of anyone who has spent time thinking about it or publishing about it.

>
> >You need to do some homework.
> >
> >>
> >> > So you, like Peter, change the subject to the universe in order to implicate the possibility of Deism behind space aliens.
> >>
> >> I am doing nothing of the kind; I am pointing out that your statement
> >> is self-contradictory. Where did the space aliens come from if they
> >> preceded a biological "first cause", whether that cause was
> >> abiogenesis, or Goddidit?
> >>
> >
> >More evasion of what was actually said.
>
> Yes, on your part.
>
> >> > Since you're an Atheist Deism is not an option to explain alleged origin of life in the universe.
> >>
> >> It's not an option to explain anything, as far as science is
> >> concerned.
> >>
> >> >> > acceptance of abiogenesis;
> >> >>
> >> >> We both accept abiogenesis. You just think there was one more deity
> >> >> involved than I do.
> >> >
> >> >Nonsense above and below; I'm done.
> >>
> >> Ray, do you accept the Genesis creation story? The one where God forms
> >> Adam out of the dust of the Earth, and puts the breath of life in him?
> >> That's abiogenesis, by definition.
> >
> >Then you don't know what abiogenesis is...
>
> I don't know what personal definition of it you may be using, but life
> from non-living material is exactly what is described in the Genesis
> account. That's abiogenesis.

Ridiculous.

abiogenesis:

The "a" acts to negate what follows; "biogenesis" or the origin of life as conveyed in Genesis (life from Life). So abiogenesis is talking about life from non-life or physical matter.

>
> >.so maybe you're not a liar but just plain ignorant or stupid.
> >
> >I'm not here to give 101 lessons in scientific claims.
>
> Nor are you capable of doing so.

If that were true you wouldn't be responding to me.

Ray

[jillery]

Incorrect. Non-life isn't necessarily just physical matter. My
understanding is that you're a a believer in non-physical-matter
things as well, and the definition of abiogenesis doesn't exclude
that.

Besides that, Genesis 2:7

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Either way, Genesis describes life from non-life.

[Jonathan]

But you have to understand how the field of complexity works.

As a /subjective form/ of mathematics everything you've
learned or every process you've used must be rigorously
inversed.

Since the source of knowledge in complexity science
is in output, the outward behavior of the system, the
first problem in quantifying which has to be overcome
is how to define something that not only constantly
changes, but also is the result of a competition
between apples and oranges.

The only way to scientifically deal with subjective
systems...isn't to begin by defining the object or
system at hand as in objective science. But do
the..inverse.

The first step is to define the possibility space
for the system at hand.

To find the /possible range of behavior/ within which
the system at hand can span, from the static to chaotic.

ONLY THEN can one define the actual system in a rational way
in terms of it's relationship to those opposite extremes
in possible behavior.

This means Step One in the scientific method becomes
the ability to imagine the possibilities, the future.
Imagination becomes the most valuable scientific tool.

FOR INSTANCE!

A simple example, I wish to design a system called 'society'.
Or I wish to diagnose an existing system of society and
predict it's behavior.

The first step is to envision what a society would
look like if the static attractor dominates, which
is when the the fixed rules of operation excessively
dominates, such as a dictatorship.

And then imagine what it's opposite, a society where
the chaotic attractor, or excessive freedom dominates
such as anarchy.

The possibility space would be a system with
excessive order on one end, and excessive
disorder on the other.

The correct or /ideal form/ of society would be found
when any observer can no longer tell which of those
two opposites dominates, no matter how expert the
analysis.

Just as with the duality of light, one observer is
as likely to perceive that society as a police state
as another is to see anarchy.

Both attractors are intractably entangled.
As in the Mona Lisa smile.

America accomplished this complexity by having
a strong constitution (fixed rules) combined
with an equally firm Bill of Rights (freedom).

Which is what I mean by apples and oranges.
Order v. disorder.

So dealing with the real live messy subjective
world requires the ability to FIRST imagine the
opposing possibilities of behavior for
....ANY GIVEN SYSTEM.

This means a single scientific method can span
ALL THE DISCIPLINES. A universal mathematics
that not only can deal with the messy subjective
world of rumors and fears and philosphy, but can
show us what all such systems have in common.

AT LAST.

Since one mathematics can be applied to any system
whatsoever when switching to a subjective or complexity
frame of reference.

In my opinion, and that of most in the complexity world
this is the Holy Grail of Science. One discipline
for everything under the sun, and a discipline
that opens the subjective world to cold hard
science

AT LAST.

The minute someone insists on the 'facts' they
are lost when it comes to nature. Facts are
for building the damn thing, for understanding
how nature works the...eh hum opposite is required
which is our imagination.



Jonathan



s

[Jonathan]

On 3/8/2016 1:34 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 21:18:31 -0500, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 3/7/2016 1:49 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Since you persist in failing to define what you mean,
>>> accusing me of beliefs I haven't (and won't) discuss, and
>>> tapdancing around serious questions while accusing me of
>>> failing to "take a stand" (however one can rationally "take
>>> a stand" while believing that objective evidence is, and
>>> will continue to be, unavailable, other than by faith,
>>> resulting in an interminable round of opinion-spouting),
>>> I'll leave you to your fun.
>>>
>>> HAND.
>
>> It's your objective evidence that is faith-based.
>> You still cling to the outdated notion complex
>> adaptive systems and their emergent properties
>> can be understood by reductionist objective
>> methods.
>
> I'd *love* to know where that came from. Is it the same
> source where Ray gets his definition (and apparently, so do
> you) of "atheist"?

In the first sentence of the definition of emergence
is where that comes from. The emergent properties
can't be seen in the parts, so reducing to parts
or objective facts means the emergent properties
become invisible.


Emergence
from Wiki


"In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence
is a process whereby larger entities, patterns, and
regularities arise through interactions among smaller
or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit
such properties."

Almost all accounts of emergentism include a form of
epistemic or ontological irreducibility to the

lower levels.[1]

The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these
are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their
sum or their difference."[5][6]

The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws
does not imply the ability to start from those laws and
reconstruct the universe. The constructionist hypothesis
breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties
of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity
entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not
applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry.
We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more,
but very different from the sum of its parts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

>
>> Your faith in this method is unshakable but
>> only due to all the shiny trinkets and precise
>> equations objective science has produced.
>> Such simplicity is cherished due to our
>> instinctive need for certainty.
>
> Is that the same "instinctive need for certainty" which
> powers most religions, and which makes the idea that we can
> never know some things (aka, "agnosticism") such a dirty
> word?
>

Both camps are searching for our origins, right?
One uses reductionism and facts, the other holism
and philosophy. Two different paths searching for
the same thing.

>> Not by rational thought, which would realize
>> that subjective methods, what you term faith
>> is the only way to understand the real live
>> evolving/emergent universel
>
> And yet science deals with, and studies, emergent properties
> constantly. They leave out the gee-whiz woo; is that your
> objection?
>

Right, but most people still haven't the first idea
what the word emergent means or how to deal with them.

An emergent property is something like a rumor or a panic.
Please show me the equation for a rumor? Or how to
mathematically design or create a panic?

When you can do that, you understand complexity science
and emergence.

>> Your a caveman scientifically speaking
>
> IronyMeter survived again...
>
>> , it's like
>> discussing astronomy with someone that has yet
>> to learn that telescopes exist.
>>
>> Your surrender (empty atheist-like response) is noted.
>
> It's not a "surrender" to realize, and acknowledge, that the
> other party isn't interested in actual communication, but
> only in empty troll-like preaching.
>

What's wrong with preaching?