Re: Quote from Tim Ball

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 04 May 2015 20:30:15 -0700, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca> wrote:

> In this quote he is appealing to the fundamentalist Christians to
> climb aboard his ship of lies.
>
> "Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after
> it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in
> schools. Why?

For the same reason 2+8=10 is the only view a;llowed in schools.

> Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure
> of indefensibility.[9]"

Yeah, that's right. I fear that 2+8 might equal 7.

> Another of the same style.
> "Perhaps the ultimate irony[10] is that the biblical views on nature,
> human roles and responsibilities are as logical as any other including
> modern environmentalism.[11]"

The Bible claims that the gods had a party on the top of a mountain and
got drunk. That's "logical?"

> Yes they are Tim Ball quotes.
>
> It is really sickening when it gets into Canadian politics
> "A few days later, CanWest reported that the targeting of the FoS
> radio ad campaign to key Ontario ridings was directed by then FoS
> media contact Morten Paulsen (later a vice-president at
> Fleishman-Hillard), who also served as volunteer spokesperson for the
> Stephen Harper led Conservative Party of Canada during the election.
> [9]"
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Friends_of_Science


--
"We will never have the elite smart people on our side." -- Rick Santorum

[Bill]

You merely complain without saying why you're so miffed. Are
you saying that there are no alternatives to your views or,
if there are, they are wrong? If you are protesting against
alternatives to your point of view, doesn't that make you as
dogmatic as those who offend you?

Bill

[Inez]

If you think that 2+8=10, does rejecting 2+8=7 make you dogmatic?

[Roger Shrubber]

On that topic, yes. And so, is being dogmatic necessarily bad?

But for some reason this spawned a crazy thought.

What if Bill is a researcher for a GOP think tank. Here's where
I'm coming from. The thing about Tim Ball's complaint is that it
is rooted in false premises and then proceeds through non-sequiturs
in a manner that still manages to approximate the general style
of a rational argument. It's like you began with a decent argument
and then stripped out parts before playing Mad Libbs with it.

We recognize the overall semblance of a reasoned argument. There
is a premise, and it's developed, some of the words are those
involved in the syntax of logic, "since", "therefore", "because",
"and so", that sort of thing. But it also looks like a crude
imitation of a Picasso on LSD. The bits don't really fit together.

And it rather boggle the mind on where to start to either take
it apart or put it together enough to answer it. It's the
quintessence of "not even wrong". And that's my best summary of
the typical argument from Bill.

So what if it's all a plot (ready your tin-foil hat) to find
the best way to put up completely nonsensical gibberish that
still bears some resemblance to an actual rational argument.
They are probing our brains, looking for a secret hacker code
that will so sicken our logic circuits that they trigger a
self-destruct sequence. Something like those strobe light
sequences that trigger seizures in that Pokeman cartoon.

Sound crazy? Well then you explain Bill's behavior.

[Inez]

Yes! Those guys are like Mao x Stalin to the Hitlerth power.

> But for some reason this spawned a crazy thought.
>
> What if Bill is a researcher for a GOP think tank. Here's where
> I'm coming from. The thing about Tim Ball's complaint is that it
> is rooted in false premises and then proceeds through non-sequiturs
> in a manner that still manages to approximate the general style
> of a rational argument. It's like you began with a decent argument
> and then stripped out parts before playing Mad Libbs with it.
>
> We recognize the overall semblance of a reasoned argument. There
> is a premise, and it's developed, some of the words are those
> involved in the syntax of logic, "since", "therefore", "because",
> "and so", that sort of thing. But it also looks like a crude
> imitation of a Picasso on LSD. The bits don't really fit together.
>
> And it rather boggle the mind on where to start to either take
> it apart or put it together enough to answer it. It's the
> quintessence of "not even wrong". And that's my best summary of
> the typical argument from Bill.

My belief is that his name is Brill. It would be extremely dogmatic of him to suggest his belief is superior to my own, so Brill it is.

> So what if it's all a plot (ready your tin-foil hat) to find
> the best way to put up completely nonsensical gibberish that
> still bears some resemblance to an actual rational argument.
> They are probing our brains, looking for a secret hacker code
> that will so sicken our logic circuits that they trigger a
> self-destruct sequence. Something like those strobe light
> sequences that trigger seizures in that Pokeman cartoon.
>
> Sound crazy? Well then you explain Bill's behavior.

I've always pegged him for one of those mild mannered god-of-the-gaps guys, who just wants a little place of doubt and mystery for his God to exist. He claims not to be religious though, so who knows?

[John Bode]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 9:33:34 AM UTC-5, Desertphile wrote:
> On Mon, 04 May 2015 20:30:15 -0700, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > In this quote he is appealing to the fundamentalist Christians to
> > climb aboard his ship of lies.
> >
> > "Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after
> > it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in
> > schools. Why?
>
> For the same reason 2+8=10 is the only view a;llowed in schools.
>

2+8=*A*, you heathen! Our children are only allowed to learn the Decimalist viewpoint! We need more Hexadecimalism in our schools!

Seriously, number systems are completely arbitrary. Decimal is convenient for some things, damned inconvenient for others. Hell, Schoolhouse Rock had a short back in the '70s that demonstrated a duodecimal (base 12) number system ("Little Twelve Toes", one of my favorites growing up).

Best to stick with examples like "for the same reason Earth is shown as an oblate spheroid".

[Bill]

That hasn't been shown to be the case.

Bill

[Bill]

I'll tell you what's crazy. I read - and comprehended- your
post. Worse still, I Actually thought it well done. Since
you are obviously on acid and I am less so, I can disagree
without being disagreeable.

Bill

[Inez]

What hasn't been shown to be the case? That 2+8=10? Or that rejecting other answers makes you dogmatic?

[Bill]

What if a+b=π, the LHS will forever be irrational making all
subsequent instances of the RHS incorrect. Arguing otherwise
is dogmatic.

Bill

[A.Carlson]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 13:42:05 -0400, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Desertphile wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 May 2015 20:30:15 -0700, gordo
>> <grme...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> In this quote he is appealing to the fundamentalist
>>> Christians to climb aboard his ship of lies.
>>>
>>> "Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148
>>> years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is
>>> the only view allowed in schools. Why?

So Bill, do you also share the view that, within science, when a
'theory' is somehow determined to be true it is then referred to as a
'law' ?

Do you also share this same viewpoint concerning the germ 'theory'?,
The heliocentric 'theory'?, the plate tectonics 'theory'?

The only place I have seen such nonsense is in funDAMNmentalist
home-schooling material. It certainly doesn't reflect mainstream
science.

>> For the same reason 2+8=10 is the only view a;llowed in
>> schools.
>>
>>> Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure
>>> of indefensibility.[9]"

The way to get LEGITIMATE scientific material into the curriculum is
through the front door, with proper evidence. Preventing religious
nutters from trying to surreptitiously slip religious dogma through is
hardly indefensible.

>> Yeah, that's right. I fear that 2+8 might equal 7.
>>
>>> Another of the same style.
>>> "Perhaps the ultimate irony[10] is that the biblical
>>> views on nature, human roles and responsibilities are as
>>> logical as any other including modern
>>> environmentalism.[11]"
>>
>> The Bible claims that the gods had a party on the top of a
>> mountain and got drunk. That's "logical?"
>>
>>> Yes they are Tim Ball quotes.
>>>
>>> It is really sickening when it gets into Canadian
>>> politics "A few days later, CanWest reported that the
>>> targeting of the FoS radio ad campaign to key Ontario
>>> ridings was directed by then FoS media contact Morten
>>> Paulsen (later a vice-president at Fleishman-Hillard),
>>> who also served as volunteer spokesperson for the Stephen
>>> Harper led Conservative Party of Canada during the
>>> election.
>>> [9]"
>>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Friends_of_Science
>>
>>
>
>You merely complain without saying why you're so miffed. Are
>you saying that there are no alternatives to your views or,
>if there are, they are wrong? If you are protesting against
>alternatives to your point of view, doesn't that make you as
>dogmatic as those who offend you?

Produce an idea or concept alternative to the ToE that has evidence
backing it and that can stand up to honest scientific scrutiny but is
still summarily dismissed and you might have a point.

It just so happens that much of the bullshit produced by young earth
creationists in particular is far too often not only not supported by
the evidence but actually is demonstrably wrong.

There often are alternative viewpoints within science but like any
other *legitimate* idea there is empirical evidence supporting them.

The main problem with Creationism being taught as some sort of
legitimate science, which it clearly is not, is that what it really is
is an attempt to slip religion into the scientific curriculum under
false pretenses.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Fri, 22 May 2015 18:07:22 -0400, Bill wrote:

> Inez wrote:
>
>> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 3:28:31 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
>>> Inez wrote:

<snip>

>>> > If you think that 2+8=10, does rejecting 2+8=7 make you dogmatic?
>>>
>>> That hasn't been shown to be the case.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> What hasn't been shown to be the case? That 2+8=10? Or that rejecting
>> other answers makes you dogmatic?
>
> What if a+b=π, the LHS will forever be irrational making all subsequent
> instances of the RHS incorrect. Arguing otherwise is dogmatic.
>
> Bill

I strongly suggest you use that reasoning the next time you buy
groceries. Please tell us about the result. It would be... um....
interesting.

Admittedly, this is the first time I've seen someone dismissing basic
arithmetic, so I wonder what a supermarket cashier would make of it.

[Inez]

That wasn't really the question though was it Brill? Try and focus.

[Bill]

> dismissing basic arithmetic, buying anyuthin so I wonder

what a
> supermarket cashier would make of it.

Try using currency based on pi and you'll be getting change
for the rest of the day.

Bill

[Inez]

You seem to be dodging the larger question. Do you believe that there are some things that are true and others that are false? Or is reality just a subjective construct?

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:CYadndlEsJiTOMLI...@giganews.com:

> Inez wrote:
>> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 11:43:32 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:

[snip]

>>> You merely complain without saying why you're so miffed. Are
>>> you saying that there are no alternatives to your views or,
>>> if there are, they are wrong? If you are protesting against
>>> alternatives to your point of view, doesn't that make you as
>>> dogmatic as those who offend you?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> If you think that 2+8=10, does rejecting 2+8=7 make you dogmatic?
>
> On that topic, yes.

No. 'Think' is the operative word. I think that 2 + 8 = 10 because I
understand that the equation represents a particular mathematical
process for increasing a positive integer, by a specified number of
increments of 1. I don't have to proclaim the dogma that 2 + 8 = 10: I
can prove it!

Start with the positive integer 2: 2

Specify eight increments of 1: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, *10*

Amazing!

I reject 2 + 8 = 7 because I understand that the process leads to a
different result. Nothing needs to be taken on faith.

> And so, is being dogmatic necessarily bad?

If you define 'understanding simple mathematical operations' as a subset
of 'being dogmatic', then 'being dogmatic' is not necessarily bad, no.

> But for some reason this spawned a crazy thought.
>
> What if Bill is a researcher for a GOP think tank.

Then they should demand his resignation immediately.

> Here's where I'm coming from. The thing about Tim Ball's complaint is
> that it is rooted in false premises and then proceeds through
> non-sequiturs in a manner that still manages to approximate the
> general style of a rational argument. It's like you began with a
> decent argument and then stripped out parts before playing Mad Libbs
> with it.

Tim Ball is a crank, but not an incoherent one. The two quotations from
him in the original post were excerpts from the last paragraph of an
editorial he co-wrote with one Tom Harris in January 2008 and the last
paragraph of a blog post he made on April 2011. Creationists aren't the
only ones who enjoy a bit of quote mining.

> We recognize the overall semblance of a reasoned argument. There
> is a premise, and it's developed, some of the words are those
> involved in the syntax of logic, "since", "therefore", "because",
> "and so", that sort of thing. But it also looks like a crude
> imitation of a Picasso on LSD. The bits don't really fit together.

That's usually the case when someone takes two unrelated quotations out
of context and you interpret them as a single complaint.

> And it rather boggle the mind on where to start to either take
> it apart or put it together enough to answer it. It's the
> quintessence of "not even wrong". And that's my best summary of
> the typical argument from Bill.
>
> So what if it's all a plot (ready your tin-foil hat) to find
> the best way to put up completely nonsensical gibberish that
> still bears some resemblance to an actual rational argument.
> They are probing our brains, looking for a secret hacker code
> that will so sicken our logic circuits that they trigger a
> self-destruct sequence. Something like those strobe light
> sequences that trigger seizures in that Pokeman cartoon.

And they're doing that in talk.origins? Coals to bloody Newcastle, that
is.

> Sound crazy? Well then you explain Bill's behavior.

Easily done. Look up the thread 'A Thought Experiment' from last
November. Jimbo closed a response to one of Bill's effusions thus:

On the other hand, if you want to start a new religious cult,
you're on the right track. Gather around a group of like-minded
enthusiasts and pass around some 'shrooms.

Bill's response:

I prefer weed and I'll confess it prompts unbidden thoughts from
time to time. In this case I was wondering how we could know if the
universe deliberately evolved human intelligence. How could we even
tell?

I doubt that any of the sciences can be of any help nor do I have
any confidence in any of the dominant philosophies. About the best
we can do wonder about it. Alas, everyone seems to already have
their answers so fresh thinking is unwelcome. Fortunately there are
magical herbs to jump start the process.

I put it to you that an overindulgence in magical herbs explains
everything that needs to be explained about Bill.
--
S.O.P.

[Bill]

> I put it to you that an over indulgence in magical herbs

> explains everything that needs to be explained about Bill.

Since I am not the topic of conversations I find
interesting, I have to wonder why my name comes up. It may
be because it's easier to talk about me than what I've said.
This is fine for gossips and idiots but dodging a point is
not refuting it.

Bill

[Bill]

It is true that people believe their beliefs are true. These
same people will believe that contrary beliefs are false.
What is true or false is always a subjective judgment based
on what one believes already; new evidence is filtered,
sorted and reassigned to preexisting biases. This has always
been the case and will likely remain so.

I believe that there is a reality, a context for our
experiences. This context cannot be shown to be real or
illusory because we're caught in the middle of it. Reality
may be entirely subjective even if we aren't the subject but
how can we know? Best bet, accept the appearances of the
moment.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

Then how is it possible for people to change their minds? Other people,
I mean. I know the task is beyond your abilities.

> I believe that there is a reality, a context for our
> experiences. This context cannot be shown to be real or
> illusory because we're caught in the middle of it. Reality
> may be entirely subjective even if we aren't the subject but
> how can we know? Best bet, accept the appearances of the
> moment.

Other people might suggest going exploring, looking at new things, and
at old things from different angles, testing one's assumptions, taking
risks, having an adventure even. But what fun is that? Far safer to
sit staring into the same corner where you have always sat staring.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Robert Camp]

Every glimpse of your personal epistemology that you post leaves me more
and more unsure of whether you believe there is anything at all we can
say about reality. Such a perspective is, of course, either entirely at
odds with the task of conducting a reasonably sane day to day life, or
is one adopted for the purposes of camouflaging empty arguments.

Because you manage to capably post to this forum, I have to believe your
rhetoric is a front. What I can't figure out is if this is chicanery or
you really are just confused.

I do grant that you are toeing the line quite nimbly though - many of us
are trying to work out that question even after all this time. Could you
please have pity and give us some kind of clue?

[Bill]

Robert Camp wrote:

...

>> I believe that there is a reality, a context for our
>> experiences. This context cannot be shown to be real or
>> illusory because we're caught in the middle of it.
>> Reality may be entirely subjective even if we aren't the
>> subject but how can we know? Best bet, accept the
>> appearances of the moment.
>
> Every glimpse of your personal epistemology that you post
> leaves me more and more unsure of whether you believe
> there is anything at all we can say about reality. Such a
> perspective is, of course, either entirely at odds with
> the task of conducting a reasonably sane day to day life,
> or is one adopted for the purposes of camouflaging empty
> arguments.
>
> Because you manage to capably post to this forum, I have
> to believe your rhetoric is a front. What I can't figure
> out is if this is chicanery or you really are just
> confused.
>
> I do grant that you are toeing the line quite nimbly
> though - many of us are trying to work out that question
> even after all this time. Could you please have pity and
> give us some kind of clue?

What I discovered over the years is that I misunderstand
stuff. I form some opinion and then hear the other side that
makes me rethink what I thought I knew. As much as I would
like to know something with absolute certainty, I don't
think it's even possible.

Because I see every answer as just a complex of unpersuasive
explanations for imperfectly understood questions, I'm
skeptical of any claim of certainty. Apparently others here
are content with whatever is currently the current
explanations. I believe this is both naive and lazy.

So, my beliefs are -always- a work in progress, usually
depending on fragile data. How then can I have any
confidence in materialism, naturalism or reductionism? These
are assumptions not answers. By ignoring the clamor for some
version of Absolute Truth, I'm not limited to the pat
answers others find so satisfying.

This seems to frustrate some posters here. They believe, it
seems, that I should be a True Believer in whatever standard
model is popular. I can suggest that the existence of
intelligent observers has significance beyond mere biology.
I can reasonably infer the possibility that our existence is
the consequence of intent.

This is because I have no rock solid, inviolate
preconceptions about how things -should be-, no immoveable
assumptions forcing unjustifiable conclusions. The confusion
is not that I say annoying things but that posters here are
dominated by their unexamined assumptions.

Bill

[Bill]

Mark Isaak wrote:

...

>>
>> It is true that people believe their beliefs are true.
>> These same people will believe that contrary beliefs are
>> false. What is true or false is always a subjective
>> judgment based on what one believes already; new evidence
>> is filtered, sorted and reassigned to preexisting biases.
>> This has always been the case and will likely remain so.
>
> Then how is it possible for people to change their minds?
> Other people,
> I mean. I know the task is beyond your abilities.

Not so. I was going to agree with you and then I changed my
mind.

>
>> I believe that there is a reality, a context for our
>> experiences. This context cannot be shown to be real or
>> illusory because we're caught in the middle of it.
>> Reality may be entirely subjective even if we aren't the
>> subject but how can we know? Best bet, accept the
>> appearances of the moment.
>
> Other people might suggest going exploring, looking at new
> things, and at old things from different angles, testing
> one's assumptions, taking
> risks, having an adventure even. But what fun is that?
> Far safer to sit staring into the same corner where you
> have always sat staring.

Who is slavishly following every new pronouncement from this
or that scientific study? When I read the sources cited here
as evidence for some theory, I also note the numerous
qualifiers such as, could be, might be, etc. This will
almost always negate the impression of authority. This is
not a good way to develop opinions, questions remain open
and I remain unsure. Some folks find this lack of commitment
unbearable.

Bill

[Inez]

So then 8+2=10 is just an opinion. Got it.

> I believe that there is a reality, a context for our
> experiences. This context cannot be shown to be real or
> illusory because we're caught in the middle of it. Reality
> may be entirely subjective even if we aren't the subject but
> how can we know? Best bet, accept the appearances of the
> moment.
>
> Bill

I don't know what to tell you Brill. I think you're nuts, but I'm unlikely to convince you of it, so have a nice day I guess.

[jillery]

On Sat, 23 May 2015 16:18:08 -0400, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Since I am not the topic of conversations I find
>interesting, I have to wonder why my name comes up. It may
>be because it's easier to talk about me than what I've said.
>This is fine for gossips and idiots but dodging a point is
>not refuting it.

<PING> Dang it.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

Ok... so tell me...

Given that A is any boolean expression, please evaluate the following

A and not A : true or false?
A or not A : true or false?

> I believe that there is a reality, a context for our experiences. This
> context cannot be shown to be real or illusory because we're caught in
> the middle of it. Reality may be entirely subjective even if we aren't
> the subject but how can we know? Best bet, accept the appearances of the
> moment.

So basically you're saying we can't know anything since everything may be
subjective, including pure mathematics.

[solar penguin]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 12:50:32 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:

> On Sat, 23 May 2015 16:27:17 -0400, Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> It is true that people believe their beliefs are true. These same
>> people will believe that contrary beliefs are false. What is true or
>> false is always a subjective judgment based on what one believes
>> already; new evidence is filtered, sorted and reassigned to preexisting
>> biases. This has always been the case and will likely remain so.
>
> Ok... so tell me...
>
> Given that A is any boolean expression, please evaluate the following
>
> A and not A : true or false?
> A or not A : true or false?
>

I hate to agree with Bill, but for once he has a point. Boolean
expressions, with their sharp artificial divide between True and False
aren't always the best approach in practice.

That's one reason why many advanced computer systems often use fuzzy
logic, and why scientists are developing quantum computers.

[Robert Camp]

No one that you would consider an intellectual opponent does. Please try
not to spend all your time in strawman-land. And everyone knows that
they misunderstand stuff. This is neither profound nor refreshingly candid.

The point is that no one thinks they misunderstand *everything* either,
as is suggested by your apparent "epistemology" (at least when
convenient). Likewise, 'unable to know with absolute certainty' and
'able to know things about reality' are not mutually exclusive.

> Because I see every answer as just a complex of unpersuasive
> explanations for imperfectly understood questions, I'm
> skeptical of any claim of certainty.

I really don't think you do, and I really don't think you are.

As I suggested, this would result in broad-scale catatonia.

> Apparently others here
> are content with whatever is currently the current
> explanations. I believe this is both naive and lazy.

"Come back, Shane." Come back from Scarecrow City. Please come back so
we can have an actual discussion about actual things.

> So, my beliefs are -always- a work in progress, usually
> depending on fragile data. How then can I have any
> confidence in materialism, naturalism or reductionism? These
> are assumptions not answers. By ignoring the clamor for some
> version of Absolute Truth, I'm not limited to the pat
> answers others find so satisfying.

I'm sorry, but this gets to be hilarious after a while.

> This seems to frustrate some posters here. They believe, it
> seems, that I should be a True Believer in whatever standard
> model is popular. I can suggest that the existence of
> intelligent observers has significance beyond mere biology.
> I can reasonably infer the possibility that our existence is
> the consequence of intent.

You haven't done this "reasonably." That's the point. What I'm trying to
figure out is whether your inability to see this results from
embarrassment at having made so little sense, or sincere confusion.
You're still not helping.

> This is because I have no rock solid, inviolate
> preconceptions about how things -should be-, no immoveable
> assumptions forcing unjustifiable conclusions. The confusion
> is not that I say annoying things but that posters here are
> dominated by their unexamined assumptions.

Stop, please, give me time to catch my breath. My sides are beginning to
ache.

[Mark Isaak]

I think Bill is still thinking in dichotomies. He does not see the gray
area between certain and uncertain.

[Bill]

Most people live by the simple dichotomy of: there is black
which is always wrong and there is white which is
infallible. Since gray areas are neither black nor white,
they don't exist.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

What you say right here, seems to contradict other things you have said.

> It is true that people believe their beliefs are true. These
> same people will believe that contrary beliefs are false.
> What is true or false is always a subjective judgment based
> on what one believes already; new evidence is filtered,
> sorted and reassigned to preexisting biases. This has always
> been the case and will likely remain so.

In an earlier thread, I said "According to you all evidence is viewed by whoever sees it simply as confirmation of what they want to believe anyway. Under the model of epistemology you have advanced in your posts, it means nothing for anyone to say that an explanation is correct, or that it is incorrect."

You replied that you were not "that bad" and that all you meant was that all explanations are provisional. And yet, here, in this post, you are back to claiming that evidence cannot mean anything because it will always be filtered through pre-existing biases.

You really should not complain that people seem to have trouble understanding you. Are you an epistemological nihilist? Do you think evidence matters? Or do you think that everybody simply filters all possible evidence to conform to whatever they wanted to believe anyway? If you really believe that, discussion is pointless.

>
> I believe that there is a reality, a context for our
> experiences. This context cannot be shown to be real or
> illusory because we're caught in the middle of it. Reality
> may be entirely subjective even if we aren't the subject but
> how can we know? Best bet, accept the appearances of the
> moment.

This paragraph is a good example of why many find you hard to understand. You say that you believe that "there is a reality, a context for our experiences." It's clear that you mean there is a *REALITY*. Yet in the very next sentence you say that this context (which you just called reality) cannot be shown to be real or illusory. In the space of two sentences you go from asserting the existence of reality to the claim that you cannot say whether it is reality or illusion.

I guess accepting the appearances of the moment, means that hen reading the paragraph above I should first accept the appearance that you are claiming to be a realist, and then, in the moment I read the subsequent sentence, accept the appearance that you are not.

>
> Bill

[Bill]

I really don't have any firm opinions. I thought I made that
clear. Everything is in constant flux, things happen once
and then are replaced by what happens next. Why is this a
problem? Granted, it seems kind of slippery if you believe
in solid, incontrovertible, immutable fact, but why chase
after something that changes before you reach it?

It's because of this incessant change that I don't rush to
judge the value of this or that manifestation of the change.
Things happen, I think about it and then new things happen.
Sometimes events seems to have a relationship of some kind
but more information always modifies it.

I know this annoys people here, but is it because I don't
accept their certainties, or that I have difficulty
accepting the very concept of certainty? I would not have
said any of this if my name weren't brought up. What should
matter is what I say instead of why I said it.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

I think that there is a wide and useful space between certainty and epistemological nihilism. Some things are more certain than others even if nothing is absolutely certain. But, if you think that there are no distinctions to be made between more or less certain conclusions, between better and worse explanations, between stronger or weaker evidential support for a theory, then, as I said above, there's really nothing much to discuss. You can simply enjoy your constant flux, without trying to justify whatever idea happens to be occurring to you at the moment, since it will soon be replaced by another idea, and there'll be no way to decide which idea was better. If that floats your boat, carry on, no need for anyone else to be involved.

[Mark Isaak]

"Most people" meaning, apparently, you and nobody else.

[Mark Isaak]

> problem?[...]

Here, drink a bottle of this delicious drain cleaner. I am not entirely
certain as to its nutritive value, but no matter. You have made it
clear that such uncertainty is nothing to bother with.

[Inez]

No they don't.

[Ernest Major]

On 22/05/2015 23:21, Inez wrote:

> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 2:53:32 PM UTC-7, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>> Inez wrote:

>>> On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 11:43:32 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:

>>>> You merely complain without saying why you're so miffed. Are
>>>> you saying that there are no alternatives to your views or,
>>>> if there are, they are wrong? If you are protesting against
>>>> alternatives to your point of view, doesn't that make you as
>>>> dogmatic as those who offend you?
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>

>>> If you think that 2+8=10, does rejecting 2+8=7 make you dogmatic?
>>

>> On that topic, yes. And so, is being dogmatic necessarily bad?
>>
> Yes! Those guys are like Mao x Stalin to the Hitlerth power.

>
>> But for some reason this spawned a crazy thought.
>>

>> What if Bill is a researcher for a GOP think tank. Here's where

>> I'm coming from. The thing about Tim Ball's complaint is that it
>> is rooted in false premises and then proceeds through non-sequiturs
>> in a manner that still manages to approximate the general style
>> of a rational argument. It's like you began with a decent argument
>> and then stripped out parts before playing Mad Libbs with it.
>>

>> We recognize the overall semblance of a reasoned argument. There
>> is a premise, and it's developed, some of the words are those
>> involved in the syntax of logic, "since", "therefore", "because",
>> "and so", that sort of thing. But it also looks like a crude
>> imitation of a Picasso on LSD. The bits don't really fit together.
>>

>> And it rather boggle the mind on where to start to either take
>> it apart or put it together enough to answer it. It's the
>> quintessence of "not even wrong". And that's my best summary of
>> the typical argument from Bill.
>

> My belief is that his name is Brill. It would be extremely dogmatic of him to suggest his belief is superior to my own, so Brill it is.

>
>> So what if it's all a plot (ready your tin-foil hat) to find
>> the best way to put up completely nonsensical gibberish that
>> still bears some resemblance to an actual rational argument.
>> They are probing our brains, looking for a secret hacker code
>> that will so sicken our logic circuits that they trigger a
>> self-destruct sequence. Something like those strobe light
>> sequences that trigger seizures in that Pokeman cartoon.
>>

>> Sound crazy? Well then you explain Bill's behavior.
>

> I've always pegged him for one of those mild mannered god-of-the-gaps guys, who just wants a little place of doubt and mystery for his God to exist. He claims not to be religious though, so who knows?
>

I've speculated that he finds it important that Bill be the purpose of
the universe.

--
alias Ernest Major

From pos...@giganews.com Mon May 25 13:11:16 2015

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 24 May 2015 15:17:40 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

So much the worse for those people, since most of nature is
neither all black nor all white. Even the ancient Chinese
knew that; see any depiction of yin-yang.
--

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

From ne...@eternal-september.org Mon May 25 15:47:25 2015

[Earle Jones27]

*
Obviously, Bill has read and understood his Bible:

Matthew 5:13

"Let your response be "yea, yea" or "nay, nay"
for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil.

earle
*

From pos...@giganews.com Mon May 25 19:38:51 2015

[Earle Jones27]

*
Bill: Since you have no firm opinions, it doesn't matter WHAT you say
or WHY you say it.

Did you score well on your tests at school?

earle
*

From pos...@giganews.com Mon May 25 20:23:06 2015

[Bill]

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

..

>>
>> I know this annoys people here, but is it because I don't
>> accept their certainties, or that I have difficulty
>> accepting the very concept of certainty? I would not have
>> said any of this if my name weren't brought up. What
>> should matter is what I say instead of why I said it.
>>
>> Bill
>
> I think that there is a wide and useful space between
> certainty and epistemological nihilism. Some things are
> more certain than others even if nothing is absolutely
> certain. But, if you think that there are no distinctions
> to be made between more or less certain conclusions,
> between better and worse explanations, between stronger or
> weaker evidential support for a theory, then, as I said
> above, there's really nothing much to discuss. You can
> simply enjoy your constant flux, without trying to justify
> whatever idea happens to be occurring to you at the
> moment, since it will soon be replaced by another idea,
> and there'll be no way to decide which idea was better. If
> that floats your boat, carry on, no need for anyone else
> to be involved.

You oversimplify. By not accepting certainty as a desirable
outcome of thought, I resist leaping to conclusions. There
is a continuum of doubt with neither extreme being
certainty. It is possible to doubt some things more than
others based on apparent agreement with observation. Degrees
of doubt are the only sane response.

There are proposals that the universe is a hologram or a
computer simulation or one of infinitely many alternate
realities (the many-world hypothesis) or one of many, maybe
infinite possible universes (multi-verse). What these
speculations mean is that, whatever view we have of the
universe, there is room for doubt.

When any possible interpretation of nature has an element of
doubt (and they all do), why prefer one interpretation over
any other when the available data supports several?

Bill

From ne...@eternal-september.org Mon May 25 13:30:23 2015

[Bill]

Since everyone else has firm opinions, I have only to sit
back and watch them try to defend them. Since new
information pours in all the time that might render some
opinions obsolete, the only defense is dogmatic assertion.
This is what I usually respond to.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 2:05:46 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ..
>
> >>
> >> I know this annoys people here, but is it because I don't
> >> accept their certainties, or that I have difficulty
> >> accepting the very concept of certainty? I would not have
> >> said any of this if my name weren't brought up. What
> >> should matter is what I say instead of why I said it.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> > I think that there is a wide and useful space between
> > certainty and epistemological nihilism. Some things are
> > more certain than others even if nothing is absolutely
> > certain. But, if you think that there are no distinctions
> > to be made between more or less certain conclusions,
> > between better and worse explanations, between stronger or
> > weaker evidential support for a theory, then, as I said
> > above, there's really nothing much to discuss. You can
> > simply enjoy your constant flux, without trying to justify
> > whatever idea happens to be occurring to you at the
> > moment, since it will soon be replaced by another idea,
> > and there'll be no way to decide which idea was better. If
> > that floats your boat, carry on, no need for anyone else
> > to be involved.

Wow, you've done it again.

>
> You oversimplify. By not accepting certainty as a desirable
> outcome of thought, I resist leaping to conclusions. There
> is a continuum of doubt with neither extreme being
> certainty. It is possible to doubt some things more than
> others based on apparent agreement with observation. Degrees
> of doubt are the only sane response.

Good, here you say degrees of doubt are the only sane response, based on degrees of agreement with observation. Looks like we're cool here. All conclusions are provisional, some are more provisional than others depending on how well they fit the evidence.

>
> There are proposals that the universe is a hologram or a
> computer simulation or one of infinitely many alternate
> realities (the many-world hypothesis) or one of many, maybe
> infinite possible universes (multi-verse). What these
> speculations mean is that, whatever view we have of the
> universe, there is room for doubt.

You needn't have gone back to argue that there is room for doubt. We all agree about that. And it applies not just to the extreme edges of physics.

>
> When any possible interpretation of nature has an element of
> doubt (and they all do), why prefer one interpretation over
> any other when the available data supports several?

Arggh. Did you forget your own first paragraph? You prefer one interpretation over others when the data is more compatible with one than with the others. If data supports several interpretations equally well, then, of course, there's no way to choose. That situation, the data supporting multiple interpretations equally well, however, is not particularly common, though it may seem that way if you are not familiar with the details of some particular field.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <mjvldr$7mf$1...@dont-email.me>

And yet on the basis of minimal information, you conclude that Earth is
unique in its lefe-bearing properties.

Perhaps you could explain this inconsistency?

> There is a continuum of doubt with neither extreme being certainty.
> It is possible to doubt some things more than others based on
> apparent agreement with observation. Degrees of doubt are the only
> sane response.
>
> There are proposals that the universe is a hologram or a
> computer simulation or one of infinitely many alternate
> realities (the many-world hypothesis) or one of many, maybe
> infinite possible universes (multi-verse). What these
> speculations mean is that, whatever view we have of the
> universe, there is room for doubt.
>
> When any possible interpretation of nature has an element of
> doubt (and they all do), why prefer one interpretation over
> any other when the available data supports several?

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[jillery]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 15:12:19 -0400, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Since everyone else has firm opinions, I have only to sit
>back and watch them try to defend them. Since new
>information pours in all the time that might render some
>opinions obsolete, the only defense is dogmatic assertion.

>This is what I usually respond with.


Fixed it for you. You're welcome.

[Bill]

Nick Roberts wrote:



...

>> You oversimplify. By not accepting certainty as a
>> desirable outcome of thought, I resist leaping to
>> conclusions.
>
> And yet on the basis of minimal information, you conclude
> that Earth is unique in its lefe-bearing properties.
>
> Perhaps you could explain this inconsistency?

That is not my conclusion and I haven't offered it as one.
What I have said is that the evidence points to that
conclusion. That conclusion is as valid as any other using
the same evidence. Others have argued that the possible
existence of possible evidence to the contrary, makes my
tentative proposal unwarranted.

The logic seems to be that evidence for their point of view
might exist, maybe, someday will support their rejection of
my observations. Since my observations are actually observed
and scientifically verified and readily tested facts, it
seems perverse to invoke future knowledge to dispute them.

The real inconsistency is appealing to non-evidence as
evidence for supporting unsupportable objections to my
simple proposal. I have consistently made this point without
ever claiming the proposal as a conclusion; it is an
inference, one way of interpreting the actually existing
facts at hand.

Rather that dodging the issue with irrelevant quibbles, why
no show how my proposal is flawed? Show the evidence that
makes falsifies. See if you can do it without resorting to
future facts.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

There is no available evidence for the presence of life, or for the absence of life, anywhere other than earth. Neither conclusion is better supported by the available evidence. As everyone keeps telling you, the correct conclusion is that we do not have sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion one way or the other.

Your proposal (hypothesis?) that life is unique to earth, is no better supported by data than the proposal that life is not unique to earth. There is no data on which to base a conclusion.

The nice thing is that the evidence you want for your proposal would come from the same experiments that would provide evidence to support the opposite proposal. People largely agree on what experiments to do. Now all you need do is wait, with suspended judgement and baited breath.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 17:28:08 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Nick Roberts wrote:
>
>
>
>...
>
>>> You oversimplify. By not accepting certainty as a
>>> desirable outcome of thought, I resist leaping to
>>> conclusions.
>>
>> And yet on the basis of minimal information, you conclude
>> that Earth is unique in its lefe-bearing properties.
>>
>> Perhaps you could explain this inconsistency?
>
>That is not my conclusion and I haven't offered it as one.
>What I have said is that the evidence points to that
>conclusion. That conclusion is as valid as any other using
>the same evidence. Others have argued that the possible
>existence of possible evidence to the contrary, makes my
>tentative proposal unwarranted.

It wasn't a "tentative proposal"; you stated unequivocally
that "Earth is unique". Not much wiggle room there, although
you seem to keep trying.

>The logic seems to be that evidence for their point of view
>might exist, maybe, someday will support their rejection of
>my observations. Since my observations are actually observed
>and scientifically verified and readily tested facts, it
>seems perverse to invoke future knowledge to dispute them.

The fact, as you have been told (and have ignored) many,
*many*, *MANY* times, is that we don't know if life exists
elsewhere, and that we have yet to do any sort of real
search for it.

Your conclusion is based on *lack* of evidence, when the
evidence hasn't been sought. So you're actually guilty of
what you accuse others of: concluding something based on a
lack of evidence.

>The real inconsistency is appealing to non-evidence as
>evidence for supporting unsupportable objections to my
>simple proposal.

....which no one has done.

> I have consistently made this point without
>ever claiming the proposal as a conclusion; it is an
>inference, one way of interpreting the actually existing
>facts at hand.

You have indeed claimed that your assertion is a conclusion;
"Earth is unique", which you *have* stated in exactly those
words, allows of no other interpretation.

>Rather that dodging the issue with irrelevant quibbles, why
>no show how my proposal is flawed? Show the evidence that
>makes falsifies. See if you can do it without resorting to
>future facts.

What exactly do you wish refuted? Your conclusion that Earth
is unique has been refuted on the basis of lack of evidence,
and on the fact that we have yet to search for life
elsewhere with any sort of intensity.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/26/15 2:28 PM, Bill wrote:
> Nick Roberts wrote:
>
>
>
> ...
>
>>> You oversimplify. By not accepting certainty as a
>>> desirable outcome of thought, I resist leaping to
>>> conclusions.
>>
>> And yet on the basis of minimal information, you conclude

>> that Earth is unique in its life-bearing properties.

>>
>> Perhaps you could explain this inconsistency?
>
> That is not my conclusion and I haven't offered it as one.
> What I have said is that the evidence points to that
> conclusion.

Except the evidence really points to exactly the opposite conclusion.
Of the star systems we have seen closely enough to evaluate, 100% of
them have life. Shouldn't that imply a significant possibility of life
in other star systems, too?

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

...

>
>> I have consistently made this point without
>>ever claiming the proposal as a conclusion; it is an
>>inference, one way of interpreting the actually existing
>>facts at hand.
>
> You have indeed claimed that your assertion is a
> conclusion; "Earth is unique", which you *have* stated in
> exactly those words, allows of no other interpretation.

Provide that quote in its original context.

>
>>Rather that dodging the issue with irrelevant quibbles,
>>why no show how my proposal is flawed? Show the evidence
>>that makes falsifies. See if you can do it without
>>resorting to future facts.
>
> What exactly do you wish refuted? Your conclusion that
> Earth is unique has been refuted on the basis of lack of
> evidence, and on the fact that we have yet to search for
> life elsewhere with any sort of intensity.

The logic by which atheists argue for atheism is identical
yet is considered persuasive. There is no evidence for the
existence of God(s) therefore they don't exist. In this
case, a lack of evidence is evidence of lack. When that same
logic is applied to some other question it is rejected. The
logic is the same is both cases but only applied in one. Why
is that?

Bill

[Burkhard]

I think people have tried to explain that to you before. Whether or not
absence of evidence is evidence of absence depends on whether we should
have found the evidence if it were there.

The absence of any evidence of elephants in my bedroom after a quick
visual inspection is pretty good evidence that there aren't any in it.
The absence of any evidence of Tantulocarida in my bedroom after a quick
visual check is not evidence that they aren't there. That's because I
would not be able to see them even if they were there, them being too
small to detect.

> Bill
>

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in news:mk3cig$l1j$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 5/26/15 2:28 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Nick Roberts wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> You oversimplify. By not accepting certainty as a
>>>> desirable outcome of thought, I resist leaping to
>>>> conclusions.
>>>
>>> And yet on the basis of minimal information, you conclude
>>> that Earth is unique in its life-bearing properties.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you could explain this inconsistency?
>>
>> That is not my conclusion and I haven't offered it as one.
>> What I have said is that the evidence points to that
>> conclusion.
>
> Except the evidence really points to exactly the opposite conclusion.
> Of the star systems we have seen closely enough to evaluate, 100% of
> them have life. Shouldn't that imply a significant possibility of life
> in other star systems, too?

No, it shouldn't. Possibility has no degrees of significance. We can
presently say that the probability of life is systems other than our own
is greater than zero, and that's *all* we can presently say. The universe
outside our solar system could be crawling with life; it could be
completely sterile; it could be anywhere in between.

Regardless of how scarce or plentiful extraterrestrial life may be, the
discovery of even one such organism would be of immense importance: the
potential importance of the discovery is, in and of itself, ample
justification for the search. We need not deceive ourselves into thinking
we must have a significant chance of success: any chance is enough.
--
S.O.P.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:54 -0400, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>...
>
>>
>>> I have consistently made this point without
>>>ever claiming the proposal as a conclusion; it is an
>>>inference, one way of interpreting the actually existing
>>>facts at hand.

>> You have indeed claimed that your assertion is a
>> conclusion; "Earth is unique", which you *have* stated in
>> exactly those words, allows of no other interpretation.

>Provide that quote in its original context.

Sure. Others stated that it was reasonable to think life may
exist elsewhere, and you replied as noted. See below for the
reason that reply was, and is, wrong.

Any other requests?

>>>Rather that dodging the issue with irrelevant quibbles,
>>>why no show how my proposal is flawed? Show the evidence
>>>that makes falsifies. See if you can do it without
>>>resorting to future facts.
>>
>> What exactly do you wish refuted? Your conclusion that
>> Earth is unique has been refuted on the basis of lack of
>> evidence, and on the fact that we have yet to search for
>> life elsewhere with any sort of intensity.

>The logic by which atheists argue for atheism is identical
>yet is considered persuasive. There is no evidence for the
>existence of God(s) therefore they don't exist. In this
>case, a lack of evidence is evidence of lack. When that same
>logic is applied to some other question it is rejected. The
>logic is the same is both cases but only applied in one. Why
>is that?

Because, as has been noted every time you brought up this
red herring, the quality of the evidence, or lack thereof,
id directly proportional to the amount of searching done for
the subject in areas where the subject can logically be
expected to be found, and any conclusions reached must take
that into account. No deity has ever been found anywhere
despite much searching in the location (Earth) which is
purported to be the dwelling place, or at least the
occasional location, of various deities. No meaningful
search for life elsewhere has been done, but there's no
reason to suppose Earth is unique in its characteristics
such that life can only exist here. You use the fact that we
haven't found life *for which we haven't really looked* as
"evidence" that Earth is unique. That's bad science and bad
logic.

OK?

(Note: I fully expect you to ignore this point AGAIN, and
bring it up AGAIN sometime in the future.)

[Greg Guarino]

On 5/27/2015 11:54 AM, Bill wrote:

> The logic by which atheists argue for atheism is identical
> yet is considered persuasive. There is no evidence for the
> existence of God(s) therefore they don't exist.

Some may argue this, but I hear much more frequently that since there is
no evidence for gods, there is no reason to believe gods exist.

> In this
> case, a lack of evidence is evidence of lack. When that same
> logic is applied to some other question it is rejected.

Not the same at all. We have excellent evidence for the existence of life.

> The
> logic is the same is both cases but only applied in one. Why
> is that?

The logic is different. If we had evidence for the existence of 10 gods
that are involved with Earth, it would be reasonable to say that the
existence of gods that involve themselves with other worlds remains an
open question that we cannot yet answer. That would be the same sort of
logic many here use as regards life.

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:54 -0400, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>>
>>>> I have consistently made this point without
>>>>ever claiming the proposal as a conclusion; it is an
>>>>inference, one way of interpreting the actually existing
>>>>facts at hand.
>
>>> You have indeed claimed that your assertion is a
>>> conclusion; "Earth is unique", which you *have* stated
>>> in exactly those words, allows of no other
>>> interpretation.
>
>>Provide that quote in its original context.
>
> Sure. Others stated that it was reasonable to think life
> may exist elsewhere, and you replied as noted. See below
> for the reason that reply was, and is, wrong.
>
> Any other requests?

That is not a quote and the context is missing. Try again.

The evidence is the same in both cases and the logic is
identical. The only real difference are the conclusions that
suggest themselves. The sine qua non of atheism is the non-
existence of deities which is simply the absence of
(acceptable) evidence for deities. The trick is what one
considers evidence and that varies depending on
circumstances.

Once one commits to some ideology or philosophical or
religious explanatory framework, all subsequent
interpretations lose their objective value. People confirm
their biases.

Bill

[Bill]

Greg Guarino wrote:

> On 5/27/2015 11:54 AM, Bill wrote:
>
>> The logic by which atheists argue for atheism is
>> identical yet is considered persuasive. There is no
>> evidence for the existence of God(s) therefore they don't
>> exist.
>
> Some may argue this, but I hear much more frequently that
> since there is no evidence for gods, there is no reason to
> believe gods exist.
>
>> In this
>> case, a lack of evidence is evidence of lack. When that
>> same logic is applied to some other question it is
>> rejected.
>
> Not the same at all. We have excellent evidence for the
> existence of life.

That has not been disputed, how can it? There is life on
Earth but that tells us nothing about life anywhere else.
Try to follow that thought.

>
>
>> The
>> logic is the same is both cases but only applied in one.
>> Why is that?
>
> The logic is different. If we had evidence for the
> existence of 10 gods that are involved with Earth, it
> would be reasonable to say that the existence of gods that
> involve themselves with other worlds remains an open
> question that we cannot yet answer. That would be the same
> sort of logic many here use as regards life.

To the very literal mind struggling with subtle nuances,
your "argument" might seem reasonable. To anyone actually
considering the question, you understanding of logic is
laughable.

There is no evidence of life anywhere else in the universe
except on Earth. This absence of evidence has no bearing on
the possibility of life elsewhere.

There is no (acceptable) evidence for the existence of
God(s). The absence of evidence means that no God(s) exist.

Explain the difference in the two paragraphs above.


Bill

[Inez]

There are a number of differences.

In the first place, there is evidence that life is an actual existing thing. The fact that there is life on one planet means that life is the sort of thing that might exist on planets.

God on the other hand, isn't known to exist anywhere. Further, God has any number of supposedly mystical or magical or miraculous properties which also aren't known to exist anywhere. We know that life is not fictional, we don't know that God is not fictional.

In the second place there are a number of claims made for specific Gods which don't turn out to be true. There was no biblical flood, for example, nor was there a garden of Eden. One begins to suspect that the whole bible thing is myth rather than history. This of course does not eliminate hypothetical gods with undefined properties, but no one actually believes in hypothetical gods with undefined properties because there is no reason to do so.

[Pete K.]

I'd rather point out the similarity: neither are arguments anyone here
other than you has put forth.

[Greg Guarino]

On 5/28/2015 5:00 PM, Bill wrote:
> Greg Guarino wrote:
>
>> On 5/27/2015 11:54 AM, Bill wrote:
>>
>>> The logic by which atheists argue for atheism is
>>> identical yet is considered persuasive. There is no
>>> evidence for the existence of God(s) therefore they don't
>>> exist.
>>
>> Some may argue this, but I hear much more frequently that
>> since there is no evidence for gods, there is no reason to
>> believe gods exist.

Nothing here?

>>> In this
>>> case, a lack of evidence is evidence of lack. When that
>>> same logic is applied to some other question it is
>>> rejected.
>>
>> Not the same at all. We have excellent evidence for the
>> existence of life.
>
> That has not been disputed, how can it?

I'd expect a deep thinker like yourself to wonder why I made such an
"obvious" statement. Perhaps not. The "indisputability" of life is
exactly what makes the questions different.

There is life on
> Earth but that tells us nothing about life anywhere else.
> Try to follow that thought.

As everyone here except you has already said, we cannot now make any
conclusions about the existence of extraterrestrial life.

But whether gods exist *at all* and whether life exists *where we have
not yet looked for it* are two different classes of question. One is a
matter of existence, the other merely one of scope.

Let's try an example. We ask ourselves two questions about the
composition of other worlds:

Is there a place in which a naturally-occurring element exists with an
atomic number higher than 120?

Is there gallium on extrasolar planet?

The first is a question of existence. Is such an element possible
anywhere? We (to my knowledge) have no evidence that such an element
could occur naturally.

The second question is of a different class: We need not wonder if
Gallium can exist at all, only where it may be found.

>>> The
>>> logic is the same is both cases but only applied in one.
>>> Why is that?
>>
>> The logic is different. If we had evidence for the
>> existence of 10 gods that are involved with Earth, it
>> would be reasonable to say that the existence of gods that
>> involve themselves with other worlds remains an open
>> question that we cannot yet answer. That would be the same
>> sort of logic many here use as regards life.
>
> To the very literal mind struggling with subtle nuances,
> your "argument" might seem reasonable. To anyone actually
> considering the question, you understanding of logic is
> laughable.

Show us how. Seems like a direct enough comparison. "We know this stuff
exists here. Maybe it also exists over there where we can't see it. Or
maybe not."

>
> There is no evidence of life anywhere else in the universe
> except on Earth. This absence of evidence has no bearing on
> the possibility of life elsewhere.

Of course it doesn't. But the *presence* of life in one place removes
the question of "existence" from the equation. The question of god has
yet to cross that hurdle.

>
> There is no (acceptable) evidence for the existence of
> God(s). The absence of evidence means that no God(s) exist.
>
> Explain the difference in the two paragraphs above.

Well, the first sounds like something people here might actually say,
for one.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[jillery]

On Thu, 28 May 2015 17:00:55 -0400, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

<PING> Dang it!

>There is no evidence of life anywhere else in the universe
>except on Earth. This absence of evidence has no bearing on
>the possibility of life elsewhere.
>
>There is no (acceptable) evidence for the existence of
>God(s). The absence of evidence means that no God(s) exist.
>
>Explain the difference in the two paragraphs above.

I'll type this real slow just for you:

Look close at the last sentence of the first paragraph. "has no
bearing" means the absence of evidence neither supports nor opposes
the assertion.

Now look close at the last sentence of the second paragraph. "means"
means the absence of evidence positively supports the assertion.

Got it now? It really isn't hard. Even you should be able to see the
difference.

And for the reading challenged, and those who pretend to be, none of
my statements above imply that I agree or disagree with the two
paragraphs in question.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 May 2015 16:50:44 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:54 -0400, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I have consistently made this point without
>>>>>ever claiming the proposal as a conclusion; it is an
>>>>>inference, one way of interpreting the actually existing
>>>>>facts at hand.
>>
>>>> You have indeed claimed that your assertion is a
>>>> conclusion; "Earth is unique", which you *have* stated
>>>> in exactly those words, allows of no other
>>>> interpretation.
>>
>>>Provide that quote in its original context.
>>
>> Sure. Others stated that it was reasonable to think life
>> may exist elsewhere, and you replied as noted. See below
>> for the reason that reply was, and is, wrong.
>>
>> Any other requests?

>That is not a quote and the context is missing. Try again.

That is a quote ("Earth is unique") and I provided the
context (that quote was your response was to statements by
others that it's reasonable to think life may exist
elsewhere).

Apparently you fail to understand the meanings of "quote"
and "context", just as you fail to understand the meanings
of "unique" and "habitable zone".

Your last statement is correct; one can consider absence of
evidence to be evidence of absence if and only if the object
in question has been the subject of an extensive search and
not found; deities have been the subject of many such
searches and life elsewhere has not. But since I (and
others) already explained this in detail I'm sure you will
continue to either ignore or reject it, whether willfully or
due to your inability to understand the concept. Sobeit.

>Once one commits to some ideology or philosophical or
>religious explanatory framework, all subsequent
>interpretations lose their objective value. People confirm
>their biases.

Coming from you, that's hilarious.

[Bill]

You're misinterpreting the available facts. We have direct
evidence for the existence of life on Earth. We can infer
that life may exist on other planets from this one fact.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the inference is
correct.

We have direct evidence for the existence of God(s) in
innumerable eye witness accounts. We can infer from this
that at least one God(s) exists. There is no evidence that
such a being does not exist.

In both cases the evidence is the processing mechanisms of
the human mind. Nature makes no inferences, guesses at
nothing and has no doubts; it simply is. If we admit one
human intellectual method of determining truth, we have to
be open to all the other alternatives. We can't just pick
and choose which methods of investigation is superior when
they all require the same subjective methods.

If we can infer the existence of life elsewhere based on a
single sample, we can infer the existence of God(s) based on
eye witness accounts. The mechanics are the same. If we can
deny the existence of God(s) based on a lack of (acceptable)
evidence, we can likewise deny the existence of life
elsewhere on the lack of evidence.

Evidence means the same in either case so the only question
is what the concept applies to. I have pointed out, as an
example, that atheists reject all evidence for the existence
of God(s) because they have already, prior to any evidence,
denied the existence of God(s).

If one believes that there is nothing special about Earth
(the Copernicus Principle) and that life here in not
particularly noteworthy, then they are bound by their own
logic to believe that life exists elsewhere.

What is basic to any of these ideas is that they are ideas,
products of the human mind. Ideas are intangible, subjective
and malleable and are not, in themselves, physical evidence
of anything in the physical universe.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 3:23:11 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:

>
> You're misinterpreting the available facts. We have direct
> evidence for the existence of life on Earth. We can infer
> that life may exist on other planets from this one fact.
> There is no evidence whatsoever that the inference is
> correct.

There is no evidence that the inference is correct. There is also no evidence that the inference that life exists only on earth is correct. As everybody keeps telling you, we do not have enough evidence on which to base a conclusion.

>
> We have direct evidence for the existence of God(s) in
> innumerable eye witness accounts. We can infer from this
> that at least one God(s) exists. There is no evidence that
> such a being does not exist.

Why are you introducing theological issues? I thought you had no theological agenda.

>
> In both cases the evidence is the processing mechanisms of
> the human mind. Nature makes no inferences, guesses at
> nothing and has no doubts; it simply is. If we admit one
> human intellectual method of determining truth, we have to
> be open to all the other alternatives. We can't just pick
> and choose which methods of investigation is superior when
> they all require the same subjective methods.
>
> If we can infer the existence of life elsewhere based on a
> single sample, we can infer the existence of God(s) based on
> eye witness accounts.

Nobody is inferring, if by that you mean concluding, that life exists elsewhere because life exists on earth. Everybody here is telling you that we do not yet have sufficient evidence to conclude either that life exists elsewhere or that life does not exist elsewhere.

>The mechanics are the same. If we can
> deny the existence of God(s) based on a lack of (acceptable)
> evidence, we can likewise deny the existence of life
> elsewhere on the lack of evidence.

The "mechanics" are not the same. We refuse to exclude the possibility of life on other worlds because we have not looked for it with techniques that would find it if it were there. On the other hand, we have looked for God with methods that would detect Him if He were there. Now, that depends on what sort of God we are talking about. We have excellent evidence against the existence of a God who created the earth a few thousand years ago (except for possible Gods that created the earth a few thousand years ago and then planted evidence to make the earth appear a few billion years old. We have very good evidence against a God who reliably answers prayers. We have no evidence at all against a generic God/designer who produced exactly the world we observe.

So you see that in order to discuss evidence for or against the existence of God we need to get into all sorts of theological minutiae - exactly the sort of thing you have wanted not to bother with up to now. Why start? These theological issues are irrelevant to the question of life existing somewhere other than earth.

>
> Evidence means the same in either case so the only question
> is what the concept applies to. I have pointed out, as an
> example, that atheists reject all evidence for the existence
> of God(s) because they have already, prior to any evidence,
> denied the existence of God(s).
>
> If one believes that there is nothing special about Earth
> (the Copernicus Principle) and that life here in not
> particularly noteworthy, then they are bound by their own
> logic to believe that life exists elsewhere.

Wrong. If you go by the Copernican principle, that the earth is not a particularly unusual planet (and there's plenty of evidence for earthlike planets elsewhere), you are bound to consider the possibility that life exists elsewhere, and perhaps motivated to look for it. You are not bound by logic to believe in something until the evidence comes in.

>
> What is basic to any of these ideas is that they are ideas,
> products of the human mind. Ideas are intangible, subjective
> and malleable and are not, in themselves, physical evidence
> of anything in the physical universe.

Sure, but some ideas are better supported by evidence than others. The idea that life exists nowhere but on earth is unsupported by evidence, simply because nobody has looked for it with appropriate methods yet.

>
> Bill

[Bill]

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 3:23:11 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>
>>
>> You're misinterpreting the available facts. We have
>> direct evidence for the existence of life on Earth. We
>> can infer that life may exist on other planets from this
>> one fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that the
>> inference is correct.
>
> There is no evidence that the inference is correct. There
> is also no evidence that the inference that life exists
> only on earth is correct. As everybody keeps telling you,
> we do not have enough evidence on which to base a
> conclusion.
>
>>
>> We have direct evidence for the existence of God(s) in
>> innumerable eye witness accounts. We can infer from this
>> that at least one God(s) exists. There is no evidence
>> that such a being does not exist.
>
> Why are you introducing theological issues? I thought you
> had no theological agenda.

I mentioned it to demonstrate that logic is indifferent to
how it's used. If logic is used to prove a point you
disagree with then it's not logical. The most obvious
assumptions in these discussions is atheism so I used it as
an example.

>
>>
>> In both cases the evidence is the processing mechanisms
>> of the human mind. Nature makes no inferences, guesses at
>> nothing and has no doubts; it simply is. If we admit one
>> human intellectual method of determining truth, we have
>> to be open to all the other alternatives. We can't just
>> pick and choose which methods of investigation is
>> superior when they all require the same subjective
>> methods.
>>
>> If we can infer the existence of life elsewhere based on
>> a single sample, we can infer the existence of God(s)
>> based on eye witness accounts.
>
> Nobody is inferring, if by that you mean concluding, that
> life exists elsewhere because life exists on earth.
> Everybody here is telling you that we do not yet have
> sufficient evidence to conclude either that life exists
> elsewhere or that life does not exist elsewhere.

I have concluded nothing. I have observed the universe and
inferred several possibilities. I have not concluded that
any of these possibilities are fact, merely possible.

>
>>The mechanics are the same. If we can
>> deny the existence of God(s) based on a lack of
>> (acceptable) evidence, we can likewise deny the existence
>> of life elsewhere on the lack of evidence.
>
> The "mechanics" are not the same. We refuse to exclude the
> possibility of life on other worlds because we have not
> looked for it with techniques that would find it if it
> were there. On the other hand, we have looked for God with
> methods that would detect Him if He were there.

Most people believing some religion base their belief on
looking for and finding God(s). Both the looking and the
finding have been attested to for millenia. If you are an
atheist you don't look for God(s) so it should be no great
surprise that you don't find one. It's also well known that
some religions are "revealed" meaning that God(s) makes
itself known whether we want to know or not.

> Now, that
> depends on what sort of God we are talking about. We have
> excellent evidence against the existence of a God who
> created the earth a few thousand years ago (except for
> possible Gods that created the earth a few thousand years
> ago and then planted evidence to make the earth appear a
> few billion years old. We have very good evidence against
> a God who reliably answers prayers. We have no evidence at
> all against a generic God/designer who produced exactly
> the world we observe.

You confuse theology with its object. Theology is what
people say about God(s) based on what they prefer to be
true. These preference accrue over time into elaborate
doctrines and ritual and it's that we see rather the God(s)
they refer to.

Since you reject the whole concept before even examining it,
it remains incomprehensible. It's the same thing that makes
politics so contentious.

>
> So you see that in order to discuss evidence for or
> against the existence of God we need to get into all sorts
> of theological minutiae - exactly the sort of thing you
> have wanted not to bother with up to now. Why start? These
> theological issues are irrelevant to the question of life
> existing somewhere other than earth.

To those paying attention, it's obvious that my emphasis was
evidence using atheism and theism as examples of how people
voluntarily and deliberately blind themselves.

Bill

[jillery]

<PING> Dang it!

> We have direct
>evidence for the existence of life on Earth. We can infer
>that life may exist on other planets from this one fact.
>There is no evidence whatsoever that the inference is
>correct.

And there is no evidence whatsoever that the inference is incorrect.
The evidence fails to distinguish between either possibility.

>We have direct evidence for the existence of God(s) in
>innumerable eye witness accounts.

Apparently "direct evidence" is another phrase you don't know the
meaning of. That numerous people infer certain phenomena are the
results of gods, is called an unprovable conjecture, not direct
evidence.

>We can infer from this
>that at least one God(s) exists.

Since your premise is flawed, your conclusion is incorrect.

>There is no evidence that
>such a being does not exist.

And there is no evidence whatsoever that such a being does exist.
The evidence fails to distinguish between either possibility.

>In both cases the evidence is the processing mechanisms of
>the human mind. Nature makes no inferences, guesses at
>nothing and has no doubts; it simply is. If we admit one
>human intellectual method of determining truth, we have to
>be open to all the other alternatives. We can't just pick
>and choose which methods of investigation is superior when
>they all require the same subjective methods.

Of course, different methods of investigation use different methods.
That's why they're... umm... different.

>If we can infer the existence of life elsewhere based on a
>single sample, we can infer the existence of God(s) based on
>eye witness accounts.

Again, your flawed premise destroys your conclusion.

>The mechanics are the same.

Your flawed mechanics leave lots of loose screws.

>If we can
>deny the existence of God(s) based on a lack of (acceptable)
>evidence, we can likewise deny the existence of life
>elsewhere on the lack of evidence.

Again, different mechanism, different evidence, different conclusion.
Repeating yourself doesn't change reality.

>Evidence means the same in either case so the only question
>is what the concept applies to. I have pointed out, as an
>example, that atheists reject all evidence for the existence
>of God(s) because they have already, prior to any evidence,
>denied the existence of God(s).

Presume your conclusions much? Oh wait... I forgot who I'm asking...
never mind.

>If one believes that there is nothing special about Earth
>(the Copernicus Principle) and that life here in not
>particularly noteworthy, then they are bound by their own
>logic to believe that life exists elsewhere.
>
>What is basic to any of these ideas is that they are ideas,
>products of the human mind. Ideas are intangible, subjective
>and malleable and are not, in themselves, physical evidence
>of anything in the physical universe.

Of course, excepts your ideas. How convenient for you.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Ah, OK, many people here, myself included are under the impression that you think it proper to conclude that life only exists on earth. If your real position is simply that we don't know whether life is unique to earth, then just say so clearly and all sorts of misunderstanding will be resolved.

>
> >
> >>The mechanics are the same. If we can
> >> deny the existence of God(s) based on a lack of
> >> (acceptable) evidence, we can likewise deny the existence
> >> of life elsewhere on the lack of evidence.
> >
> > The "mechanics" are not the same. We refuse to exclude the
> > possibility of life on other worlds because we have not
> > looked for it with techniques that would find it if it
> > were there. On the other hand, we have looked for God with
> > methods that would detect Him if He were there.
>
> Most people believing some religion base their belief on
> looking for and finding God(s). Both the looking and the
> finding have been attested to for millenia. If you are an
> atheist you don't look for God(s) so it should be no great
> surprise that you don't find one.

For someone with no theological agenda you seem remarkably interested in God. I am an atheist, but that's because I looked for God very hard, wanting very much to believe in Him, and did not find Him. If you are not an atheist, perhaps the most reasonable path would not be to guess about what atheists look for or are motivated by. You know, humility. Some religions consider it a virtue (even though that wouldn't matter to you as you have no theological agenda).

>It's also well known that
> some religions are "revealed" meaning that God(s) makes
> itself known whether we want to know or not.

Certainly, many people's experience is that the revelation has not occurred to them, even though they may have wished for it. But again, why would you care, since you have no theological agenda?

>
> > Now, that
> > depends on what sort of God we are talking about. We have
> > excellent evidence against the existence of a God who
> > created the earth a few thousand years ago (except for
> > possible Gods that created the earth a few thousand years
> > ago and then planted evidence to make the earth appear a
> > few billion years old. We have very good evidence against
> > a God who reliably answers prayers. We have no evidence at
> > all against a generic God/designer who produced exactly
> > the world we observe.
>
> You confuse theology with its object. Theology is what
> people say about God(s) based on what they prefer to be
> true. These preference accrue over time into elaborate
> doctrines and ritual and it's that we see rather the God(s)
> they refer to.

No, I do not confuse theology with its object. I simply question whether theology has an object. But again, why do you care, since you have no theological agenda?

>
> Since you reject the whole concept before even examining it,
> it remains incomprehensible. It's the same thing that makes
> politics so contentious.

Are you kidding? I spent years, decades even, examining the concept. I wanted with all my heart for one particular religion to be true. But I could not convince myself that it was. It is extraordinarily presumptuous of you to guess what has gone on in my (or anyone else's) mind. But again, why would you care? Theology is irrelevant to your argument about extraterrestrial life.

>
> >
> > So you see that in order to discuss evidence for or
> > against the existence of God we need to get into all sorts
> > of theological minutiae - exactly the sort of thing you
> > have wanted not to bother with up to now. Why start? These
> > theological issues are irrelevant to the question of life
> > existing somewhere other than earth.
>
> To those paying attention, it's obvious that my emphasis was
> evidence using atheism and theism as examples of how people
> voluntarily and deliberately blind themselves.

You have yet to explain how exactly people voluntarily and deliberately blind themselves, though it looks more and more like you yourself are a perfect example, at least with respect to the conclusion that there is no extraterrestrial life.

>
> Bill

[Bill]

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

...

>>
>> Since you reject the whole concept before even examining
>> it, it remains incomprehensible. It's the same thing that
>> makes politics so contentious.
>
> Are you kidding? I spent years, decades even, examining
> the concept. I wanted with all my heart for one particular
> religion to be true. But I could not convince myself that
> it was. It is extraordinarily presumptuous of you to guess
> what has gone on in my (or anyone else's) mind. But again,
> why would you care? Theology is irrelevant to your
> argument about extraterrestrial life.

I can't claim to have ever had a revelation or vision of
God(s) in any conventional sense. I can't really comment on
anyone else's experiences nor do I want to. Like much else
here, I have to depend on appearances.

I brought up the idea that the existence of intelligent
observers may have significance beyond mere existence. Our
existence may have meaning beyond biology or cosmic
accident. In order for intelligent observers to exist at all
requires a long series of specific events. Reducing all this
to random luckiness isn't very satisfying.

From this I have inferred that the universe appears to have
intent and, further, guided its own development specifically
to create intelligent observers. This is as reasonable as
any alternative inference. If one has no prior bias for or
against any particular outcome, attributing intent in the
development of the universe matches the actual evidence.

This is an instance of indirect evidence that cannot be
discovered by conventional means; it has to be derived
through various intellectual steps. To one looking for
evidence of God(s), their own experience as an intelligent
observer makes a strong case. You are your best evidence.

To one with no interest in possibility of the universe
having meaning, that whole line of thought will be dismissed
out of hand. To someone convinced of the sufficiency of
their knowledge, why admit ignorance? When you have all the
answers, why ask questions?

Bill

[Inez]

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 5:38:09 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>
> >> Since you reject the whole concept before even examining
> >> it, it remains incomprehensible. It's the same thing that
> >> makes politics so contentious.
> >
> > Are you kidding? I spent years, decades even, examining
> > the concept. I wanted with all my heart for one particular
> > religion to be true. But I could not convince myself that
> > it was. It is extraordinarily presumptuous of you to guess
> > what has gone on in my (or anyone else's) mind. But again,
> > why would you care? Theology is irrelevant to your
> > argument about extraterrestrial life.
>
> I can't claim to have ever had a revelation or vision of
> God(s) in any conventional sense. I can't really comment on
> anyone else's experiences nor do I want to. Like much else
> here, I have to depend on appearances.
>
> I brought up the idea that the existence of intelligent
> observers may have significance beyond mere existence. Our
> existence may have meaning beyond biology or cosmic
> accident.

I always feel like I'm missing something when people make this sort of statement. My life has meaning that I stuff in there. Believe it or not, I am important to a variety of people that I know, and they're important to me. Being a "cosmic observer" or a worshiper of god is kind of a bonehead job when you think of it. What difference does it make if God is worshipped or the cosmos is observed? I don't see the thrilling meaning inherent in either of those things.

> In order for intelligent observers to exist at all
> requires a long series of specific events.

We don't really know that that's true. There could be any number of ways to get an intelligent observer.

>Reducing all this
> to random luckiness isn't very satisfying.
>

I'm reminded of an Episode of Fawlty towers where John Cleese is in some sort of trouble.

"Maybe I'm dreaming!" he say, then pounds his head on the desk.

"Nope, it's reality, we're stuck with it."

> From this I have inferred that the universe appears to have
> intent and, further, guided its own development specifically
> to create intelligent observers.

Still nonsense. If the universe is able to have intent and to design things then it is already intelligent.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 8:38:09 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>
> >> Since you reject the whole concept before even examining
> >> it, it remains incomprehensible. It's the same thing that
> >> makes politics so contentious.
> >
> > Are you kidding? I spent years, decades even, examining
> > the concept. I wanted with all my heart for one particular
> > religion to be true. But I could not convince myself that
> > it was. It is extraordinarily presumptuous of you to guess
> > what has gone on in my (or anyone else's) mind. But again,
> > why would you care? Theology is irrelevant to your
> > argument about extraterrestrial life.
>
> I can't claim to have ever had a revelation or vision of
> God(s) in any conventional sense. I can't really comment on
> anyone else's experiences nor do I want to. Like much else
> here, I have to depend on appearances.

So, in the end, your argument really does come from a theological agenda, just a poorly defined one. Why not just say so up front? WHy spend months denying that you have a theological dog in the fight?

>
> I brought up the idea that the existence of intelligent
> observers may have significance beyond mere existence. Our
> existence may have meaning beyond biology or cosmic
> accident. In order for intelligent observers to exist at all
> requires a long series of specific events. Reducing all this
> to random luckiness isn't very satisfying.

I'm not sure anyone has reduced the existence of intelligent life to random luckiness. The result of definite physical laws, yes, but not "random luckiness."

>
> From this I have inferred that the universe appears to have
> intent and, further, guided its own development specifically
> to create intelligent observers. This is as reasonable as
> any alternative inference. If one has no prior bias for or
> against any particular outcome, attributing intent in the
> development of the universe matches the actual evidence.

What possible evidence that we could observe would not be compatible with the sort of intent you are inferring? If the universe has intent, how would you know what the intent was? If the intent was to produce intelligent observers, why are there so few?

>
> This is an instance of indirect evidence that cannot be
> discovered by conventional means; it has to be derived
> through various intellectual steps. To one looking for
> evidence of God(s), their own experience as an intelligent
> observer makes a strong case. You are your best evidence.

Intelligent observers exist. That's a piece of data. That something else exists who designed and manufactured them is not supported by any evidence. A totally generic designer that produced intelligent observers (along with everything else in the universe) cannot be excluded, but there's no way to infer any particular intent on its part.

>
> To one with no interest in possibility of the universe
> having meaning, that whole line of thought will be dismissed
> out of hand. To someone convinced of the sufficiency of
> their knowledge, why admit ignorance? When you have all the
> answers, why ask questions?

You are the one who seems unwilling to admit ignorance. Everybody else here seems to be more than willing to suspend judgement in areas where there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

Your line of thought is not dismissed out of hand. It's dismissed for lack of evidence. Your conclusion, as I've said several times, would be delightful, if only it were supported by the evidence.

>
> Bill

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 30 May 2015 03:38:09 UTC+3, Bill wrote:
> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>
> >> Since you reject the whole concept before even examining
> >> it, it remains incomprehensible. It's the same thing that
> >> makes politics so contentious.
> >
> > Are you kidding? I spent years, decades even, examining
> > the concept. I wanted with all my heart for one particular
> > religion to be true. But I could not convince myself that
> > it was. It is extraordinarily presumptuous of you to guess
> > what has gone on in my (or anyone else's) mind. But again,
> > why would you care? Theology is irrelevant to your
> > argument about extraterrestrial life.
>
> I can't claim to have ever had a revelation or vision of
> God(s) in any conventional sense. I can't really comment on
> anyone else's experiences nor do I want to. Like much else
> here, I have to depend on appearances.

Appearance is that whatever happens around us is caused by known
agents like living creatures or natural forces. If there is
anything supernatural above of it then it is apparently carefully
hidden and disguised behind those known agents.

> I brought up the idea that the existence of intelligent
> observers may have significance beyond mere existence. Our
> existence may have meaning beyond biology or cosmic
> accident. In order for intelligent observers to exist at all
> requires a long series of specific events. Reducing all this
> to random luckiness isn't very satisfying.

You have picked to believe that universe like you see is real and we
around you are real. Anything else may be if existence of your
observations has significance. You may be a brain in a vat and rest
of us may be just simulations for you to observe. On both cases it
is likely best strategy to observe that reality.

> From this I have inferred that the universe appears to have
> intent and, further, guided its own development specifically
> to create intelligent observers. This is as reasonable as
> any alternative inference. If one has no prior bias for or
> against any particular outcome, attributing intent in the
> development of the universe matches the actual evidence.

It is clearly cheaper to make the brain in a vat setup than to
build an universe of 10000000000000000000000000 stars that we
are incapable of observing in any significant way regardless.

If the universe is real and was really made for something by
someone the chance is rather slim that it was made to produce
semi-clever apes. Apes just are vain and it is their pride that
makes them to think that they matter. Even if apes happened by
accident or as by-product they may be worth to keep. It is
certainly possible but unlikely that their vanity is among
characteristics that makes them worth to keep in eyes of someone
who can make universes.

> This is an instance of indirect evidence that cannot be
> discovered by conventional means; it has to be derived
> through various intellectual steps. To one looking for
> evidence of God(s), their own experience as an intelligent
> observer makes a strong case. You are your best evidence.

No intellectual steps are needed. Pride is plentiful reason
to believe anything that lifts importance of oneself.

> To one with no interest in possibility of the universe
> having meaning, that whole line of thought will be dismissed
> out of hand. To someone convinced of the sufficiency of
> their knowledge, why admit ignorance? When you have all the
> answers, why ask questions?

Awareness of extent of ones ignorance is called "wisdom". Why
to not admit your wisdom? Blindly believing answers that best feed
your lust, pride or greed show lack of wisdom. Those with lack
of wisdom are usually fooled and scammed by others (with social
Darwinism as excuse).

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/29/15 4:33 PM, Bill wrote:
> [...]

> I brought up the idea that the existence of intelligent
> observers may have significance beyond mere existence. Our
> existence may have meaning beyond biology or cosmic
> accident. In order for intelligent observers to exist at all
> requires a long series of specific events. Reducing all this
> to random luckiness isn't very satisfying.
>
> From this I have inferred that the universe appears to have
> intent and, further, guided its own development specifically
> to create intelligent observers. This is as reasonable as
> any alternative inference. If one has no prior bias for or
> against any particular outcome, attributing intent in the
> development of the universe matches the actual evidence.

> [...]

Guidance such as you suggest is an intelligent process. And to guide,
one must first observe one's object and the circumstances it is in.
Therefore, you are proposing that the universe was an intelligent
observer before we ever existed; in fact that it may always have been an
intelligent observer. Therefore, the existence of ourselves as
intelligent observers is trivial by comparison, making the premise for
your argument false.

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 29, 2015 at 4:23:11 PM UTC-3, Bill wrote:
<snipL

> We can infer
> that life may exist on other planets

<snip>

> If we can infer the existence of life elsewhere

Bzzzt. Dropped the "may". Thank you for playing

-William Hughes

[Bill]

That sounds kind of desperate, surely you can do better.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 29 May 2015 19:33:06 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>I brought up the idea that the existence of intelligent
>observers may have significance beyond mere existence. Our
>existence may have meaning beyond biology or cosmic
>accident. In order for intelligent observers to exist at all
>requires a long series of specific events.

We have no idea how specific those events may need to be;
it's quite possible that there are multiple paths. And lest
you go off on your usual diatribe about the "uniqueness" of
the path which produced us (since it's the only one we've
observed), once again, as with the existence of life
elsewhere, we have essentially zero data; all we can infer
is that wherever life may appear it does so in accordance
with natural law (since we have no evidence that anything
else exists).

> Reducing all this
>to random luckiness isn't very satisfying.
>
>From this I have inferred that the universe appears to have
>intent and, further, guided its own development specifically
>to create intelligent observers. This is as reasonable as
>any alternative inference. If one has no prior bias for or
>against any particular outcome, attributing intent in the
>development of the universe matches the actual evidence.

The actual evidence is that both we and the universe exist;
no more, no less. Rationally, nothing further can be
inferred from these two facts, and your lack of satisfaction
adds no evidence from which any more can be inferred. And
the additional *fact* that, once given the existence of the
universe, natural processes are all that are required for
the appearance of life, and therefore of us, militates
against the existence any unobserved influence.

>This is an instance of indirect evidence that cannot be
>discovered by conventional means; it has to be derived
>through various intellectual steps.

The possibility of life elsewhere is one of those examples,
and yet you reject it as "unscientific".

> To one looking for
>evidence of God(s), their own experience as an intelligent
>observer makes a strong case. You are your best evidence.

Nope; sorry. Our existence is in no way evidence for the
existence of any deity purported to have created us, any
more than the existence of a volcano is evidence that a
Volcano God, such as the Greeks' Hephaistos or the Latin
Adranus-Volcanus.

>To one with no interest in possibility of the universe
>having meaning, that whole line of thought will be dismissed
>out of hand. To someone convinced of the sufficiency of
>their knowledge, why admit ignorance? When you have all the
>answers, why ask questions?

Questions are good; science asks them all the time, and no
scientist worthy of the name is "convinced of the
sufficiency of [his] knowledge". And as soon as you can
provide *any* objective evidence that *any* deity exists I'm
sure many will be eager to investigate it. But don't expect
anyone to take seriously your dislike for "unsatisfying"
data (or lack thereof) as a basis for such investigation.

[jillery]

That sounds totally evasive. What do you disagree with, exactly? How
did the Universe guide its own development to create intelligent
observers?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 12:22:52 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

Perhaps, instead of running away, you'd care to refute what
he wrote, in detail?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 14:44:24 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

It's related to "We have no evidence whether or not Earth is
unique, so Earth is unique":

"We have no evidence that the Universe is intelligent, so
the Universe is intelligent."

I believe it's known informally as "proof by assertion".

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:47:22 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

No comments? OK.

[Mark Isaak]

Don't blame me. The baseless proposal that the universe is an
intelligent observer is all yours.

[Bill]

The proposal is hardly baseless. If one has no
preconceptions about how the universe ought to be, the
universe is free to be however it actually is. One of these
ways is that universe has become self-aware because it
developed intelligent observers. This is easily deduced from
the facts that are observed before they are filtered through
our skepticism.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

Sure, if you mean to say that the universe is self-aware because we humans are here and we are conscious, then that's trivially true, absolutely obvious and undeniable.

But if you want to claim that *before* there were any humans or other intelligent observers, the universe was *already* conscious and self aware and had the intent to produce other intelligent observers, you'll have to deal with the entirely reasonable skepticism that such a claim provokes. Indeed, if the universe were already self-aware enough to form the intent to produce us, then it would not need to produce us to become self aware. So, even laying aside the utter lack of evidence for the consciousness of the universe (independent of conscious things that live in it) your claim is not particularly convincing.

Finally, just to be clear, the claim of a self-conscious universe is just as compatible with atheism as it is with many forms of theism, so it's not my atheism that makes me skeptical of your claim.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in news:mkg0ip$tbu$1...@dont-email.me:

It took an even longer series of specific events in order for
intelligent observers to discover that some of those herbaceous plants -
the ones they were cultivating for their fibrous stems, which were
useful for weaving ropes and whatnot - were producing flowers that, when
dried, crushed, and set on fire, released a chemical that they could
ingest, and that ingesting that chemical enabled them to shed their
preconceptions about how the universe ought to be and just go with the
flow, man.

It is easily deduced from these observed facts that the universe guided
its own development so it could become stoned by developing potheads.
--
S.O.P.

[Burkhard]

Hence the saying "That was baaad shit, man, all my galaxies are
spinning, whhooooha" which by the axiom of "as above, so below" caused
the feeling of spinning heads as a result of drug intake through
sympathetic induction.

[Inez]

The funny thing about this is that your "theory" is based entirely on your own preconceptions, to the point that you can't see the huge and obvious flaws in it.

[Mark Isaak]

But you do have preconceptions about how the universe ought to be.

> One of these
> ways is that universe has become self-aware because it
> developed intelligent observers.

Three problems with that. First, calling the universe self-aware on
account of a minuscule part of it makes as little sense as saying the
Moon is striped because there is an American flag on it. Second,
"self-aware" is hardly the defining characteristic even if you are
focusing on Earth. Why not "bipedal" or "warlike" or "polluting" or (to
get away from your blatant anthropocentrism) "photosynthetic"? Third,
you have asserted that the universe was an intelligent observer *before*
people existed, and that has no evidence whatsoever to support it.

[handwrit...@gmail.com]

Where, exactly, does the Bible claim that the gods had a party on top of a mountain and got drunk? Chapter and verse, please?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 18:42:28 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by

handwrit...@gmail.com:

>Where, exactly, does the Bible claim that the gods had a party on top of a mountain and got drunk? Chapter and verse, please?

Since you provide zero context, where is it stated that the
gods in question were from stories in the Bible?

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 22 May 2015 15:33:34 UTC+1, Desertphile wrote:
> On Mon, 04 May 2015 20:30:15 -0700, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > In this quote he is appealing to the fundamentalist Christians to
> > climb aboard his ship of lies.
> >
> > "Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after
> > it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in
> > schools. Why?
>
> For the same reason 2+8=10 is the only view a;llowed in schools.
>
> > Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure
> > of indefensibility.[9]"
>
> Yeah, that's right. I fear that 2+8 might equal 7.
>
> > Another of the same style.
> > "Perhaps the ultimate irony[10] is that the biblical views on nature,
> > human roles and responsibilities are as logical as any other including
> > modern environmentalism.[11]"
>
> The Bible claims that the gods had a party on the top of a mountain and
> got drunk. That's "logical?"

I'd like to see this clarified, but I think it's off topic
for talk.origins.

> > Yes they are Tim Ball quotes.
> >
> > It is really sickening when it gets into Canadian politics
> > "A few days later, CanWest reported that the targeting of the FoS
> > radio ad campaign to key Ontario ridings was directed by then FoS
> > media contact Morten Paulsen (later a vice-president at
> > Fleishman-Hillard), who also served as volunteer spokesperson for the
> > Stephen Harper led Conservative Party of Canada during the election.
> > [9]"
> > http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Friends_of_Science
>
>
> --
> "We will never have the elite smart people on our side." -- Rick Santorum