[Bored chemist]

Do they tend to guess an answer if they are unsure?

LOL.

Clearly you have not experienced different cultures. Until fairly recently, tribal mores in South Africa dictated that one could not say "No" to a superior. Asked if he could drive a bulldozer a man replied "Yes" - you can imagine the damage he caused before the supervisor found out the man had not a clue and never even sat in one.

Which is why I stress "intelligent design" of the filters.

BTW - In my opinion, you would never get past the first pass of screening out  those who shoot from the lip before engaging the brain. Not being nasty - just my assessment to give you an example you might relate to.

OK, and you guessed about how we might look for evidence of a God.
But, according to the documentation we have, it won't work
Matthew 4:7
Test not thy God.
So, it looks very much like you didn't know but you decided to " shoot from the lip before engaging the brain. "

It's far from being the first time you have done it.

And that's why your comment- with utter blindness to your own trait- made me laugh.

And now, you have ruled yourself out of "intelligently" designing the filters.
So, were you wrong, or are you unintelligent?

[Bored chemist]

Clearly you have not experienced different cultures.

That's another example of you getting it wrong because you are one of those who " guess an answer if they are unsure".

People want to hear stories confirming the supernatural and they lose their skepticism.

And that breaks the irony meter.

[hamdani yusuf]

When one has a filtered list then one needs to explain how such events can be "manufactured" by the brain. I do not believe that under normal everyday circumstances that a spontaneous hallucination occurs. What science is looking for is "glitches" in the fabric of reality.

IMO, the purpose of science is to build a model of objective reality as accurate and precise as possible. It will help us (conscious agents) to make plans and decisions to effectively and efficiently achieve our ultimate/terminal goal and setting up iinstrumental goals.

The problem is having the study done properly and scientifically in a way that does not presuppose an outcome. Far too many scientific studies do this. It is easy to see the ones that are just done to get the grant money where students take supposedly random polls with so much irrelevant data.

Do you have reference to that assertion? It hink it's related to a problem called Goodhart's Curse which I mentioned here. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg590937#msg590937

One can do a scientific analysis of various aspects of the supernatural and check for inconsistencies and contradictions. One God or multiple Gods? One God with helper Gods/spirits? Good versus evil - is it evolution or damaged personalities or can people respond impulsively to a demonic suggestion? Reincarnation - logical when compared to billions of souls existing in a do-nothing state?

And so on.

I'll add which God question there.
Regarding the reincarnation, does it count other life forms lurking in other planets in other galaxies?

As many theists have suggested that the existence of gods is necessary for us to have morality, how can believing in gods help us making moral decisions such us in trolley problem and its variations? These problems are getting more concerns in the increasing usage of artificial intelligence such as in self driving cars. Can those cars make correct moral decisions without believing in gods?

[CliveG]

Clearly you have not experienced different cultures.

That's another example of you getting it wrong because you are one of those who " guess an answer if they are unsure".

People want to hear stories confirming the supernatural and they lose their skepticism.

And that breaks the irony meter.

This is a debate. I gave an example and related it to you. You imply I am wrong. Am I? Is your experience of different cultures the people next door? And was I not right about the filter to get reliable data?

Irony? Why? There are people who are skeptical and still have feelings which they have to deal with. One has to put a weighting factor on, or discard those with too much bias, and those unable to rationalize their emotions and their analytical skepticism.

An example. In court, a witness gave testimony about the distances involved. The lawyer said it was not possible to judge distances that accurately. The man was in an engineering profession where he constantly had to estimate distances. He offered proof. He gave the lawyers the dimensions of the room within a few percent. The tape measure confirmed his estimates and the lawyer's case took a knock. In my twenties and thirties I could estimate torques very accurately and also do my wheel alignment by eye.

The human brain has incredible capability, and one has to ask whether a clump of dumb chemicals can organize themselves with such precision all by themselves. To tell me the proof that they can is that they did is sooooo disingenuous because it has to pre-suppose no God or supernatural. And yet those who offer this argument cannot see the flaw.

[CliveG]

When one has a filtered list then one needs to explain how such events can be "manufactured" by the brain. I do not believe that under normal everyday circumstances that a spontaneous hallucination occurs. What science is looking for is "glitches" in the fabric of reality.

IMO, the purpose of science is to build a model of objective reality as accurate and precise as possible. It will help us (conscious agents) to make plans and decisions to effectively and efficiently achieve our ultimate/terminal goal and setting up iinstrumental goals.

I agree.

Which is why I say that the model to explain our consciousness AND the mystic events we experience AND the Prime Cause is the one I have put forward. To limit ourselves to mechanical experiments is a self-imposed limit to stop debate by some non-believers. They have to ultimately say "We don't know at this point and may never know". Like the black swan they can only say it might exist but one has never been seen. Until an explorer comes back and says he has seen one. They had to take his word as a witness and wait until further witnesses come forward and one is brought back for examination.

Our ultimate/terminal goal may just be subject to the "dream" set-up by an Ultimate Intelligence.

[CliveG]

The problem is having the study done properly and scientifically in a way that does not presuppose an outcome. Far too many scientific studies do this. It is easy to see the ones that are just done to get the grant money where students take supposedly random polls with so much irrelevant data.

Do you have reference to that assertion? It hink it's related to a problem called Goodhart's Curse which I mentioned here. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg590937#msg590937

No link or study. Just examining some cell tower studies funded by the cell phone industry and used by erudite professionals who have not looked at the detail of how the studies are being done. The same can be said of many of the studies funded by the various powerful industries over the years (leaded petrol, tobacco, sugar, oil, radium and so on - global warming being a current "hot" topic).

Since the objective is to make money and produce a wanted result any professor would use students so as to distance themselves from a detailed analysis of the flaws - plausible deniability. A professor is used in order to add credentials to the project (appeal to authority). It is cost effective not to waste their time. How can one have passion for a project that is a sales effort.

[CliveG]

One can do a scientific analysis of various aspects of the supernatural and check for inconsistencies and contradictions. One God or multiple Gods? One God with helper Gods/spirits? Good versus evil - is it evolution or damaged personalities or can people respond impulsively to a demonic suggestion? Reincarnation - logical when compared to billions of souls existing in a do-nothing state?

And so on.

I'll add which God question there.
Regarding the reincarnation, does it count other life forms lurking in other planets in other galaxies?

A valid point. The objective truth is that there is one truth irrespective of what people believe. The God of the Jews, Christians, Muslims or Hindus is ultimately the same God. It is the attributes that are ascribed to the God that vary. It is assumed that God and Good are the same. Mostly, because praying for the plagues upon ones enemies might not be seen as a "good" thing.

Most religions have an opposing force of Evil and have a supernatural being for that. Satan in the Western religions. I think the Hindus just see destruction (the God Shiva) as one aspect of God.

One prays and the one true God (or the helper spirits) respond.

If there is life on other planets then it is possible that one can reincarnate between planets. If souls assist and guide the life and provide the brains with resident implicit programming as it forms then one assumes that reincarnation in a very different form would not take place. A bacteria or frog would not reincarnate in a human (or vice versa). There have to be some logic (rules) guiding the process. Science has to figure out the model.

[Bored chemist]

People want to hear stories confirming the supernatural and they lose their skepticism.

Irony? Why?

Because  you don't recognise yourself.

You want a supernatural belief- hence your references to God etc.
And you lost your skepticism- hence you believe the hogwash about "phones cause cancer".

But you say it as it fit only happens to other people.

One prays and the one true God (or the helper spirits) respond.

And that's why hurricanes never hit populated areas.

[alancalverd]

IIRC Satan was originally God's favorite, hence his alias as Lucifer, but he had ideas above his station and was deposed.

Beats me why anyone bothers with this bullshit, when it is obvious that the universe was created by Zeus raping a swan, which doesn't explain the turtles but clearly makes more sense than any Triune Mystery.

[CliveG]

People want to hear stories confirming the supernatural and they lose their skepticism.

Irony? Why?

Because  you don't recognise yourself.

You want a supernatural belief- hence your references to God etc.
And you lost your skepticism- hence you believe the hogwash about "phones cause cancer".

But you say it as it fit only happens to other people.

One prays and the one true God (or the helper spirits) respond.

And that's why hurricanes never hit populated areas.

You have no idea about what I want. A supernatural belief is not among them. And you talk about assumptions! You want to have the sentence apply to me so you assume (totally wrongly) that I want a  belief in the supernatural. I have no strongly held (or even weakly held) beliefs in God or any religion. What I have is a theory based on my experience as to what it might all be about. Even recently, I have felt I have little time on earth but find no comfort that there is (or even might be) an afterlife. I recognize that a hypothesis is not proof or even conviction. I find that I simply hope I can finish some projects before the end comes.

As for cell phones causing harm, the personal evidence is overwhelming. Example - I say that dropping a brick on ones bare foot hurts - and it does. My experience has the same level of evidence as that example - except for many repetitions of pain and harm. I am going to post further incidents of harm on the cell tower thread. I find that the challenges you pose are similar to saying that any pain I feel (brick or tower) is psychosomatic.  Give it a few years and you can look back and wonder why you were so arrogant as to assume I am not very scientific or skeptical. If you survive that is.

Have you read my earlier posts? Where I say that the laws of physics govern most events, thus allowing for natural disasters and suffering? And that responses to prayers are usually personal and limited? A response can also be one of "I heard you, and it is noted for your judgement in the afterlife - that you had faith".

One could survive personally but averting natural disaster is just too extreme. Science would notice that there is an anomaly. You comment is an example of a straw man. You set up an extreme example which does not apply and use it as a general proof.

In quantum physics I was taught that one could throw a tennis ball against a wall and there was possibility that on some occasions the ball would just pass through. And you say but no-one has ever witnessed that, and no experiment has seen that. The laws of physics give the probability as so extreme as to practically impossible - but it could happen. Answering prayers is not as improbable - just that repeatable provable events are against the spiritual rules - at this time.

[CliveG]

IIRC Satan was originally God's favorite, hence his alias as Lucifer, but he had ideas above his station and was deposed.

Beats me why anyone bothers with this bullshit, when it is obvious that the universe was created by Zeus raping a swan, which doesn't explain the turtles but clearly makes more sense than any Triune Mystery.

Literal interpretation of religious texts are mostly exercises in futility and it beats me why you bang on with obvious examples. Your sarcasm adds nothing to the debate. Try respect for other viewpoints. You could have asked for my viewpoint and interpretation - which I explain below.

The religions based on fireside stories for children have fallen by the wayside but still entertain using the imagination of previous societies. Clearly they had no prophets or wise men.

Some Biblical basics are clear. Thou shalt not kill. It is also common sense that there are exceptions and modifications to this basic code.


You choice of the story of Satan in the Bible is simply one where ordinary folk are informed that:
a) God is more powerful than Satan (because God created him - all things coming from God)
b) God accepts that spirit beings can be evil and that good can turn bad
c) That evil spirits work against the good of God and that they can distort Gods message
d) That Satan does have some powers to reward evil and a belief in evil
e) Satan is a thinking being with an agenda

My hypothesis is that the Ultimate Intelligence created God and Satan and the Universe and set the rules of physics and the rules of the spirit world. And because it is all an illusion or a virtual reality, the rules can change and can be broken but frequent or extreme breaks or deviations spoil the "Game of Life".

[CliveG]

As many theists have suggested that the existence of gods is necessary for us to have morality, how can believing in gods help us making moral decisions such us in trolley problem and its variations? These problems are getting more concerns in the increasing usage of artificial intelligence such as in self driving cars. Can those cars make correct moral decisions without believing in gods?

Now this is a topic worthy of debate. I believe one can get some answers by breaking issues down to the basics.

I am not sure that God imbues people with a basic morality or ethics. I believe that man has free will and God is there is reward or punish wrong-doing. Those who strongly believe there is a spiritual consequence are strongly disinclined to do evil. A logical fact that I have experienced over and over. The argument that there are people who do not need religion to act morally is arguing exceptions to the basic principle.

Consequences are a system of programming that reinforce how people behave. They would also influence how an AI changes the fuzzy logic and learning. AI can have hard rules to stop intelligent machines from causing harm.

In South Africa corruption and evil are flourishing and society here is getting rotten by the day. The consequences for illegal and immoral actions are rewards without punishment. From the top down and in every section of society including the justice department. An AI would be corrupted if it did not have some serious and strong basics that could not be overwritten or modified or replaced.

There are moral dilemmas that can be resolved by setting basic principles as strong guidelines. One must recognize the difference between morality and ethics. Morality is a set of codes for a society. If that code says that euthanasia of terminally ill people is acceptable then the code of Thou Shalt Not Kill is weakened. Ethically, killing is not good and must be justified. The eugenics movement in the US that was exported to Germany before WW2 is an example of good intentions going very wrong, and how a "slippery slope" can change good intentions to extremely bad.

The trolley dilemma has some interesting basics.
It is accepted generally that if there are two situations in which different numbers of people die then the one with the lesser number is the "better" choice. In war, sacrificing one man to save thousands is a no-brainer. Often people self-sacrifice because it is seen as morally better. Ethically there is not much difference because one death is one too many.
The next issue is whether one takes an action which is generally prohibited (throwing the switch to kill a man) or simply observing fate happening. Many do not want the responsibility, and do not want "blood on their hands". A general in a war makes a decision to attack and many are killed. He sees it as his job (responsibility) which absolves him of guilt. A hangman has a similar approach.

A machine has no guilt so if programmed to cause the least damage it will simply throw the switch. However, if programmed not to take actions to cause harm it will not throw the switch. If both programs are put in then it must use a system of weighing action versus inaction. The numbers now have to be weighted in. One man versus one man. No problem and no need for action. One man versus two men. Hmmm. One man versus a thousand. It had better throw the switch.

If the moral actions have a legal consequence then we have a heavy programming problem. A man shot another burning to death in a car with no hope of escape. Instead of being praised for having compassion the law prosecuted him.

It gets more complicated when one starts to put different values on the lives of different people. But once more it is a moral (societies norms and rules) decision.

[Bored chemist]

Those who strongly believe there is a spiritual consequence are strongly disinclined to do evil.

Unless, of course, that consequence is just telling your story to a man in a little box and being told that his invisible friend forgives you.

Apparently, a murderer who went to the confessional will get into heaven, but I won't because I act in the way He designed me to, but which He disapproves of.

Seems a strange way to run a Universe.

The argument that there are people who do not need religion to act morally is arguing exceptions to the basic principle.

We are hardly an " exception".
In some countries atheism is the majority.
In the UK  atheists are a majority in some age groups.

You seem to be trying to say that only religion gets it right.
The evidence shows otherwise.

[alancalverd]

Those who strongly believe there is a spiritual consequence are strongly disinclined to do evil. A logical fact that I have experienced over and over.

So your huge experience of  ISIS rapes, beatings and beheadings has been positive? ***** for Trip Adviser, even though the menu lacked pork and beer? 

[CliveG]

Those who strongly believe there is a spiritual consequence are strongly disinclined to do evil. A logical fact that I have experienced over and over.

So your huge experience of  ISIS rapes, beatings and beheadings has been positive? ***** for Trip Adviser, even though the menu lacked pork and beer?

Did I say that religion is perfect and any follower of any religion can be trusted to follow the basic tenets? No. ISIS does not follow the basic tenets of Islam which are to be merciful to one's enemy when defeated. ISIS follows an aberration of Sharia law, a set of laws made by men.

There are many Christians who go to church but do not obey the commandments. They are fake. When I talk about the application of religious principles I mean those Christians who are sincere and try to apply the basic rules in their life. Do they always succeed? No - there are no perfect people. The Christian religion is full of men who abused their power and made man-made rules. But the basics of the religion have an attraction and a comfort for many, and much good has been inspired by men who truly follow the "goodness" of religion - even to the point of self-sacrifice.

There were many Hindu and Buddhist Gurus who came to the USA and used a distortion of the basic tenets for self-interest. Sex and money and power. One problem is that they believe that Karma can result in a person being reincarnated into suffering - and that the result is that people are responsible for their own misery. Even that making them more miserable is aiding their karma. Wrong. There is a lack of emphasis on the good rules.

When a religion like Judaism has the basics distorted into "our people" and not a universal "all people" then there are problems for both them and others. Besides the non-belief in an afterlife means a non-belief in consequences. The history before and after of Christ indicates the problem that this lack of consequence have brought about. Many Jews do not believe in a personal God or even any God. Israel has many Jewish atheists and agnostics.

You focus on exceptions to the rule. Have you met and interacted with people who follow the "good" guidelines of their religion? They do believe there are consequences and modify their behavior accordingly.

[CliveG]

Those who strongly believe there is a spiritual consequence are strongly disinclined to do evil.

Unless, of course, that consequence is just telling your story to a man in a little box and being told that his invisible friend forgives you.

Apparently, a murderer who went to the confessional will get into heaven, but I won't because I act in the way He designed me to, but which He disapproves of.

Seems a strange way to run a Universe.

The argument that there are people who do not need religion to act morally is arguing exceptions to the basic principle.

We are hardly an " exception".
In some countries atheism is the majority.
In the UK  atheists are a majority in some age groups.

You seem to be trying to say that only religion gets it right.
The evidence shows otherwise.

The forgiveness of confession is a distortion of the basic tenet of forgiveness. I do not believe that sins are absolved unless a person truly regrets their actions and makes an effort to change. The Mafia hitman confessing and then going out on another hit will earn him a nasty place in the afterlife - or even this life.

The exceptions do not have to be a small number. And my experience in Sweden and New Zealand indicates that the non-believers are not very law-abiding or moral when compared to the few religious people there.

Do not put words in my mouth. I am not saying that only religion gets it right. But many atheists have been influenced or brought up in religious environments and that influence is not properly accounted for. Another area in which I am of the opinion that studies tend to prove the desired outcome with questions and polls that are badly set up and badly interpreted.

When I hear of exceptional people doing exceptional good I can almost rely on them being faithful believers. A homeless woman here had a 26 kg tumor. Most doctors advised the Christian person on a mission to help this woman to just assist in the dying process. A Christian doctor said he would operate because of his faith and the faith of the person searching for help. He was successful. What a wonderful personal story.

[Bored chemist]

When I hear of exceptional people doing exceptional good I can almost rely on them being faithful believers.

The actual science broadly says the opposite.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111223113530/http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html

A homeless woman here had a 26 kg tumor.

Given to her by God.
How nice of Him.

But your decision to focus one one example of a Christian surgeon doing something that was his job- operating- as if it was a miracle, but ignoring ISIS killing thousands shows that you are simply not paying attention to the truth

[Bored chemist]

Another area in which I am of the opinion that studies tend to prove the desired outcome with questions and polls that are badly set up and badly interpreted.

How would I distinguish that from you simply not wanting to hear the truth?

[CliveG]

I did a search on "Wuhan and 5G".

I noticed this site:

Saying "people have worried about 5g hurting immune systems. Wuhan ihas 5G technology. is there anything to this I wonder?"

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/ettb65/wuhan_is_5g_test_ground/

Comment deleted with the message:
Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose.


I say that the networks are very fearful of a panic about 5G reducing immune systems and also increasing the rate of mutation in viruses.

Read my thread about the dangers of cell phone tower radiation where I say exactly that. Will this comment be removed by the moderators also?

Cause and effect? Or just coincidence?

[Bored chemist]

Will this comment be removed by the moderators also?

I doubt it.

Cause and effect? Or just coincidence?

Or conspiracy theory.