Origin of Earth

[Dr.Who]

Not necessarily.

Your emotion is an empirical phenomenon independent of your senses, is it not?

Seeing, say, a beautiful naked woman would elicit a different emotion from you than from another individual -- even if you are looking at the same beautiful naked woman.

Technically emotions are bichemical while attitudes or thoughts cannot be seen.

But I understand what you are saying.

As a thing that cannot be experienced directly with the five senses, a mind, is by definition not empirical.

 

[numinus]

Technically emotions are bichemical while attitudes or thoughts cannot be seen.

But I understand what you are saying.

As a thing that cannot be experienced directly with the five senses, a mind, is by definition not empirical.

It is my understanding that something experienced is an empirical phenomenon. While it is true that knowledge of the outside world comes through the senses, we cannot experience it without the mind to process the stimuli.

 

[Dr.Who]

It is my understanding that something experienced is an empirical phenomenon. While it is true that knowledge of the outside world comes through the senses, we cannot experience it without the mind to process the stimuli.

That would be my understanding too.

What we sense is the empirical evidence and how we process that evidence allows us to draw conclusions. There are other kinds of evidences such as that which can be reasoned or deduced, and supernatural evidence which are subjective.

But that which we can reason to be or arrive at through deduction is not empirical evidence. If I reason that the number 2 is the product of 1 and 1 my thinking about 2 does not constitute a sensory experience. I agree that it is an experience but I do not think it is in any way the kind of experience that is referred to in the definition of empirical. In the same way if God speaks to a person that too is an experience but it is in no way the kind of experience referred to in the definition of empirical.

If the evidence arrived at through reason or through supernatural means were both considered to be empirical then the word would have no meaning.

Why is there a distinction and why does it matter? The evidence from the senses is considered to be obejective - anyone can verify it by using their own eyes/senses. This allows science to be replicated by other people and helps to avoid bias. But ones thoughts and ones supernatural experiences are often so subjective that they are often not verified.

 

[PLC1]

That would be my understanding too.

What we sense is the empirical evidence and how we process that evidence allows us to draw conclusions. There are other kinds of evidences such as that which can be reasoned or deduced, and supernatural evidence which are subjective.

But that which we can reason to be or arrive at through deduction is not empirical evidence. If I reason that the number 2 is the product of 1 and 1 my thinking about 2 does not constitute a sensory experience. I agree that it is an experience but I do not think it is in any way the kind of experience that is referred to in the definition of empirical. In the same way if God speaks to a person that too is an experience but it is in no way the kind of experience referred to in the definition of empirical.

If the evidence arrived at through reason or through supernatural means were both considered to be empirical then the word would have no meaning.

Why is there a distinction and why does it matter? The evidence from the senses is considered to be obejective - anyone can verify it by using their own eyes/senses. This allows science to be replicated by other people and helps to avoid bias. But ones thoughts and ones supernatural experiences are often so subjective that they are often not verified.

Evidence arrived at through reason can still be objective. Evidence arrived at through supernatural means can never be.

 

[Dr.Who]

Evidence arrived at through reason can still be objective. Evidence arrived at through supernatural means can never be.

With hesitation I agree.

Ones thougths are always subjective. But if one writes down a chain of logical reasoning then that is indeed objective. Reasoned evidence is only objective once it has been recorded in a format that can be examined empirically.


The supernatural can also become objective once a supernatural even can be examined empirically. Though that still begs the question if it is STILL supernatural once it can be examined empirically. Does God cease to be supernatural when He is incarnate? When He ceases to be incarnate and returns to being purely spirit can we then say that the evidence is supernatural? Or is it natural evidence of a supernatural? I think the last statement is best. And that would be evidence arrived at THROUGH supernatural means.

( No offense . I just like caps better than italics. Italics are too subtle)

 

[numinus]

That would be my understanding too.

What we sense is the empirical evidence and how we process that evidence allows us to draw conclusions. There are other kinds of evidences such as that which can be reasoned or deduced, and supernatural evidence which are subjective.

But that which we can reason to be or arrive at through deduction is not empirical evidence. If I reason that the number 2 is the product of 1 and 1 my thinking about 2 does not constitute a sensory experience. I agree that it is an experience but I do not think it is in any way the kind of experience that is referred to in the definition of empirical. In the same way if God speaks to a person that too is an experience but it is in no way the kind of experience referred to in the definition of empirical.

If the evidence arrived at through reason or through supernatural means were both considered to be empirical then the word would have no meaning.

What I meant was the experience itself is empirical.

Lets say two people listen to the same music at the same time. One was into it and the other god bored and slept the entire time.

Getting excited about music is an experience hence empirical. It goes with other measurable phenomena -- like increased heartbeat, adrenalin, etc. Getting bored is an experience, in the same way. So, there are two, entirely opposite experiences from the same stimuli.

Hence, an empirical phenomenon may not necessarily be sensory.

Why is there a distinction and why does it matter? The evidence from the senses is considered to be obejective - anyone can verify it by using their own eyes/senses. This allows science to be replicated by other people and helps to avoid bias. But ones thoughts and ones supernatural experiences are often so subjective that they are often not verified.

I disagree. Our senses is very subjective. Remember the wave-particle duality? Interpretation of wave and particle aspects of a phenomenon is explained from the subjective view of the observer.

Objective evidence or proof is possible only in the realm of ideas.

Clearly, the distinction goes to the heart of the question.

 

[PLC1]

With hesitation I agree.

Ones thougths are always subjective. But if one writes down a chain of logical reasoning then that is indeed objective. Reasoned evidence is only objective once it has been recorded in a format that can be examined empirically.


The supernatural can also become objective once a supernatural even can be examined empirically. Though that still begs the question if it is STILL supernatural once it can be examined empirically. Does God cease to be supernatural when He is incarnate? When He ceases to be incarnate and returns to being purely spirit can we then say that the evidence is supernatural? Or is it natural evidence of a supernatural? I think the last statement is best. And that would be evidence arrived at THROUGH supernatural means.

( No offense . I just like caps better than italics. Italics are too subtle)

A god who is incarnate wouldn't be supernatural, or would he/she? In order to show godhood, there would have to be something radically different about such a being. Still, observing god incarnate would be empirical evidence.

But, as it stands now, any evidence for there being a god, against the existence of god, or anything to do with the nature of god is purely supernatural and not objective.

Of course Christians say that god incarnate did exist some two thousand years ago or so. The problem with that is the accounts of his existence were written down years after the events at a time when only an elite few were literate, then the writings were copied and recopied (there being no printing presses back then) and translated and retranslated to the point that the evidence of ancient writings has become pretty subjective.

 

[Dr.Who]

What I meant was the experience itself is empirical.

Lets say two people listen to the same music at the same time. One was into it and the other god bored and slept the entire time.

Getting excited about music is an experience hence empirical. It goes with other measurable phenomena -- like increased heartbeat, adrenalin, etc. Getting bored is an experience, in the same way. So, there are two, entirely opposite experiences from the same stimuli.

Hence, an empirical phenomenon may not necessarily be sensory.

Knowing how you emote is sensory. It is also something that someone else could measure, i.e. heartbeat, adrenalin, etc.

Knowing what your thoughts are cannot be measured by someone else - I think. How do we ourselves know what we think?

I disagree. Our senses is very subjective. Remember the wave-particle duality? Interpretation of wave and particle aspects of a phenomenon is explained from the subjective view of the observer.

Objective evidence or proof is possible only in the realm of ideas.

Clearly, the distinction goes to the heart of the question.

 

[Dr.Who]

A god who is incarnate wouldn't be supernatural, or would he/she? In order to show godhood, there would have to be something radically different about such a being. Still, observing god incarnate would be empirical evidence.

But, as it stands now, any evidence for there being a god, against the existence of god, or anything to do with the nature of god is purely supernatural and not objective.

Of course Christians say that god incarnate did exist some two thousand years ago or so. The problem with that is the accounts of his existence were written down years after the events at a time when only an elite few were literate, then the writings were copied and recopied (there being no printing presses back then) and translated and retranslated to the point that the evidence of ancient writings has become pretty subjective.

You are exaggerating the difficulties in the manuscripts.

Regardless, no matter how imperfect they are they are still evidence - just imperfect evidence.

The written mss are empirical and they are recordings of what is probably an empirical event. How we interpret that evidence is exactly the same as how we interpret all other empirical evidence - imperfect.

 

[numinus]

Knowing how you emote is sensory. It is also something that someone else could measure, i.e. heartbeat, adrenalin, etc.

Knowing what your thoughts are cannot be measured by someone else - I think. How do we ourselves know what we think?

Everything that passes through the senses, according to the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, are essentially classical measurements -- hence dependent on the subjective view of the observer.

The only thing objective, as far as the behavior of matter and energy is concerned, is the WAVE FUNCTION that describes it. This wave function is a pure idea.

It is clear -- only ideas have objective reality.

 

[Gipper]

The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.

The Big BangThe Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10-36 to 10-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.

Excess quarksQuarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge–parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families. However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.

Large, just right-sized universeEven so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Early evolution of the universeCosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into the[se] 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.

The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect.

Universal probability bounds"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec),5 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143

So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history

Hey Doug, you continually post without citation. You make it appear that you wrote the entire post when you did not. All you need do is copy the articles web address and include it with your post..as I did below.

You copied and pasted the above from here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html

 

[PLC1]

Everything that passes through the senses, according to the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, are essentially classical measurements -- hence dependent on the subjective view of the observer.

The only thing objective, as far as the behavior of matter and energy is concerned, is the WAVE FUNCTION that describes it. This wave function is a pure idea.

It is clear -- only ideas have objective reality.

and yet, people tend to have some pretty wacky ideas at times, don't you think?

 

[numinus]

and yet, people tend to have some pretty wacky ideas at times, don't you think?

Correct.

However, the ideas im talking about here are those that exist outside our own existence. We dont make them up. We only discern them.

 

[PLC1]

Correct.

However, the ideas im talking about here are those that exist outside our own existence. We dont make them up. We only discern them.

Then the ideas may be pure, but the discerning isn't always.

 

[Dr.Who]

Everything that passes through the senses, according to the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, are essentially classical measurements -- hence dependent on the subjective view of the observer.

The only thing objective, as far as the behavior of matter and energy is concerned, is the WAVE FUNCTION that describes it. This wave function is a pure idea.

It is clear -- only ideas have objective reality.

Hmm? Im not so sure ideas have objective reality. To be objective several of us must observe it. And for several of us to observe it we must use our senses.

In fact a quick check on the definition of "objective" shows me that most definitions require that the object being considered be material. Thought are not material. Thought are also not dependent on the senses.

Thoughts may be, as you seem to be saying the only things that are not dependent on the senses. But since objective things are dependent on the senses thoughts would be uniquely free of dependence on senses - but only until they are shared with another.