1. You're still using your subjective experience to prove Premise Two.

It's all subjective experience; again, if you want to claim that subjective determinations cannot lead to objective truths, then you can throw out any claim of an objective world and we can drown in relativism. Care to take another stab at it?

2. In the other threads you quoted one Wikipedia page at me without even reading the other one (Check the second paragraph of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical to see the difference). You ignore the fact that empiricism as a philosophy is an unscientific world view on its face due to its unverifiable claims of where information can and cannot come from.

What? What do you think empiricism is based on?

Definition of EMPIRICAL
1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4: of or relating to empiricism

It's clear now you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, empiricism is a philosophy, and yes, it was one of my major points that you cannot verify empiricism without engaging in tautologies. You're just proving my point here. Yet, you show complete ignorance here as empiricism is a major foundation for the scientific method. The fact that I would have to prove this to you says it all..

http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/elang273/notes/empirical.htm

"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

I also guess you missed this:

"The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, Thomas Kuhn [2] has promoted the concept that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data."

Meaning, the interpretation of data is philosophical.

3. You quoted people who haven't even graduated university at me???

The OP said he had not yet graduated, it doesn't mean all the participants have not. Did you even read it?

4. You equate spectators at a football game who are there to support their team with scientists collecting data (Scientists at that match would have been making a record of each foul), and on and on with analogies that all demonstrate a sad lack of understanding of how science works, or, in one case, modelling it somewhat accurately, but presenting it as if bias was something scientists didn't openly acknowledge, and didn't have processes to mitigate impact. If religion ever acknowledged its bias, it would cease to exist instantly, because its bias is the entire religion. At the very least, this makes science more mature and credible in the objective world.

Nothing you said here refutes any of the data provided, but is rather just you stating your opinion that it is wrong without backing it up. You also pass off the (now admitted) bias as being mitigated without explaining how. And then you create a false dichotomy by constrasting science and religion, and then attacking religion as "biased" and saying science is superior. If anything it just shows your religious devotion to science and your faith in the secular humanist worldview. Religion and science aren't in a competition, and science has no data on the existence of God. You may believe certain "discoveries" disprove things in the bible, but that is a different conversation. On the essential question, does God exist, science is deaf dumb and blind.

5. You go on with your, "There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe" spiel which is always countered with "Religion just catalogues things we cannot explain nor ever prove and ascribe them to a deity, knowing (hoping, hoping, please!!!) it will never be possible to disprove them, and all the while ignoring former claims for God that have been shown not to be God, but a newly understood and measurable force.

There are many lines of evidence which show it is reasonable to conclude that the Universe has an intelligent causation. There is evidence from logic, from morality, from design, from biology and cosmology, personal experience, culture, etc. It is not just appealing to some gaps, because special creation, as in the example of DNA, is a superior explanation to random chance. You're also going on about mechanisms which doesn't rule out Agency. You seem very overconfident and this is unwarrented, because there isn't much positive evidence on your side.

6. You are still conflating your "God" (I'm going to start calling him "Yahweh" to prevent this in the future) with any old god. The Big Bang Theory, which you alternately endorse and claim is bunk, could point to a creator, but by no means a god with any of the properties of Yahweh, except the singular property of the ability to create the universe as we know it.

Since time, space, matter and energy began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe would be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unimaginably powerful and transcendent. You can also make a case for a personal God from these conclusions. Before you go on about how no one says the Universe was created from nothing:

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

7. You quote scientists' opinions on religious issues like I think they're infallible prophets or something. Science doesn't work that way. Only religion does.

You seem to believe everything they say when their statements agree with your preconceived notions of reality. How about these statements?

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

Well we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ..ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwins time.

By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.

David M. Raup Chicago Field Museum of Natural History
F.M.O.N.H.B v.50 p.35

8. There's nothing we are "interpreting differently". You are interpreting everything as "Yahweh did it", and I'm not interpreting anything: There observably is CMBR, and it points to a Big Bang billions of years ago. That is all. You leap from this "suggestion" to "therefore it was Yahweh a few thousand years ago".

You're interpreting the evidence as pointing to random chance, I am interpreting it as being the result of intelligent causation.

And actually, without the hypothetical inflation, the smoothness of the CMBR contradicts the predictions of the theory. The CMBR should also all be moving away from the big bang but it is actually going in different directions.

9. I would never scoff at infallibility in anything that can be tested. I scoff only at claims of infallibility where by definition there is no possibility of failure only because there lacks any measure of success, just like every piece of dogma in the Bible, except for the ones that have been proven false, like the shape of the Earth, the orbit of the planets, and so on. Every scientific hypothesis has a measure of success or failure, and when one is disproven, that hypothesis is discarded, except to keep a record of how it was proven false.

Yet billions of people have tested the claims of Jesus and found them to be true. You believe because you fooled yourself with an elaborate delusion that any claim that disagrees with your naturalistic worldview is also an elaborate delusion that people have fallen into. I'm sorry but this does not follow. You're also wrong about your interpretation of the bible; it never claimed the Earth is flat or anything else you are suggesting.

10. I like your story of the scientist who climbs to find a bunch of theologians who have been sitting on a mountain of ignorance for centuries. Apt image. And I don't get the intent anyway. It suggests both that science could one day arrive at total knowledge (doubtful), and that religion has ever produced a shred of useful knowledge (it hasn't).

This is the problem with atheists, is that they are incapable of seeing the other side of the issue. Are you honestly this close-minded that you can't see the implications that Gods existence has for our knowledge? Or are you so pathological in your beliefs that you can't even allow for it hypothetically?

If God has revealed Himself, then obviously this is the most important piece of knowledge there is, and it is only through that revelation that we could understand anything about the world. It is only through that lens that any piece of information could be interpreted, or the truth of it sussed out. So, anyone having that knowledge, would instantly be at the top of the mountain of knowledge. The scientist only reached the top when he became aware of Gods existence by observing the obvious design in the Universe.

In short, I'm through talking about anything logical with you, or attempting to prove anything. You really, really do not understand the essential (or useless) elements of a logical discussion of proof. If you knew them, I would enjoy this debate. If you acknowledged this weakness and were keen to learn them, I would enjoy showing you how they work -- you seem keen. But neither seems the case. [edit -- This may be due to the fact that you're connected to both the objective world and the God world, and you're having trouble only using input from the one stream and not the other, like using input you received from your right eye, but not your left, as our memories are not stored that way. Either way, it is a weakness.]

Your arrogance knows no bounds. You've made it clear from your confusion about empiricism that you really don't know what you're talking about, and you tried to use that as a platform to condescend to me the entire reply. This isn't a logical discussion, this is an exposition of your obvious prejudice. You have no basis for judging my intelligence or capabilities..it's clear that your trite analysis is founded upon a bloated ego and nothing else.

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. Proverbs 11:2

>> ^messenger

Methinks thou dost protest too much, oh glorious ant with your own song and star power.

Pity me who has left behind the richness of the blood red ruby and must suffer for FIVE HUNDRED STARS with this pale insipid smear of nothingness that is diamond.

In reply to this comment by ant:
I can't find my ruby.

>> ^VoodooV:

What planet are you from Banshee? Republicans make false accusations about the health care reforms having death panels....now you're advocating them?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Republicans have no fucking clue what they're for. The only thing they know is that they'll take the opposite stance of whatever a Democrat wants.
I'm waiting for Obama to openly support trickle down economics just so I can watch the Reps head explode.


How can you not understand what I'm saying? Demand for health care is unlimited. Every person has to decide how much money they want to sock away for a future problem afflicting them. It is a balance between quality of life and length of life. People make those kinds of decisions already with the quantity of children they have. Each child causes an additional divide from the same pot. But you can't make those kinds of decisions with OTHER people's money, because you will take everything and more. Eventually, it gets to the point where no one wants to produce in such amounts that would reduce their benefit relative to their burden. And if the majority are consuming more than they're producing, where do the funds come from to consume in the first place? Net destruction ends in nothingness, a currency so worthless you can scarcely afford anything. But hey, it works for a while.

Payroll taxes for Medicare and SS go straight into the general fund and the government annually spends in excess of the fund by borrowing at interest. The interest payments alone are becoming massive burdens.

Considering the universe is a whole lotta nothin, I'd probably pay a whole lotta nothin. Everything we've seen and explored is a depressing, barren wasteland of nothingness. How about we go find a suitable planet to live on and wipe out all the dinosaurs on it so we can make a new home and build stargates between the two worlds so we can send nukes back and forth and wage war trying to control sections of that new world and destroy it just like we have this one?

I mean come on, people! Let's push up!

>> ^JiggaJonson:

@Sarzy YOU'RE NOT THINKING FOURTH DIMENSIONALLY!!!
Biff can't gradually return to a different future. Just like Doc says when they leave Jenifer behind "The change will be instantaneous!" I'm with Lucky on this one, if the past was modified, Biff should not have been returned to the original timeline, he would have gone to the future where Biff was a millionaire and built a casino in that shitty town.
And I for one think the second movie would have ended well with Doc and Marty sucked into a wormhole of nothingness, leaving no room for the pile of dead cheeseburger meat that was the third film.


Actually, there's a deleted scene on the DVD in which Old Biff, after breaking his cane and stumbling away from the Delorean, gradually disappears. You're supposed to infer that the alternate Biff didn't live to be that old, which made Old Biff disappear -- though that's pretty confusing (which is why they cut the scene).

That supports the fact that certain changes occur gradually, otherwise Old Biff would have disappeared the second he handed Young Biff the almanac.

@Sarzy YOU'RE NOT THINKING FOURTH DIMENSIONALLY!!!

Biff can't gradually return to a different future. Just like Doc says when they leave Jenifer behind "The change will be instantaneous!" I'm with Lucky on this one, if the past was modified, Biff should not have been returned to the original timeline, he would have gone to the future where Biff was a millionaire and built a casino in that shitty town.

And I for one think the second movie would have ended well with Doc and Marty sucked into a wormhole of nothingness, leaving no room for the pile of dead cheeseburger meat that was the third film.

Nothingness, I embrace you!

REMEMBER Entropy merely states from "orderly" to "disorderly" in physics terms. Order is pure energy, disorder being the lack of that pure energy or the energy in dissociated forms (other than the e=mc^2 connection of course). In fact when you look at all the structuring and completely different things OTHER than pure energy, you know entropy is very well at work.

It doesn't mean CHAOS!!! I hate this Tripe (<--capital T).
Complexity is inferred in an entropic setup with time pointing the same direction as ours. No magic, no hocus-pocus needed. It breaks down and changes the structure to more obscure or "different forms" than that first moment. This is the same reason that people who look at the past with the mindset of using "the past" giving rise to statistics; which are helpful if you ONLY know their place. The chances that we would be here in reverse ARE 100% like his egg(unless quantum mechanics throws out a oddity: i.e. a virtual particle where there wasn't one, etc...).

Also, nothingness can't exist as he states. If you could even label it then it wouldn't, couldn't be; which is why in QM we have the quantum foam (QED, Richard Feynman) or quantum spacetime and virtual particles. The term nothingness is as closely related to the term virtual in a physics sense. In other words that idea is "kaput".

He's teaching the audience old, outdated, and sixth/seventh grade'ish material.

/Isn't TED supposedly new ideas being shown easily, like Feynman. They've been falling the last 6 months.

You are, of course, right. Boy do I have "egg" on my face.
>> ^shuac:

>> ^gwiz665:
Jism.>> ^shuac:
Sarah Palin puts the gism in Knownothingism.

Yes but, like a nun, there is no jism in the word, good sir.

>> ^gwiz665:

Jism.>> ^shuac:
Sarah Palin puts the gism in Knownothingism.

Yes but, like a nun, there is no jism in the word, good sir.

Jism.>> ^shuac:

Sarah Palin puts the gism in Knownothingism.

Where is this magic lady who brings forth beer from nothingness and doesn't charge for it? She could give Jesus and the whole water-to-wine thing a run for his money.

You don't understand what 'intelligent designer' means.

1) God (from the point of view of a Christian)
2) A sentient being whom has designed something (from the point of view of science)
3) A skilled designer (from a literal point of view)

Renounce democracy and repent, godless liberals. Accept the market as your personal lord and savior and it shall self regulate. Thus sayeth the Fist of Nothingness! Hallelujah!

Thanks for the quality!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
*quality

Listen, I think Harris is a fine thinker. I've enjoyed reading some of his materials.

But he brought absolutely nothing to this interview. When I watched this on tv I was just thinking how disappointed I was with his absolute nothingness he brought to the table.

Very disappointed with this, unfortunately. I was expecting more from him. Perhaps nerves of the big lights and cameras? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.