Advanced Dungeons and Dragons its a fantasy role-playing game with magic, angels, demons and monsters like dragons and unicorns as in fiction. Just like the various religious mythos like the Torah and derivative texts. And again if its allegorical then why use the Bible the morality is ,er, crap. If its true then prove it. Either way Deists using the Torah as a base lose.
Hello OPINIONS. Isn't it nice to be able to express opinions. According to you, the Deists have lost. Oh well. Sorry bout that all you Deists out there: According to tkolter, you have already lost just by being a Deist.
Can Deists prove a Divine Force using the Scientific Method as applies to each unique discipline as it applies to Biblical Claims or other books or in general? Again if its stories which are just moral tales you have major problems with that its just largely immoral and evil when you READ them. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
To the one who says to be atheist, do you have 100% proof that God does not exist, that there was not a world wide flood, that the Egyptian plagues did not occur, that gaints didn't exist? If you can prove one thing from the Bible to be 100% false then you have me, but if you can't what then should you do?
Why should deists even bother with the scientific method? The use of the scientific method is founded upon Assumptions. Assumptions are things that have never been proven to be true. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science "Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify the scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[SUP][8][/SUP] Philosophy of science seeks a deep understanding of what these underlying assumptions mean and whether they are valid."
can you prove my invisible TRex spirit guide doesn't exist? if you can't, then I'll make sure you're reminded of the need to believe in him.
I'm not sure if I've ever spoken to anyone who, religious or otherwise, didn't accept these assumptions. Even the ones who claim to not believe them still behave as if they exist. Arguments against the existence of objective reality are self-defeating, since they argue that it is objectively true that objective truth doesn't exist.
I see you are attempting to play the old bait and switch game... switch the parameters in mid stream.
On the contrary. Anyone who wants to argue for objective truth without there being any objective reality that it reflects is the one who will have to be baiting and switching.
Who is it that made the assumption that there is an objective reality? Not me. That was the workings of the scientific community, and within all likelihood, the making of that assumption was done before you or me were born. Since I have uncovered that little piece of information about the suspect nature of 'objective reality', I am finding my job in electronics to be more intriguing because now I have to reevaluate everything that was taught to me regarding the physics that lay behind the electronic industry. Now that is a bitter pill to swallow. 40+ years in electronics is now suspect in nearly all of its aspects. Doing research in this field is a Nuclear Engineer (Phd) Tom Bearden who has written many papers concerning this matter. Here is an example of findings he has made. http://www.cheniere.org/misc/flaws_in_classical_em_theory.htm
Yes, it is an assumption that has been around for as long as people have been around to make it. Everyday both of us behave as if the world around us exists independent of or personal tastes, opinions and desires. And he didn't arrive at any of these conclusions using science . . . using the assumptions that experimentation can be used to discover more about a shared world that exists independently from our personal tastes, opinions and desires? How did he arrive at those conclusions, then? Sorry, but from what I'm reading about this guy, he's a total crank. He's one of those "free energy" guys with a fake degree: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/dr._bearden_vacuum_energy/ Besides, this dude has a lot to say about extracting vacuum energy . . . does he not believe that vacuum energy objectively exists? Does he not believe that his book objectively exists?
Well I am not surprised at the link you provided, especially when looking at the information displayed when one clicks on the tab "pantheon of skeptics"... it even has listed a couple of "Magicians". Hmmm... kinda strange for a supposedly high profile list of skeptics. But of course when the founder is Paul Kurtz whose profile shows that he is "Paul Kurtz founder, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry & Skeptical Inquirer magazine / founder, Prometheus Books, the Council for Secular Humanism, and the Center for Inquiry " http://www.csicop.org/about/the_pantheon_of_skeptics/ I find myself being led to believe that the article you linked to is a bit biased.
The source in this case doesn't matter. Bearden got his "PhD" in the mail from a diploma mill. Why is it strange? Magicians are the perfect debunkers. Asking why magicians qualify as skeptics is like asking why hackers qualify as security experts: because they know the exploits. Look at what magicians do for a living: they engage in voluntary trickery for entertainment, acknowledging their tricks for what they are. There are other people out there, like Uri Gellar and countless "psychics" that use these same tricks without acknowledging that they are tricks -- they claim to have magic powers instead. Magicians have been doing a public service by showing this frauds for what they are ever since Houdini. Magicians are even, today, consulting scientists on ways to eliminate such tricks when experimenting for paranormal claims. Yes, many skeptics are secular humanists, and vice versa. Point? You are citing information from a fraud and huckster who got his "PhD" from a mail order, and who uses said "PhD" as false pretense to peddle false hope in the form of books and machines. If his theories were true, you'd be powering his house using one of his machines right now, and selling power back to the electric company in the process -- that is, of course, if you didn't do the logical thing and get rich off of selling similar machines yourself. And all of this is beside the original point. None of this in any way challenges the notion of objective reality. It only enforces it. If "Dr" Bearden were right, then there would still be a universe from which vacuum energy could be derived.
And your PROOF of that claim is where? First of all the term "Magician" is a false representation as used by these modern day stage magicians because of the many diverse definitions that are used to define the term. The root word "magic" also has diverse definitions which make the use of the term ambiguous when a disclaimer is not made stating the context in which the term is being used. Two things regarding the above comments: 1 Prove your claim regarding his credentials. 2 You are presuming what I would do. Awe... but your mention of some ambiguous "background radiation" is credible? Don't you realize that 'background radiation' is usable energy? If it were not 'usable', then why do you suppose that scientists have any interest in it at all? One possible reason is to justify their theories regarding the Big Bang and the creation of the universe. It is being 'used' for that purpose right now, so it is usable energy.
He admits where he got the PhD from: http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/011403.htm Trinity is a diploma mill that awards degrees for "life experience", not academic achievement. Prove any of the magicians in the organization are anything other than stage magicians. Good luck with that. None of them claim to have actual magic powers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Andrus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milbourne_Christopher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi Sorry, all illusionists and stage magicians, not a cabal of warlocks. Linked above. Yes, I'm presuming that if you actually believed in this free energy, that you would be smart enough to use it. The machines aren't expensive and they would pay for themselves. Plus they could easily make you rich. Yes. It can be verified by independent investigators, none of whom are running a get-rich-quick scheme off of it, and all of whom could stand substantial career gain from disproving it. No one has discovered a way to turn this into usable energy. It would take more energy to collect than you would derive from the process. It was discovered by accident, and it was predicted before it was discovered. But I'm sure people have their conspiracy theories. In that highly Sophistic sense, sure.
Is it a valid "Phd"? Isn't "experience" part of the requirements of the 'scientific method'? be careful now how you answer that one. "Yes, I was awarded the Ph.D. for life experience and for life accomplishment (from Trinity College - Ed.), and I make no attempt to conceal it. I was awarded the Legion of Merit in Vietnam for similar reasons. If that makes it "bogus", so be it. I was also listed in Who's Who in Aviation and Aerospace, 1983, National Aeronautical Institute. I don't know what others may have done, but to obtain the doctorate for experience, I first was required to prepare a formal Ph.D. thesis, as is normal, and do several months of additional work for it. As might be expected, my thesis advanced the first legitimate theory of COP>1.0 EM systems, freely extracting energy from the vacuum. It also contained the first formal correction to Aristotelian logic since Aristotle advanced it. My M.S. in nuclear engineering was awarded by Georgia Tech under full rigor, as was my B.S. in mathematics from what is today Northeast Louisiana University. Those are the credentials, and one can take it or leave it." Taken from your link. Did I make a claim that they were other than stage magicians? Quit with the strawman arguments. So noted and responded to in like. Then you are guilty of presenting things to the readers without proof of claim. Prove that someone is running a "get-rich-quick scheme". How much was the cost for the scientists to write their documents wherein this 'background radiation' was used to justify their theory of the Big Bang and or the creation of the universe? Mine is no conspiracy theory. I have witnessed what they have done with this accidental discovery that was predicted beforehand. Then it is usable energy.
"Part" being the key word here. But his experiences weren't even in the science that he got the "PhD" for. Ask anyone with an actual background in physics how their discipline compares to engineering. Make sure they aren't drinking anything at the time, or they are likely to spew it on you. Take it or leave it? Leave it. His actual experience isn't in true phsyics, it is in engineering. He basically has an honorary degree. If he were actually able to freely extract energy from the vacuum, he could demonstrate it. And Trinity's "thesis" program is a laughing stock. If you weren't, then what was your point? I'm challenging a claim, and a doozy of one. Without evidence that Bearden's snake oil works, that's what it is. I was talking about the way that "useable energy" is used by physicists, not the Sophistry you are using. What you have witnessed isn't in question. Your interpretation of it is the conspiracy theory. Yes, in a Sophistic sense. If you are going to expect modern day magicians to clarify that they are not, in fact, wizards, then you should really clarify when you are using a physics term outside its meaning in the field.
You refused to answer my very first question therefore, I refuse to address any of your further comments on this subject. As a side note. It has entered the time of day (afternoon in this time zone) and is my period of relaxation before my Friday Night at the movies part of the week. Talk to you more tomorrow.
My first sentence addressed your first question. Of course experience is an important part of the scientific method. Jumping from that to "semi-related experience without academic rigor qualifies you for a PhD" is lunacy. Talk to you when you get back.
I was in the process of starting to sign out when I noticed you responded quickly so this one will be the last for today. Your first sentence only addressed the issue of ""Part" being the key word here." which was in reference to my second question... not the first question. The first question was "Is it a valid "Phd"?" Talk later.
Gotcha. No. This is not a valid PhD. This is a piece of paper from a diploma mill awarded by people with no qualifications in the field to someone whose experience was in another area of expertise.
