Comments on: Argument from banana http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:48:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: DarWins http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15430 DarWins Fri, 09 Jun 2006 01:20:10 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15430 I beleive in a creator, it's the Unicorn, Or is it HobGoblins?, or is it the Werewolf. You can't PROVE that Werewolf dosent exists. You can only say that you DONT KNOW if he exists or not. Well, I have a book that said Werewolf DOES exists, and he died from a sliver bullet for ME! And I can feel the Werewolf in my heart, I let him in my life and I pray to him daily. I dont want to live in a world without Werewolf. Infact - I have an EQUAL amount of proof for his existence as Christians do for Jesus. ACCEPT Unicorn..er I mean Zeus..Ooops.. I mean Werewolf, he is the true savior!!!! I beleive in a creator, it’s the Unicorn, Or is it HobGoblins?, or is it the Werewolf.

You can’t PROVE that Werewolf dosent exists. You can only say that you DONT KNOW if he exists or not.

Well, I have a book that said Werewolf DOES exists, and he died from a sliver bullet for ME!

And I can feel the Werewolf in my heart, I let him in my life and I pray to him daily. I dont want to live in a world without Werewolf.

Infact – I have an EQUAL amount of proof for his existence as Christians do for Jesus.

ACCEPT Unicorn..er I mean Zeus..Ooops.. I mean Werewolf, he is the true savior!!!!

]]> By: Positive Liberty » Blog Archive » Science and Religion http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15431 Positive Liberty » Blog Archive » Science and Religion Mon, 15 May 2006 23:29:41 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15431 [...] The whole of living creation worked together so well that it called out for an explanation, and religion delivered: God created this order, said religious thinkers. Notably, Islam still favors this argument today, as does Christian creationism. God’s role as the creator of biological diversity was thus an empirical claim like any other. [...] [...] The whole of living creation worked together so well that it called out for an explanation, and religion delivered: God created this order, said religious thinkers. Notably, Islam still favors this argument today, as does Christian creationism. God’s role as the creator of biological diversity was thus an empirical claim like any other. [...]

]]> By: veganerd http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15480 veganerd Thu, 11 May 2006 19:37:10 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15480 i am rather fond of this banana argument. ive been using it for years to get girls to touch my penis. i am rather fond of this banana argument. ive been using it for years to get girls to touch my penis.

]]> By: Sam Gralla http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15479 Sam Gralla Sun, 07 May 2006 05:10:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15479 Well, that's how we know we have souls and they don't. They're just that dumb. I bet they drink coke by puncturing the side of the can with their anuses! Well, that’s how we know we have souls and they don’t. They’re just that dumb. I bet they drink coke by puncturing the side of the can with their anuses!

]]> By: Tim http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15478 Tim Sun, 07 May 2006 02:53:38 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15478 According to BoingBoing, monkeys and other primates open bananas from the other end, choosing to ignore the God-designed "pull-tab." http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/21/peeling_bananas_from.html According to BoingBoing, monkeys and other primates open bananas from the other end, choosing to ignore the God-designed “pull-tab.”

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/21/peeling_bananas_from.html

]]> By: John http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15477 John Sun, 07 May 2006 01:28:42 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15477 Oh, and Im not sure, but Im willing to bet that that banana he was holding has been subject to its own fair share of genetic engineering of some sort. The prospects for irony compel me to search.... a quick search does not reveal much, but as a domesticated plant the arguement that God created the banana in its pure perfection as it is now is not true. Oh, and Im not sure, but Im willing to bet that that banana he was holding has been subject to its own fair share of genetic engineering of some sort. The prospects for irony compel me to search….

a quick search does not reveal much, but as a domesticated plant the arguement that God created the banana in its pure perfection as it is now is not true.

]]> By: John http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15476 John Sun, 07 May 2006 01:17:53 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15476 All silliness aside, this video did inspire me to figure out for myself exactly where this arguement falls apart, not that it takes a genius or even a moron to see through the B.S. The problem is in equating the world as a finished product of some creator (a building, a soda can, etc) instead of a process (Nature) that stretches infinately in both directions. Creationists don't see this as a problem because of course to them there was ta-dah! CREATION! Bam, there, its done, God's going to get some lunch and then take a dump. All silliness aside, this video did inspire me to figure out for myself exactly where this arguement falls apart, not that it takes a genius or even a moron to see through the B.S.

The problem is in equating the world as a finished product of some creator (a building, a soda can, etc) instead of a process (Nature) that stretches infinately in both directions. Creationists don’t see this as a problem because of course to them there was ta-dah! CREATION! Bam, there, its done, God’s going to get some lunch and then take a dump.

]]> By: Arun http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15475 Arun Thu, 04 May 2006 20:11:41 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15475 It is very hard to examine one's own consciousness/awareness in a scientific manner. Also I'm not sure whether expecting there to be a state called nirvana or moksha is any less a leap of faith than expecting there to be a God. It is very hard to examine one’s own consciousness/awareness in a scientific manner.

Also I’m not sure whether expecting there to be a state called nirvana or moksha is any less a leap of faith than expecting there to be a God.

]]> By: Hiranya http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15474 Hiranya Thu, 04 May 2006 15:45:32 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15474 Sam Gralla - thanks, that's interesting. So you think that theists adopt this world view out of emotional, subjective considerations (I am not saying this is an invalid choice - I have nothing against anyone's spiritual beliefs unless they try to force it down the throats of anyone not of the same belief system; but arguments like this are not something that's subject to logical, empirical analysis). This doesn't explain people like the banana guy though, who appear to find empirical "evidence" for their worldview by pseudoscientific claims about the physical world. i.e. there appears to be a need in these people to see empirical evidence for their beliefs in the physical world, but not a critical faculty to examine that evidence in the manner of the scientific method. I find this very hard to understand. Sam Gralla – thanks, that’s interesting. So you think that theists adopt this world view out of emotional, subjective considerations (I am not saying this is an invalid choice – I have nothing against anyone’s spiritual beliefs unless they try to force it down the throats of anyone not of the same belief system; but arguments like this are not something that’s subject to logical, empirical analysis). This doesn’t explain people like the banana guy though, who appear to find empirical “evidence” for their worldview by pseudoscientific claims about the physical world. i.e. there appears to be a need in these people to see empirical evidence for their beliefs in the physical world, but not a critical faculty to examine that evidence in the manner of the scientific method. I find this very hard to understand.

]]> By: Cynthia http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15473 Cynthia Thu, 04 May 2006 15:31:22 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15473 David Corfield - talk about hitting the proverbial nail on the head... thanks for bringing up this most insightful comment! David Corfield – talk about hitting the proverbial nail on the head… thanks for bringing up this most insightful comment!

]]> By: David Corfield http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15472 David Corfield Thu, 04 May 2006 14:55:32 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15472 I wonder how long it will be before an ecological creationist explains how perfectly arranged is the amount of oil in the world that it will run out just this side of the tipping point into ecological catastrophe. I wonder how long it will be before an ecological creationist explains how perfectly arranged is the amount of oil in the world that it will run out just this side of the tipping point into ecological catastrophe.

]]> By: Sean http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15471 Sean Thu, 04 May 2006 14:18:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15471 I've never seen any human behavior that was inconsistent with the Standard Model of particle physics, so I'm not sure what there is to explain. Of course we'd like to understand how complex behavior arises from simple underlying rules, but the same could be said for hurricanes or star formation. We're not all that special. I’ve never seen any human behavior that was inconsistent with the Standard Model of particle physics, so I’m not sure what there is to explain. Of course we’d like to understand how complex behavior arises from simple underlying rules, but the same could be said for hurricanes or star formation. We’re not all that special.

]]> By: Sam Gralla http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15470 Sam Gralla Thu, 04 May 2006 08:23:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15470 Sean: I read your paper, and enjoyed it. The carefulness with which you address these often-muddled issues is highly commendable and thoroughly refreshing. At the risk of provoking a further paper, however, I'd like to ask question: what does the materialist have to say about apparent free will? You carefully avoided this topic, even though human agency is arguably the leading candidate for a "class of phenomina that act without regard to any patterns we can discern". Would you share your thoughts on this? I promise I won't argue with you =) -Sam Sean: I read your paper, and enjoyed it. The carefulness with which you address these often-muddled issues is highly commendable and thoroughly refreshing. At the risk of provoking a further paper, however, I’d like to ask question: what does the materialist have to say about apparent free will? You carefully avoided this topic, even though human agency is arguably the leading candidate for a “class of phenomina that act without regard to any patterns we can discern”. Would you share your thoughts on this? I promise I won’t argue with you =)

-Sam

]]> By: Sam Gralla http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15469 Sam Gralla Thu, 04 May 2006 07:21:08 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15469 Well Hiranya, theists generally don't think they're just extrapolating. They think they're following evidence--mostly scriptural (e.g. Mark writes about miracles he eyewitnessed; if you trust him then the miracles actually happened), but also personal (the change in their life when they began to believe, generally) and anecdotal (similar stories about others). Well Hiranya, theists generally don’t think they’re just extrapolating. They think they’re following evidence–mostly scriptural (e.g. Mark writes about miracles he eyewitnessed; if you trust him then the miracles actually happened), but also personal (the change in their life when they began to believe, generally) and anecdotal (similar stories about others).

]]> By: Paul Valletta http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15468 Paul Valletta Thu, 04 May 2006 05:37:12 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15468 Hey L..if the banana fits?..wear it! Hey L..if the banana fits?..wear it!

]]> By: Paul Valletta http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15467 Paul Valletta Thu, 04 May 2006 05:28:20 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15467 Lubos here?: http://www.careerbuilder.com/monk-e-mail/Default.aspx?mid=8629298&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=d4b4cc21c7d1426aa9423fe2906cdaa4-200021191-R0-1 ;) Lubos here?:

http://www.careerbuilder.com/monk-e-mail/Default.aspx?mid=8629298&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=d4b4cc21c7d1426aa9423fe2906cdaa4-200021191-R0-1
;)

]]> By: Spatulated http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15466 Spatulated Thu, 04 May 2006 04:37:54 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15466 i liek the way you think hiranya i liek the way you think hiranya

]]> By: Hiranya http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15465 Hiranya Thu, 04 May 2006 00:55:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15465 Sam Gralla - thanks for your reply (I am not from a culture which postulates a creator god at all so I don't have much of a clue why people buy into this idea). So from what you say, whereas the atheist would say "the universe just exists", the theist would instead make a huge extrapolation outside the natural experience of the physical universe to postulate a supernatural being, and say that "there exists a supernatural being, and he/she/it created the universe". The theist seems to me to require a hugely more faith-based assumption/axiom for the existence of the universe than the atheist. Sam Gralla – thanks for your reply (I am not from a culture which postulates a creator god at all so I don’t have much of a clue why people buy into this idea). So from what you say, whereas the atheist would say “the universe just exists”, the theist would instead make a huge extrapolation outside the natural experience of the physical universe to postulate a supernatural being, and say that “there exists a supernatural being, and he/she/it created the universe”. The theist seems to me to require a hugely more faith-based assumption/axiom for the existence of the universe than the atheist.

]]> By: Sam Gralla http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15429 Sam Gralla Wed, 03 May 2006 17:45:27 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15429 Hiranya: I'm not arguing for the existence of God, but you certainly could ask who made God, and the answer you would get from a theist would most likely be the same as our atheist just gave for the universe: "it wasn't created; it simply exists." Any belief system has to have something that just exists, (unless it wants an infinite chain or something) for the reasons you mentioned. Sean: "Are demons stealing my socks" is a very different question from "is there a God". I'll avoid the word metaphysical, however, because I've gotten in to many unproductive arguments before about what it means. But if you want to argue by analogy with "is action X performed by demons", you need to ask "is action Y performed by God", not is there a God at all. I picked for action Y the creation of the universe because this thread was about creationism, and because that is a property that would distinguish an all-powerful God from a lesser demon. Then I tried to demonstrate that the question is actually not analogus in this case because action Y is unstestable by scientific means (this is what I call a metaphysical action). 'It just exists' may satisfy you (it certainly satisfies religious people for their God), but it is not a scientific explanation, unless 'it just exists' is a scientific explanation for a banana (these inquiries are all analogous, right?). "Demons stole my socks" can be falsified by science just as "God stole my socks" can be, but "God made the universe" cannot be, because we have no alternative scientific explanation for creation. That's why it's a different question altogether, and I use a different word for it (metaphysical). I scanned the paper and it looks great. I'll read it when I get a chance (and maybe write a response), but that won't be during the lifteme of this thread. Thanks for keeping up the conversation! Hiranya: I’m not arguing for the existence of God, but you certainly could ask who made God, and the answer you would get from a theist would most likely be the same as our atheist just gave for the universe: “it wasn’t created; it simply exists.” Any belief system has to have something that just exists, (unless it wants an infinite chain or something) for the reasons you mentioned.

Sean: “Are demons stealing my socks” is a very different question from “is there a God”. I’ll avoid the word metaphysical, however, because I’ve gotten in to many unproductive arguments before about what it means. But if you want to argue by analogy with “is action X performed by demons”, you need to ask “is action Y performed by God”, not is there a God at all. I picked for action Y the creation of the universe because this thread was about creationism, and because that is a property that would distinguish an all-powerful God from a lesser demon. Then I tried to demonstrate that the question is actually not analogus in this case because action Y is unstestable by scientific means (this is what I call a metaphysical action). ‘It just exists’ may satisfy you (it certainly satisfies religious people for their God), but it is not a scientific explanation, unless ‘it just exists’ is a scientific explanation for a banana (these inquiries are all analogous, right?). “Demons stole my socks” can be falsified by science just as “God stole my socks” can be, but “God made the universe” cannot be, because we have no alternative scientific explanation for creation. That’s why it’s a different question altogether, and I use a different word for it (metaphysical).

I scanned the paper and it looks great. I’ll read it when I get a chance (and maybe write a response), but that won’t be during the lifteme of this thread. Thanks for keeping up the conversation!

]]> By: Often in Error... http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/comment-page-1/#comment-15464 Often in Error... Wed, 03 May 2006 17:00:57 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/02/argument-from-banana/#comment-15464 <strong>Seminars</strong> PS: Concerning videos, check here what do creationists think about "bananas" and how well designed were they :-). Comments on that by Sean. Seminars

PS: Concerning videos, check here what do creationists think about “bananas” and how well designed were they :-) . Comments on that by Sean.

]]>