PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[PartSkeptic]

so the 80% dieoff and the massive social change are just hopes you have? Not predictions?

There you go. Distorting my prediction. I said 50 - 60%.

You have a fixed perception of what a prediction is. You are now using semantics to debate the issue.

God tells me he is going to fix the overpopulation problem with a pandemic. Then it seems he gives me clues so that I can try to figure out what, when and how. You want precision in your predictions. But it does not work that way. You set up your straw man, then tear it apart.

Is it not enough that a pandemic will do two things? Solve over-population (and hence a lot of associated problems) and also change society for the better.

The Oracle of Delphi predicted that there would be a great victory. The seeker (a general preparing for battle) did not realize this had two interpretations.

There are indeed a number of indications that society will change. There was a BBC documentary about the poverty in Venezuela. Shocking. The rich (people and countries) have no compassion. Their solutions are often militaristic. Change must happen.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)

Seriously, PS- all this holier-than-thou pontificating about "god's tired of the sin so he's gonna thin out the population a little!" would be a little easier to just laugh at and pass by if it weren't for the sniffy hypocrisy and bigotry in it.

I never said God was tired of all the sin. I said that humankind was incapable of stopping over-population and all the negative consequences of that, including the moral decay of the elite. A "correction" will be imposed. God is giving guidance as to the direction of change. Until there is change, God will continue with the disasters. An atheist has the choice of saying that nature sorts itself out, and that what happens is inevitable and foreseeable. Your choice.

I am not a hypocrite or a bigot in terms of the formal definitions of the words. I look at facts in a balanced manner, even if they are not PC (by your definition probably). And if your definition is that anyone who is not PC is a hypocrite or a bigot, then I meet YOUR definition. That is why I complain about the standard of debate.

I do not consider myself holier than anyone. My intelligence did not help me avoid mistakes and doing stupid things.

 

[Pixel42]

You want precision in your predictions. But it does not work that way.

Of course it doesn't. Predictions have to be so vague that virtually anything that happens can be interpreted as validating them because otherwise it would be obvious that the hit rate was no better than chance, and believers would have to admit it was all BS.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Shades of 1918! And what preparation was done?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020...in-shortage-morgue-chaos-200501192518553.html
...Latin America's grimmest scenes occurred last month in Ecuador's city of Guayaquil, where residents said they had to leave bodies on the street after morgues, cemeteries and funeral homes were overwhelmed.
...The state's military police, who normally pick up bodies found outside, no longer do so for non-violent deaths, said an officer at the scene who would not give his name. He said without elaborating that the policy change was due to the coronavirus.

A friend in SA health services said that the testing in the squatter camps is showing an alarming rate of infection. She also said that people were ignoring social distancing.

Last night at 2am I was dreaming my breathing was restricted by some external restriction on air supply. In my dream I tossed the other way, and there was another restriction. Then I woke up and found that in reality I was having trouble breathing. I am stopping my pain tablets gradually and am nearly done, but my chest muscles were in a lot of pain, and they simply did not want to do the work to breathe. I have been doing a lot of manual work.

And this is despite being on oxygen. I lay there for an hour forcing myself to breathe. It was most unpleasant. In fact, it was downright scary. I was cold despite adequate covering and put on the heater. I "feel" my bones being tossed into a grave. I sympathize with those suffering with Covid-19.

My wife is scared of getting the virus. She does not want to go to the shops. She says these are difficult times. I replied that we have both lived a great life and I worried about out children and grandchildren.

My second wife grew up in the polio era. She is 80. Her Jewish father insisted that she learn to socialize because he was a prominent man in society but her Anglican mother was fearful. This dichotomy and the fear of socializing affected her mentally, and she has been a recluse for many years, looked after by our daughter.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Of course it doesn't. Predictions have to be so vague that virtually anything that happens can be interpreted as validating them because otherwise it would be obvious that the hit rate was no better than chance, and believers would have to admit it was all BS.

So I take it you are not going to change? Or even suggest to others that they change?

I am here to see check the reaction to telling people what God MIGHT be requiring of them. Even if there was no God the requirements are desirable and sensible. At least, in my opinion.

What people here have not done is suggest ways society could better itself. That is the next part of what I have to figure out (with Gods help ).

 

[PartSkeptic]

Of course it doesn't. Predictions have to be so vague that virtually anything that happens can be interpreted as validating them because otherwise it would be obvious that the hit rate was no better than chance, and believers would have to admit it was all BS.

How about the prediction of Joan of Arc and Muhammad? They were seen as not possible and yet they were deemed accurate. They were recorded for us.

 

[Pixel42]

So I take it you are not going to change? Or even suggest to others that they change?

I am here to see check the reaction to telling people what God MIGHT be requiring of them. Even if there was no God the requirements are desirable and sensible. At least, in my opinion.

What people here have not done is suggest ways society could better itself. That is the next part of what I have to figure out (with Gods help ).

If you want to discuss ways in which society could better itself start or join a discussion in the Social Issues subforum. This thread is certainly not appropriate.

 

[Pixel42]

How about the prediction of Joan of Arc and Muhammad? They were seen as not possible and yet they were deemed accurate. They were recorded for us.

Which predictions are those? Who considered them not possible, and why? How was their accuracy assessed?

 

[RedStapler]

What people here have not done is suggest ways society could better itself. That is the next part of what I have to figure out (with Gods help ).

First step would be to stop pretending to speak for god just to create fake importance

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

There you go. Distorting my prediction. I said 50 - 60%.

You have a fixed perception of what a prediction is. You are now using semantics to debate the issue.

God tells me he is going to fix the overpopulation problem with a pandemic. Then it seems he gives me clues so that I can try to figure out what, when and how. You want precision in your predictions. But it does not work that way. You set up your straw man, then tear it apart.

Is it not enough that a pandemic will do two things? Solve over-population (and hence a lot of associated problems) and also change society for the better.

The Oracle of Delphi predicted that there would be a great victory. The seeker (a general preparing for battle) did not realize this had two interpretations.

There are indeed a number of indications that society will change. There was a BBC documentary about the poverty in Venezuela. Shocking. The rich (people and countries) have no compassion. Their solutions are often militaristic. Change must happen.

I stand corrected. 50-60% it is.
So, if in three years time it turns out this did not happen, will you admit you were wrong?

The change is harder to check as you never go beyond 'a big change', and as society is not stagnant that will happen anyway so no proof of divine interference either way.

 

[Pixel42]

First step would be to stop pretending to speak for god just to create fake importance

Indeed, one of the best ways in which society could better itself would be to rid itself of ignorant superstition. Fewer people convincing themselves that god doesn't want them to use birth control, or that god gave humanity stewardship of the earth so this climate change stuff is nonsense (or, if it isn't, that god will fix it) would certainly help in creating the sort of sane, scientifically literate society we're going to need if civilisation is not going to descend into barbarism as we face the challenges of the next century. But something tells me that is not the kind of suggestion PartSkeptic wants to hear.

 

[abaddon]

So I take it you are not going to change? Or even suggest to others that they change?

The crackpot ideas you present are unlikely to persuade anyone.

I am here to see check the reaction to telling people what God MIGHT be requiring of them.

God requires nothing because it doesn't appear to exist. Why should anyone care what you imagine god told you?

Even if there was no God the requirements are desirable and sensible. At least, in my opinion.

And you have copiously demonstrated precisely how "desirable and sensible" your opinions are. Not a lot.

What people here have not done is suggest ways society could better itself. That is the next part of what I have to figure out (with Gods help ).

That would be off topic in this thread and nobody is keen to violate the MA just to please you.

 

[turingtest]

I never said God was tired of all the sin. I said that humankind was incapable of stopping over-population and all the negative consequences of that, including the moral decay of the elite. A "correction" will be imposed. God is giving guidance as to the direction of change. Until there is change, God will continue with the disasters. An atheist has the choice of saying that nature sorts itself out, and that what happens is inevitable and foreseeable. Your choice.

I am not a hypocrite or a bigot in terms of the formal definitions of the words. I look at facts in a balanced manner, even if they are not PC (by your definition probably). And if your definition is that anyone who is not PC is a hypocrite or a bigot, then I meet YOUR definition. That is why I complain about the standard of debate. I do not consider myself holier than anyone. My intelligence did not help me avoid mistakes and doing stupid things.

Well, I can tell you what my definition of "PC" is. It's an easy meme for people who want to escape the consequences of displaying their bigotry to throw around; in fact, used that way, it's a display of PC rather than the disavowal it's pretending to be, since conservative PC is no less the same thing for the same purpose as when more liberal people do it. It's still just a hoiier-than-thou pose.

 

[Myriad]

Last night I asked God to prove to me personally beyond any doubt that he existed. He made me an offer to do so.

He said he would give me a fatal heart attack, and then I could meet him.

I decided not to take the offer and accepted the doubt of not being sure.

Hi PartSkeptic,

Consider if you will two different mental models of how the world works. (Doing this should be second nature to everyone. After all, scientists of all types will admit, especially to those they trust not to make a bigger deal out of the issue than it actually is, that what we think are the laws of nature are actually models that we select for doing a good job explaining and predicting what we observe, that may or may not be the true nature of reality, which might be beyond our understanding. And theists of all types will admit, especially to those they trust not to make a bigger deal out of the issue than it actually is, that we mortals are not really capable of comprehending the true nature of the god or gods they worship, but try to do the best we can with scriptures and dogmas that we may or may not really understand, so what we think of as divine truths might also be just a mental model of things beyond our understanding. Yet, it appears to be human nature to choose one model and defend it.)

Anyhow, two models. In one model, God exists and is speaking to you. In another, what's "speaking" to you is your own thoughts and insights.

(Those aren't the only two imaginable models, of course. But one in which e.g. God exists but is not speaking to you would be uninteresting in this context. To us, anyhow. A conservative clergyman might prefer that alternative. But I'm going to stick with those first two.)

What you're describing to us, you're expressing in terms of a model that explains your experiences as God speaking to you. That must be quite a remarkable experience. I've never had such an experience myself, but I know several people who have, and I've read the testimony of many others. In a lot of cases it's changed their outlooks on things or even changed their entire lives.

But most people here are looking primarily at the kinds of experiences they have had. What to you seems (and probably is) a unique and striking event, when you relate it to us, seems to be something else to us. And what it seems to be to us is rather common, in our experience: a claim of divine revelation similar to many many others we've heard before, from sources ranging from ancient scriptures to people holding signs on street corners. Which all turned out to be either false, and/or contradicted by other claimed revelations of the same type, and/or too vague to ever be declared one way or the other. When we try to look at it from the perspective of your model, we must conclude that these reported communications from the divine are unreliable. Either the god(s) are constantly changing their mind(s) post prophecy, or they're being deceptive, or the human recipients of their communications aren't actually comprehending them, or they aren't honestly conveying them to the rest of us.

What about the other model, which does not accept that you've been receiving messages from God? Many would say that the messages must therefore be from all inside your head, but I don't think that's the best interpretation. I think the messages are from the world—that is to say, your own perceptions of the state of it. I think, when you look at the world, you have very good reasons to believe it's on the brink of catastrophic changes due to climate crises, resource depletion, overpopulation, and/or disruptions secondary to, or complicated by, those factors, such as economic instability, warfare, famine, or epidemic disease.

At the same time, the same media from which you're getting most of this information are also constantly beating a drum of anything bad will get better, everything good is just the beginning of something even better still, and in the long run, everything's hunky-dory. (Why? For the simple banal reason that media are in the business of helping industries to get you to buy things, and people who think everything's hunky-dory buy more things.) And most people you talk to have absorbed all that too and will agree with it against you. There's cognitive dissonance. What could possibly justify your coming to a different conclusion than just about everyone else? It could be that you're smart and perceptive, but can you count on that? Given that you believe in God, a narrative of God telling you to accept those conclusions is a better explanation. God just hasn't told all those other people yet; that's why they disagree. There's your excuse for believing and trusting what your mind is perceiving in the face of doubt from every direction. What's the difference between experiences and narratives? Not very much. So, in the end that's how you've experienced the revelation.

Does that mean I think your predictions are right? I really don't know. I've been looking at these same trends for decades already, and I still can't call it with any confidence. One thing I've noticed, though, is that predictions are more often right about eventualities than they are about the time scale involved. The real disasters don't seem to happen until we've worried about them for a while and then stopped worrying about them. ("That SARS coronavirus thing? Over and done with. Let's shut down the research centers.") Are we headed for some 60%-depopulation disaster in the next few years, or a percent here and a percent there for the next two centuries? Currently I think the latter is more likely. But maybe neither will happen.

And how about, which model is right? I don't think that's a useful question; one can only ask which is better suited for some particular purpose. For most purposes discussed in these forums, I'm quite content with a godless model of the universe. But in my life I've noticed that when someone's perception of a situation changes suddenly, whether in small and should-be-obvious ways (such as, "this bad habit will kill me unless I make big changes to escape it") or more subtle ways ("I'm not actually happy with my life even though every outward sign says I should be") it often comes into their conscious awareness in the form of a message from somewhere "outside." In my model, God could be a description of the part of our minds that does that for some of us.

Anyhow, that's my take on your predictions. Thanks for reading!

 

[PartSkeptic]

I stand corrected. 50-60% it is.
So, if in three years time it turns out this did not happen, will you admit you were wrong?

The change is harder to check as you never go beyond 'a big change', and as society is not stagnant that will happen anyway so no proof of divine interference either way.

How can I not admit I am wrong if the facts say so? Another little correction. My time frame was 5 years and not 3. Pixel proposed 3 to 5 IIRC.

Let us say that I am wrong about the size of the die-off and it takes 20 years because society has changed its behavior in order to downsize and limit population. And that saves the planet. (That is what I am to believe God wants. I am not privy to any details as I keep saying.) Would you then admit that the plan by God (who may only exist in my imagination ) has been met, and that I was partly right? Even if it was just a good guess and not God?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Well, I can tell you what my definition of "PC" is. It's an easy meme for people who want to escape the consequences of displaying their bigotry to throw around; in fact, used that way, it's a display of PC rather than the disavowal it's pretending to be, since conservative PC is no less the same thing for the same purpose as when more liberal people do it. It's still just a hoiier-than-thou pose.

I can tell you that I have done extensive research, and also have extensive personal experience in a number of areas. I could support my statements in an unbiased argument but it would be very lengthy and most people would just get upset and walk away saying they are disgusted.

The disgust would be because they would be frustrated by the sheer mass of evidence from prominent historians and from sources that are verifiable but not made common knowledge. People would walk away when their subconscious warns them they are about to lose the debate. And the opposition I will face will be opinion and populist emotive memes - such as "holier-then-thou" statements.

It is not holier than thou. It is a matter of more educated and knowledgeable that thou. You would not want to change your long held beliefs because you too would then be holding an unpopular viewpoint. It took a lot of learning and a lot of time to recognize what was true. One also has to grasp complex social concepts and look at the big picture where the truth is shown by a lot of individual facts.

I consider myself neither conservative nor liberal. I can see and understand the different sides of such positions. But often both sides are using emotion and not fact. It is a hard process to drill down to get clarity.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Hi PartSkeptic,

Consider if you will two different mental models of how the world works. (Doing this should be second nature to everyone. After all, scientists of all types will admit, especially to those they trust not to make a bigger deal out of the issue than it actually is, that what we think are the laws of nature are actually models that we select for doing a good job explaining and predicting what we observe, that may or may not be the true nature of reality, which might be beyond our understanding. And theists of all types will admit, especially to those they trust not to make a bigger deal out of the issue than it actually is, that we mortals are not really capable of comprehending the true nature of the god or gods they worship, but try to do the best we can with scriptures and dogmas that we may or may not really understand, so what we think of as divine truths might also be just a mental model of things beyond our understanding. Yet, it appears to be human nature to choose one model and defend it.)

Anyhow, two models. In one model, God exists and is speaking to you. In another, what's "speaking" to you is your own thoughts and insights.

(Those aren't the only two imaginable models, of course. But one in which e.g. God exists but is not speaking to you would be uninteresting in this context. To us, anyhow. A conservative clergyman might prefer that alternative. But I'm going to stick with those first two.)

What you're describing to us, you're expressing in terms of a model that explains your experiences as God speaking to you. That must be quite a remarkable experience. I've never had such an experience myself, but I know several people who have, and I've read the testimony of many others. In a lot of cases it's changed their outlooks on things or even changed their entire lives.

But most people here are looking primarily at the kinds of experiences they have had. What to you seems (and probably is) a unique and striking event, when you relate it to us, seems to be something else to us. And what it seems to be to us is rather common, in our experience: a claim of divine revelation similar to many many others we've heard before, from sources ranging from ancient scriptures to people holding signs on street corners. Which all turned out to be either false, and/or contradicted by other claimed revelations of the same type, and/or too vague to ever be declared one way or the other. When we try to look at it from the perspective of your model, we must conclude that these reported communications from the divine are unreliable. Either the god(s) are constantly changing their mind(s) post prophecy, or they're being deceptive, or the human recipients of their communications aren't actually comprehending them, or they aren't honestly conveying them to the rest of us.

What about the other model, which does not accept that you've been receiving messages from God? Many would say that the messages must therefore be from all inside your head, but I don't think that's the best interpretation. I think the messages are from the world—that is to say, your own perceptions of the state of it. I think, when you look at the world, you have very good reasons to believe it's on the brink of catastrophic changes due to climate crises, resource depletion, overpopulation, and/or disruptions secondary to, or complicated by, those factors, such as economic instability, warfare, famine, or epidemic disease.

At the same time, the same media from which you're getting most of this information are also constantly beating a drum of anything bad will get better, everything good is just the beginning of something even better still, and in the long run, everything's hunky-dory. (Why? For the simple banal reason that media are in the business of helping industries to get you to buy things, and people who think everything's hunky-dory buy more things.) And most people you talk to have absorbed all that too and will agree with it against you. There's cognitive dissonance. What could possibly justify your coming to a different conclusion than just about everyone else? It could be that you're smart and perceptive, but can you count on that? Given that you believe in God, a narrative of God telling you to accept those conclusions is a better explanation. God just hasn't told all those other people yet; that's why they disagree. There's your excuse for believing and trusting what your mind is perceiving in the face of doubt from every direction. What's the difference between experiences and narratives? Not very much. So, in the end that's how you've experienced the revelation.

Does that mean I think your predictions are right? I really don't know. I've been looking at these same trends for decades already, and I still can't call it with any confidence. One thing I've noticed, though, is that predictions are more often right about eventualities than they are about the time scale involved. The real disasters don't seem to happen until we've worried about them for a while and then stopped worrying about them. ("That SARS coronavirus thing? Over and done with. Let's shut down the research centers.") Are we headed for some 60%-depopulation disaster in the next few years, or a percent here and a percent there for the next two centuries? Currently I think the latter is more likely. But maybe neither will happen.

And how about, which model is right? I don't think that's a useful question; one can only ask which is better suited for some particular purpose. For most purposes discussed in these forums, I'm quite content with a godless model of the universe. But in my life I've noticed that when someone's perception of a situation changes suddenly, whether in small and should-be-obvious ways (such as, "this bad habit will kill me unless I make big changes to escape it") or more subtle ways ("I'm not actually happy with my life even though every outward sign says I should be") it often comes into their conscious awareness in the form of a message from somewhere "outside." In my model, God could be a description of the part of our minds that does that for some of us.

Anyhow, that's my take on your predictions. Thanks for reading!

Thank you for taking the time to do your post. It is a remarkable summary of the two main possibilities.

I am well aware of all the issues you raise so succinctly. I fully admit that the "message" could have been my own subconscious making me confront what my own mind tells me is the underlying problem to all other problems.

One factor which you have not properly stated is that I believed in God. No, I did not. I have been an atheist and then an agnostic for most of my life and made a choice that the probability of a God is higher than the probability of no God. That probability only increased since that event in 2009.

The circumstances leading up to this event were unusual and so were the subsequent events. I took these to be some kind of confirmation that it was not my imagination. After my late wife died in 2011, I was in some doubt as to pursuing what I imagined (yes, I have no direct input) Gods purpose for me was. That is when I was absolutely certain a biker was about to die on the road ahead. It is hard to argue with such personal "proof". Others would just say it did not happen the way I said it did. They offer alternative versions bu they are wrong.

I have been extraordinarily lucky in life. I have not avoided the very high highs and very low lows, but I have taken those as "learning experiences". I feel "blessed" to have such learning. What I have learned the last decade has been fascinating for me. And I have had the luck to be able to have the time to do the research, and also do some travel and so get more personal support for some ideas.

Your model is very rational, and if not for the unusual personal experiences I have had, I would no doubt be exactly in step with your viewpoint.

I want to say thanks again for your input. It is refreshing to have some who recognises the basic issues. You have laid them out extremely well.

 

[Mojo]

Let us say that I am wrong ... Would you then admit ... that I was partly right?

 

[PartSkeptic]

I looked at your profile and the threads you started. This was an early one.

What if evolution is (the) intelligent (designer)?

I am impressed by your grasp of concepts and your ability to step back and remove emotion.

My answer to you would have been that while evolution DID the intelligent design it also DID give God (if he exists) plausible deniability of his existence. One has to take the next step and ask how the laws of physics ALLOWED the emergent process of evolution to keep heading toward the emergent property of intelligent life. The other question to be posed is "Were the key events that changed direction in a significant and better path (such as the extinction of the dinosaurs) just random unplanned events?"

I do not want to derail this thread. I just wanted to comment on what I think of your thought processes. How old are you and what is your profession in life? If that is not a state secret.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Okay.