Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
Ilíon wrote:
Is that the best you can do? I use your own "logic" to show the unreasonableness of what you'd said and you "refute" it by noting that I hadn't paid enough attention to my spelling?
Thanks, Internet policeman, for showing me the error of my ways! I'll never post another one-line, dismissive response to a poorly-written post on a topic that's proven itself over and over again to really not be worth debating! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, CHAMP! :rolleyes:
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
One certainly sees why some intrepid partisan thinks Mr Fisticuffs' posts worth a '5' and mine merely a '1.' For, after all, in my posts I always strive to be logically consistent; whereas, in his posts ... well, clearly, he does not. Or, perhaps it is the case that the person doing this really bizarre voting is not actually an intrepid partisan, but rather has a highly-evolved ironic sensibility. Perhaps the reader will be interested in a comparison of statements from Mr Fisticuffs: "You could also try reading the other posts in this thread before accusing me of avoiding honest discourse. Jerk." followed in his next post and compared to: "... I'll never post another one-line, dismissive response ..." Perhaps the reader will note (if he cares to read the prior posts) that *I* did not anywhere accuse Mr Fisticuffs of "avoiding honest discourse," but rather I insinuated that he may not "have that firm a grasp on the concept of "skeptical and critical evaluation of evidence."" These are, of course, two quite different matters. Perhaps the reader will note that, in fact, it is now Mr Fisticuffs himself who is accusing his own self of "avoiding honest discourse!" Perhaps the reader may be forgiven for beginning to wonder just *who* is the "Jerk." "KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, CHAMP! :rolleyes: " At the risk of perhaps being thought too derivative, please allow me to remark that I WILL, CH*MP :omg:
-
One certainly sees why some intrepid partisan thinks Mr Fisticuffs' posts worth a '5' and mine merely a '1.' For, after all, in my posts I always strive to be logically consistent; whereas, in his posts ... well, clearly, he does not. Or, perhaps it is the case that the person doing this really bizarre voting is not actually an intrepid partisan, but rather has a highly-evolved ironic sensibility. Perhaps the reader will be interested in a comparison of statements from Mr Fisticuffs: "You could also try reading the other posts in this thread before accusing me of avoiding honest discourse. Jerk." followed in his next post and compared to: "... I'll never post another one-line, dismissive response ..." Perhaps the reader will note (if he cares to read the prior posts) that *I* did not anywhere accuse Mr Fisticuffs of "avoiding honest discourse," but rather I insinuated that he may not "have that firm a grasp on the concept of "skeptical and critical evaluation of evidence."" These are, of course, two quite different matters. Perhaps the reader will note that, in fact, it is now Mr Fisticuffs himself who is accusing his own self of "avoiding honest discourse!" Perhaps the reader may be forgiven for beginning to wonder just *who* is the "Jerk." "KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, CHAMP! :rolleyes: " At the risk of perhaps being thought too derivative, please allow me to remark that I WILL, CH*MP :omg:
-
juanfer68 wrote:
They require the sovereign direction of the Creator who achieves diversity from the same material components under the same conditions
wow! look at them goalposts run! (under divine influence, i'm sure)
juanfer68 wrote:
you have to account for your assumption that intelligence was NOT required to achieve this diversity
carbon + high pressure + high temperature = diamond no intelligence required.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Chris, Thanks so much for your example of the diamond. It seems simple enough for to see the point I have been trying to make but you willfully continue to ignore. I will set aside, for the sake of brevity, the problems of uniformity vs. diversity, directed vs. natural conditions, and their conflict with the pervasive evolutionary version of our origins, to focus on the more immediate inconsistency. If you decide to follow my posts honestly, and consider the questions you have not addressed yet, you will realize that the case is really more complicated than the one you have presented to us: X = Diamond A = Carbon B = High Pressure C = High Temperature D = Laws controlling the the properties of A and the conditions of B and C E = Assumption of the continuity of nature F = Assumption of the principle of causality t = Today p = Past X(t) = f(A, B, C, D, E, F) Logical conclusion: X(p) = f(A, B, C, D, E, F) Is the conclusion X(p) = f(A, B, C) valid if we know X(t) to be true? I will be gracious enough not to ask again how you can give an account for and prove the existence of D, E and F in a random universe not controlled by God, and concede, just temporarily, that you can assume these principles. Just perform this simple test: Take the presentation of the problem in the form above to any math teacher, taking also good care not to mention that this is related to the evolution/creation controversy to keep the evaluation as unbiased as possible, and see if he or she can't help but ask: why is it that you arbitrarily remove some elements from the equation? Well, maybe you think you can just safely ignore these factors because, after all, 'everybody' knows 'that'. But if this is the case, then there must be a good reason for it, right? What is it? Does the burden of proof fall on those who follow the rules of reason, or on those who decide to violate them based on the presuposition that natural processes are random? By the way, please note that this example is great to share additional information of interest for our readers. B and C are not very high today. An example includes C = 440C and B = 800 Atmospheres. What about another missing element in our equation: Time? Many people reading this post may still believe diamonds take millions of years to form, as many geologists still claim today (in random nature, of course), but it takes different companies from a few hours to a few months to complete the process today.
Juanfer
-
Chris, Thanks so much for your example of the diamond. It seems simple enough for to see the point I have been trying to make but you willfully continue to ignore. I will set aside, for the sake of brevity, the problems of uniformity vs. diversity, directed vs. natural conditions, and their conflict with the pervasive evolutionary version of our origins, to focus on the more immediate inconsistency. If you decide to follow my posts honestly, and consider the questions you have not addressed yet, you will realize that the case is really more complicated than the one you have presented to us: X = Diamond A = Carbon B = High Pressure C = High Temperature D = Laws controlling the the properties of A and the conditions of B and C E = Assumption of the continuity of nature F = Assumption of the principle of causality t = Today p = Past X(t) = f(A, B, C, D, E, F) Logical conclusion: X(p) = f(A, B, C, D, E, F) Is the conclusion X(p) = f(A, B, C) valid if we know X(t) to be true? I will be gracious enough not to ask again how you can give an account for and prove the existence of D, E and F in a random universe not controlled by God, and concede, just temporarily, that you can assume these principles. Just perform this simple test: Take the presentation of the problem in the form above to any math teacher, taking also good care not to mention that this is related to the evolution/creation controversy to keep the evaluation as unbiased as possible, and see if he or she can't help but ask: why is it that you arbitrarily remove some elements from the equation? Well, maybe you think you can just safely ignore these factors because, after all, 'everybody' knows 'that'. But if this is the case, then there must be a good reason for it, right? What is it? Does the burden of proof fall on those who follow the rules of reason, or on those who decide to violate them based on the presuposition that natural processes are random? By the way, please note that this example is great to share additional information of interest for our readers. B and C are not very high today. An example includes C = 440C and B = 800 Atmospheres. What about another missing element in our equation: Time? Many people reading this post may still believe diamonds take millions of years to form, as many geologists still claim today (in random nature, of course), but it takes different companies from a few hours to a few months to complete the process today.
Juanfer
same old game. except now you're taking on Physics instead of biology. F = Assumption of the principle of causality but OK let's get this shit over with, once and for all... go ahead, eliminate causality, or pretend it's an illusion, and is really the whimsical actions of some extra-rational, extra-logical, unpredictable entity that we can not prove the existence of without first accepting that it exists - same thing. without causation, you are left with only correlation. nothing can be said to cause anything else. nothing can be more than coincidental to any other thing. therefore, there can be no certain knowledge - no, not even of your god. if we can no longer assume anything causes anything else, there can be no science (all of it, at the very core, and not just inconvenient offshoots like biology) - no Newton's Laws, no gravity, no electromagnetism, not even the simplest theory about the universe is possible; there can be no free will (if you can't determine cause from effect, you can't prove you did anything); there can be no language (the verb "to do" dissolves, taking every other action verb with it, if you can't say X did Y); there can be no communication (besides not having any language to do it with and no way to know who's doing the communicating, because "communication" itself is based in action/reaction cause/effect it can't exist in a world where things can't cause other things); Pascal's Wager would become meaningless because "Therefore" is the first casualty of your decision - and where would that leave us? irrelevant even to our own existence, at best. things will simply appear to happen - you can't say why, communicate anything about the event, or be sure you actually witnessed it. so, sure open that trap door - enjoy your infinite fall through eternal nothingness. and no, you can't have some kind of partial causality, where it only applies in certain situations. if you know there can be exceptions, then you can never truly know when it's in effect and when it's not: all knowledge is still suspect. even knowledge about your god must be suspect - as if such knowledge is already suspect, you've made it doubly so. not only couldn't you prove god did anything here in the real world, in your imaginary world where causality is conditional, you can't know if actions you want to attribute to god aren't attributable to something else; for all you know (literally), what you attribute to your god could be attributable to nothing at all
-
same old game. except now you're taking on Physics instead of biology. F = Assumption of the principle of causality but OK let's get this shit over with, once and for all... go ahead, eliminate causality, or pretend it's an illusion, and is really the whimsical actions of some extra-rational, extra-logical, unpredictable entity that we can not prove the existence of without first accepting that it exists - same thing. without causation, you are left with only correlation. nothing can be said to cause anything else. nothing can be more than coincidental to any other thing. therefore, there can be no certain knowledge - no, not even of your god. if we can no longer assume anything causes anything else, there can be no science (all of it, at the very core, and not just inconvenient offshoots like biology) - no Newton's Laws, no gravity, no electromagnetism, not even the simplest theory about the universe is possible; there can be no free will (if you can't determine cause from effect, you can't prove you did anything); there can be no language (the verb "to do" dissolves, taking every other action verb with it, if you can't say X did Y); there can be no communication (besides not having any language to do it with and no way to know who's doing the communicating, because "communication" itself is based in action/reaction cause/effect it can't exist in a world where things can't cause other things); Pascal's Wager would become meaningless because "Therefore" is the first casualty of your decision - and where would that leave us? irrelevant even to our own existence, at best. things will simply appear to happen - you can't say why, communicate anything about the event, or be sure you actually witnessed it. so, sure open that trap door - enjoy your infinite fall through eternal nothingness. and no, you can't have some kind of partial causality, where it only applies in certain situations. if you know there can be exceptions, then you can never truly know when it's in effect and when it's not: all knowledge is still suspect. even knowledge about your god must be suspect - as if such knowledge is already suspect, you've made it doubly so. not only couldn't you prove god did anything here in the real world, in your imaginary world where causality is conditional, you can't know if actions you want to attribute to god aren't attributable to something else; for all you know (literally), what you attribute to your god could be attributable to nothing at all
Chris Losinger wrote:
if we can no longer assume anything causes anything else, there can be no science (all of it, at the very core, and not just inconvenient offshoots like biology) - no Newton's Laws, no gravity, no electromagnetism, not even the simplest theory about the universe is possible; there can be no free will (if you can't determine cause from effect, you can't prove you did anything); there can be no language (the verb "to do" dissolves, taking every other action verb with it, if you can't say X did Y); there can be no communication (besides not having any language to do it with and no way to know who's doing the communicating, because "communication" itself is based in action/reaction cause/effect it can't exist in a world where things can't cause other things); Pascal's Wager would become meaningless because "Therefore" is the first casualty of your decision - and where would that leave us? irrelevant even to our own existence, at best. things will simply appear to happen - you can't say why, communicate anything about the event, or be sure you actually witnessed it.
I deeply appreciate your candor and have to confess I could not have expressed this in better terms. You are arriving at very sharp and accurate implications in this paragraph. These are the reasons that made Hume give up on causality and go back to play backgammon with his friends. That said, let me tell you that causality is not extra-rational nor is it extra-logical, for it is one of the preconditions of rational thought. Give up your faith in causality and you also have to give up your reasons for arguing at all, which I am glad you are not willing to do from your posting of a response. The fact that rational thought is a sinking ship (to use a figure of speech, because it was never afloat) from the materialistic/humanistic/naturalistic worldview does not mean that you have to perish with it because you are not its captain; it means that the ship itself is not adequate. Just get off of it while you still can so that you can live, and not only for a while, but eternally. Rejoice my friend, because there is an alternative for those who still want to continue applying reason and do science consistently! What is this alternative? Start with God and His revelation, and then everything else will start making sense, including all the difficulties from my first post. Remember my earlier statement about God providing the preconditions for intelligibility?
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
if we can no longer assume anything causes anything else, there can be no science (all of it, at the very core, and not just inconvenient offshoots like biology) - no Newton's Laws, no gravity, no electromagnetism, not even the simplest theory about the universe is possible; there can be no free will (if you can't determine cause from effect, you can't prove you did anything); there can be no language (the verb "to do" dissolves, taking every other action verb with it, if you can't say X did Y); there can be no communication (besides not having any language to do it with and no way to know who's doing the communicating, because "communication" itself is based in action/reaction cause/effect it can't exist in a world where things can't cause other things); Pascal's Wager would become meaningless because "Therefore" is the first casualty of your decision - and where would that leave us? irrelevant even to our own existence, at best. things will simply appear to happen - you can't say why, communicate anything about the event, or be sure you actually witnessed it.
I deeply appreciate your candor and have to confess I could not have expressed this in better terms. You are arriving at very sharp and accurate implications in this paragraph. These are the reasons that made Hume give up on causality and go back to play backgammon with his friends. That said, let me tell you that causality is not extra-rational nor is it extra-logical, for it is one of the preconditions of rational thought. Give up your faith in causality and you also have to give up your reasons for arguing at all, which I am glad you are not willing to do from your posting of a response. The fact that rational thought is a sinking ship (to use a figure of speech, because it was never afloat) from the materialistic/humanistic/naturalistic worldview does not mean that you have to perish with it because you are not its captain; it means that the ship itself is not adequate. Just get off of it while you still can so that you can live, and not only for a while, but eternally. Rejoice my friend, because there is an alternative for those who still want to continue applying reason and do science consistently! What is this alternative? Start with God and His revelation, and then everything else will start making sense, including all the difficulties from my first post. Remember my earlier statement about God providing the preconditions for intelligibility?
juanfer68 wrote:
Rejoice my friend, because there is an alternative for those who still want to continue applying reason and do science consistently
i'm 100% sure you have misunderstood me. i'm not looking for an alternative to causality - i'm mocking the idea that anything like the universe we know can exist without it; and i'm certainly not looking for an extra-logical, irrational crutch to lean on. i'm perfectly satisfied with my worldview, and see absolutely no value in believing in something that can't be shown to exist outside of belief. i have no idea how you could think otherwise.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Kent Sharkey: "Thank you, missed the homonculus theory reference. Still, and from that reference (boldface mine):" [snip] Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought (to say nothing of his 'theory' itself) that you think that this dictionary snippet is correct in imputing via implication that Darwin didn't share the Victorian-era belief in "Progress?" (that capital 'P' is intentional and necessary to convey the nature of the belief) I'll bet you don't even know that Darwin was more a "Lamarckian" (in the modern sense of that word) than Lamarck himself was (but then, modern-day 'modern evolutionary theorists' continue to be more "Lamarckian" than Lamarck himself was). The truth is, this snippet incorrectly imputes certain aspects of current-day 'modern evolutionary theory' to Darwin. Kent Sharkey: "So, while the original use of the term may have implied progress, it was not intended in Darwin's use of the term." Now, aside from the fact that Darwin *did* argue (if I can be forgiven for so misusing that word) for "progress" -- and have you ever actually read a single word of his famous tome? (see: online 6th edition of Origin) -- apparently you want to put forward the idea that Darwin had the right all-on-his-lonesome to redefine the meaning of the word "evolution" as understood and used by everyone else so as to exclude the idea of "progress" being connected with it (which, of course, he didn't attempt to do in the first place). To give you just a glimmer of Darwin's thought on "progress," and of his "Lamarkian" predelictions, and of his mode of argumentation, consider this excerpt, from pages 176-181 (Chapter VII "MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION") of the Origin, 6th edition:
Although we have no good evidence of the existence in organic beings of an innate tendency towards progressive development, yet this necessarily follows, as I have attempted to show in the fourth chapter, through the continued action of natural selection. For the best definition which has ever been given of a high standard of organisation is the degree to which the parts have been specialised or differentiated; and natural selection tends towards this end, inasmuch as the parts are thus enabled to perform their functions more efficie
Ilíon wrote:
Also, it doesn't alter the fact that most persons who who are among the quickest to attribute stupidity being the cause of another person's holding to "creationism" ... tend to themselves believe that "evolution" ... is goal-oriented.
:wtf: i've never or talked with met anyone, who wasn't a creationist trying to misrepresent it, who thought or even said that evolution was "goal-oriented". do you have survey results for this "fact", or are you some kind of magical mass-mind-reader ? or are you just making stuff up ? and your terrible concern over the common meaning vs. biology-specific meaning of the word "evolution" is absurd. all kinds words take on special meanings in all kinds of different contexts; and no honest person expects that using a "overloaded" word in one context implies all alternative meanings, too. or maybe you think web cookies really imply butter, flour and sugar... maybe i underestimated the word games you're willing to play in service of your dogma.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
yeah, take that! :laugh:
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Kent Sharkey: "Thank you, missed the homonculus theory reference. Still, and from that reference (boldface mine):" [snip] Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought (to say nothing of his 'theory' itself) that you think that this dictionary snippet is correct in imputing via implication that Darwin didn't share the Victorian-era belief in "Progress?" (that capital 'P' is intentional and necessary to convey the nature of the belief) I'll bet you don't even know that Darwin was more a "Lamarckian" (in the modern sense of that word) than Lamarck himself was (but then, modern-day 'modern evolutionary theorists' continue to be more "Lamarckian" than Lamarck himself was). The truth is, this snippet incorrectly imputes certain aspects of current-day 'modern evolutionary theory' to Darwin. Kent Sharkey: "So, while the original use of the term may have implied progress, it was not intended in Darwin's use of the term." Now, aside from the fact that Darwin *did* argue (if I can be forgiven for so misusing that word) for "progress" -- and have you ever actually read a single word of his famous tome? (see: online 6th edition of Origin) -- apparently you want to put forward the idea that Darwin had the right all-on-his-lonesome to redefine the meaning of the word "evolution" as understood and used by everyone else so as to exclude the idea of "progress" being connected with it (which, of course, he didn't attempt to do in the first place). To give you just a glimmer of Darwin's thought on "progress," and of his "Lamarkian" predelictions, and of his mode of argumentation, consider this excerpt, from pages 176-181 (Chapter VII "MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION") of the Origin, 6th edition:
Although we have no good evidence of the existence in organic beings of an innate tendency towards progressive development, yet this necessarily follows, as I have attempted to show in the fourth chapter, through the continued action of natural selection. For the best definition which has ever been given of a high standard of organisation is the degree to which the parts have been specialised or differentiated; and natural selection tends towards this end, inasmuch as the parts are thus enabled to perform their functions more efficie
Ilíon wrote:
Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought (to say nothing of his 'theory' itself) that you think that this dictionary snippet is correct in imputing via implication that Darwin didn't share the Victorian-era belief in "Progress?"
Glad to see you're willing to leave ad hominem attacks out of this as well...
Ilíon wrote:
Me: "Or, perhaps you'd like to follow Chris Losinger's lead and accuse me of "playing word games?"" Kent Sharkey: "I'm perfectly happy to stay away from ad hominem attacks. However, I would think that arguing over the definition and use of a word would count as "word games" wouldn't it?" I am unaware of any effective way to communicate concepts sans words.
There is certainly a difference between communicating sans words and arguing over the definition and use of a word. One is, as you say impossible. Except perhaps in some bizarre game of charades between mimes.
Ilíon wrote:
Now that you appear to concede (without actually expressly admitting it, naturally) that my statement about the etymology of the word is not incorrect, it appears that you want to change the "argument" to something else. Man, oh man, where, oh where, has one previously encountered this mode of argumentation such that even when what one says is admittedly correct, he is nonetheless wrong? That 'modern evolutionary theorists' insist that "evolution" has nothing to do with "progress" does not alter the fact that the English word 'evolution' is and has always been associated with the idea of "progress." Also, it doesn't alter the fact that most persons who who are among the quickest to attribute stupidity being the cause of another person's holding to "creationism" (as opposed to their own "evolutionism") tend to themselves believe that "evolution" (whatever that word may happen to mean) is goal-oriented.
Oh, please forgive me. Yes, yes, yes, you were right on the original use of the word. I'm sorry I hadn't made that clear in my first statement. Having said that, I'll admit to more thickness in not being able to parse or understand your last sentence. Returning to the initial discussion, I see three world views in this discussion:
- The only truth is one fairly narrow literal interpretation of one religion (usually Christianity, but there is a strong creationism movemen
-
juanfer68 wrote:
Rejoice my friend, because there is an alternative for those who still want to continue applying reason and do science consistently
i'm 100% sure you have misunderstood me. i'm not looking for an alternative to causality - i'm mocking the idea that anything like the universe we know can exist without it; and i'm certainly not looking for an extra-logical, irrational crutch to lean on. i'm perfectly satisfied with my worldview, and see absolutely no value in believing in something that can't be shown to exist outside of belief. i have no idea how you could think otherwise.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Chris, I dit not misunderstand you, I perfectly identified your tone of mockery (was it even possible to miss?). I was hoping you would realize the necessity and precision of your conclusions, though, and I still hope you will print your words and hang them on your refrigereator to get back to them some day with a fresher mind, without the pressure of having to deal with any religious bigot like you probably think I am.
Chris Losinger wrote:
i'm perfectly satisfied with my worldview, and see absolutely no value in believing in something that can't be shown to exist outside of belief
I take from this that you think causality (which I hope you acknowledge is foundational for knowledge and science) meets your 'high' standard. Fine then, please be my guest and do show it. I can almost guarantee you will become the hero naturalists and many philosophers have long been waiting for.
Juanfer
-
Ilíon wrote:
Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought (to say nothing of his 'theory' itself) that you think that this dictionary snippet is correct in imputing via implication that Darwin didn't share the Victorian-era belief in "Progress?"
Glad to see you're willing to leave ad hominem attacks out of this as well...
Ilíon wrote:
Me: "Or, perhaps you'd like to follow Chris Losinger's lead and accuse me of "playing word games?"" Kent Sharkey: "I'm perfectly happy to stay away from ad hominem attacks. However, I would think that arguing over the definition and use of a word would count as "word games" wouldn't it?" I am unaware of any effective way to communicate concepts sans words.
There is certainly a difference between communicating sans words and arguing over the definition and use of a word. One is, as you say impossible. Except perhaps in some bizarre game of charades between mimes.
Ilíon wrote:
Now that you appear to concede (without actually expressly admitting it, naturally) that my statement about the etymology of the word is not incorrect, it appears that you want to change the "argument" to something else. Man, oh man, where, oh where, has one previously encountered this mode of argumentation such that even when what one says is admittedly correct, he is nonetheless wrong? That 'modern evolutionary theorists' insist that "evolution" has nothing to do with "progress" does not alter the fact that the English word 'evolution' is and has always been associated with the idea of "progress." Also, it doesn't alter the fact that most persons who who are among the quickest to attribute stupidity being the cause of another person's holding to "creationism" (as opposed to their own "evolutionism") tend to themselves believe that "evolution" (whatever that word may happen to mean) is goal-oriented.
Oh, please forgive me. Yes, yes, yes, you were right on the original use of the word. I'm sorry I hadn't made that clear in my first statement. Having said that, I'll admit to more thickness in not being able to parse or understand your last sentence. Returning to the initial discussion, I see three world views in this discussion:
- The only truth is one fairly narrow literal interpretation of one religion (usually Christianity, but there is a strong creationism movemen
"Glad to see you're willing to leave ad hominem attacks out of this as well..." Do you even know what ad hominem means? edit: But regardless of your apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of the term and your incorrect insinuation of it to me, at least you are trying to be rational about this ... unlike the person who posted immediately before you. -- modified at 13:56 Tuesday 20th February, 2007
-
Chris, I dit not misunderstand you, I perfectly identified your tone of mockery (was it even possible to miss?). I was hoping you would realize the necessity and precision of your conclusions, though, and I still hope you will print your words and hang them on your refrigereator to get back to them some day with a fresher mind, without the pressure of having to deal with any religious bigot like you probably think I am.
Chris Losinger wrote:
i'm perfectly satisfied with my worldview, and see absolutely no value in believing in something that can't be shown to exist outside of belief
I take from this that you think causality (which I hope you acknowledge is foundational for knowledge and science) meets your 'high' standard. Fine then, please be my guest and do show it. I can almost guarantee you will become the hero naturalists and many philosophers have long been waiting for.
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
I was hoping you would realize the necessity and precision of your conclusions
and i was hoping the same for you. alas, you have taken the opposite lesson. you seem to think pointing out the logical impossibility of what you're advocating somehow validates it. i suppose i shouldn't be surprised; as your fellow travelers have happily admitted, it's the foundation of your dogma. and the fact that i knew we'd get down to this "what is knowledge" nonsense is the entire reason i said i wasn't going to play your semantic games. and here we are... and there's simply nothing down here.
juanfer68 wrote:
Fine then, please be my guest and do show it.
i did. somehow you think that means i want Jesus. it feels a lot to me like you're following a help-desk script and i've inadvertently hit some keywords that have brought up what you think is the solution to my problem, but instead is the solution to a problem i don't have and will never have because i don't even run that version of Windows. so, that's it. i'm hanging up.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Juan: "Here it is: Remove God and you remove the only valid explanation for logic and any other concept of law whatsoever. Now, if you ever come up with a better account for their existence without begging the question, I would be eager to know what it is." In fact, it's much worse than that. The problem for 'atheism' isn't merely that in denying God one no longer has a "valid explanation for logic and any other concept of law whatsoever." If that were the whole of the problem it would be merely problematic but not fatal. The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up *denying* the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false ... along with denying all sort of things that we all know are true. Including, ultimately, than one's own self exists.
Ilíon, Again, you are absolutely right about this:
Ilíon wrote:
The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up *denying* the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false ... along with denying all sort of things that we all know are true. Including, ultimately, than one's own self exists.
To see the this in an unbeliever's own words, follow this link with the few interactions below: http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?msg=1901714#xx1901714xx
Juanfer
-
Ilíon, Again, you are absolutely right about this:
Ilíon wrote:
The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up *denying* the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false ... along with denying all sort of things that we all know are true. Including, ultimately, than one's own self exists.
To see the this in an unbeliever's own words, follow this link with the few interactions below: http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?msg=1901714#xx1901714xx
Juanfer
-
"Glad to see you're willing to leave ad hominem attacks out of this as well..." Do you even know what ad hominem means? edit: But regardless of your apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of the term and your incorrect insinuation of it to me, at least you are trying to be rational about this ... unlike the person who posted immediately before you. -- modified at 13:56 Tuesday 20th February, 2007
Ilíon wrote:
Do you even know what ad hominem means?
Yes, although perhaps I am just being a bit overly sensitive in feeling that a few of your accusations have attacked me rather than the argument I was proposing. (I'll ignore other threads, as ad hominem attacks in their purest form are flying on both sides).
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Ilíon wrote:
Do you even know what ad hominem means?
Yes, although perhaps I am just being a bit overly sensitive in feeling that a few of your accusations have attacked me rather than the argument I was proposing. (I'll ignore other threads, as ad hominem attacks in their purest form are flying on both sides).
-------------- TTFN - Kent
"Yes, although perhaps I am just being a bit overly sensitive in feeling that a few of your accusations have attacked me rather than the argument I was proposing." Just as I thought, you don't understand the meaning of the term: ad hominem[^] edit: I really don't care about your feelings as to this or that; feelings are not reasonings. And I really don't care about sparing your tender sensibilities. But an ad hominem fallacy is quite a different thing from disregard for your feelings. If you want to accuse me of logical fallacies, you really need to be sure your accusation is accurate.
-
"Yes, although perhaps I am just being a bit overly sensitive in feeling that a few of your accusations have attacked me rather than the argument I was proposing." Just as I thought, you don't understand the meaning of the term: ad hominem[^] edit: I really don't care about your feelings as to this or that; feelings are not reasonings. And I really don't care about sparing your tender sensibilities. But an ad hominem fallacy is quite a different thing from disregard for your feelings. If you want to accuse me of logical fallacies, you really need to be sure your accusation is accurate.
No, I understand the term (as I described it appropriately above), I just misapplied it. Still, very handy site you just sent me to. Thank you once again. Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true. (Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.) Here are a couple of examples: "Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
No, I understand the term (as I described it appropriately above), I just misapplied it. Still, very handy site you just sent me to. Thank you once again. Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true. (Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.) Here are a couple of examples: "Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent Sharkey: "No, I understand the term (as I described it appropriately above), I just misapplied it." Where did you describe it above? The nearest I can find to what some might (mistakenly) call a description is where you attempted to justify/explain what you now see was a misapplication the term to what I had previously said to you. I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so perhaps you described the meaning of the term in a post addressed to someone else and I just haven't read that particular post. As near as I can see, this is the most pertinent history of this particular side-issue:
Kent Sharkey: "Thank you, missed the homonculus theory reference. Still, and from that reference (boldface mine):"
preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution.
"So, while the original use of the term may have implied progress, it was not intended in Darwin's use of the term. Nor does the current use of the term imply any sort of progress. ... " Ilíon: "Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought (to say nothing of his 'theory' itself) that you think that this dictionary snippet is correct in imputing via implication that Darwin didn't share the Victorian-era belief in "Progress?" " Kent Sharkey: "Glad to see you're willing to leave ad hominem attacks out of this as well... " Ilíon: "Do you even know what ad hominem means?" Kent Sharkey: "Yes, although perhaps I am just being a bit overly sensitive in feeling that a few of your accusations have attacked me rather than the argument I was proposing."
As best I can see, you have decided to feel insulted because I asked you: "Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought ... ?" and then you mistakenly called that question an ad hominen. (And because in my first response to you I non-subtly let you know that you hadn't thought clearly about the facts you were attempting to use to dispute what I had initially said.) Look, it's like this (and if you decide to tak
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
prove it. show your work.
These things can't be proved, Chris. No one has ever proved that there is a God; no one has ever proved that there isn't. The closest we come to an argument for the existence of God in the Bible is a handful of statements - typically made in passing - regarding things that should be obvious to all; for example, "Every house is built by some man, but He who built all things is God." The Bible speaks of faith as a gift, given to some and withheld from others (who are frequently labeled as blinded, not unconvinced). "The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumblingblock, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to those that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
The Grand Negus: "These things can't be proved, Chris. No one has ever proved that there is a God; no one has ever proved that there isn't." Actually, this is inaccurate (and I think part of the problem lies in the fact that far too many people don't begin to understand what the word 'prove' means and how one goes about 'proving' a proposition). In fact, there have been *many* proof-of-God arguments offered in the past 2500 years or so of Western philosophy -- note, this history goes back nearly a millenium before Christianity came to dominate and then re-make Western culture. Not all of these arguments have been sound, of course, but others of them are sound and have not been defeated ... so they are ignored. And then, seemingly in a category by itself, there is the Ontological Argument, which nearly everyone seems to believe simply *must* be an invalid (or, at best, unsatisfactory) argument, even though it appears that on one can identify just what exactly is wrong with the argument. And, in fact (and quite surprisingly to me), I myself can offer you what I believe is an irrefutable proof-of-God argument -- which, so far as I know, is unique and novel, besides being irrefutable. Now, I'm still having a difficult time accepting that the possibility may indeed be factual that no one in the past 2500 years has articulated just this argument I have in mind, so I've been trying in my spare time to see if I can find whether this (or essentially the same) argument has been offered before. I made reference to this argument earlier when I said to Juan:
The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up *denying* the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false ... along with denying all sort of things that we all know are true. Including, ultimately, than one's own self exists.
It's that last statement that gets at the heart of my argument; in a nut-shell: to be logically consistent, one's denial that God exists *must* entail the denial that oneself really exists. But, this is absurd; one *knows* that oneself exists. Therefore, one *knows* that the denial that God exists is false; therefore, one *knows* that God exists. A note of criticism towards the approach (and reasoning) that both you and Juan seem to evidence: quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic. Furthermore, trying to use the Bible to prove that God exists