Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
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
-
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
I don't really see this discussion going anywhere productive (take that as victory as you are wont), but I know you like affirmation, so...
Ilíon wrote:
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.)
That is correct. I understand now that I was being overly sensitive and incorrectly applying that label.
Ilíon wrote:
How do you like this example? "Unless you can prove 'modern evolutionary theory' false, it is irrational for you to not accede to it being true." (Oddly enough, and far too often, an assertion along that line is coupled, in Catch-22 manner, with an assertion such as the following: "Unless you can prove 'modern evolutionary theory' false, you do not have the intellectual standing to criticise it.")
Never my belief at all. Rather, I believe that modern evolutionary theory is our best available explanation of our observations. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for any theory to be defined as truth. They are merely testable models based on possible explanation of observations. Good theories are testable, map well to existing observations, and make predictions for future observations. Modern evolutionary theory provides all three. As for criticism, go ahead. It is only through criticism and investigation that theories improve.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
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
Ilíon wrote:
Though, at the same time, I see from your further response to Juan that you do understand the point(s) I'm trying to make.
Indeed I do. And I'm in agreement with you. Now consider this: You rightly say, "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." The key phrase, I believe, is that last one ("things that we all know are true") because when proving anything, we must begin somewhere; we must start with some axiomatic truths that don't require proof. Since the intellectual unbeliever typically refuses to grant these "things that we all know are true" - or gives mere lip-service to them - it is impossible to produce a convincing argument (in the unbeliever's eyes). Hang on... Jesus said, "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men... neither in this world, nor in the world to come." I take this to mean that no matter how screwed up one's thinking is, there is still hope for straightening it out if one accepts those "things that we all know are true", that is, those things revealed to all by the Holy Spirit. But if you reject those, there is no hope - here or hereafter. In other words, the thought that "if A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C" is a truth revealed to men by (or put into men by, or is a little piece of) the Holy Spirit - and without which we won't get very far. Accept this revelation (and others like it), and "all sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven", that is, can be eventually "worked out"; reject it, however, and you're done. And done for.
-
Chris, I apologize for the misunderstanding about your identity.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Thank you. We can't know anything about it, and that includes you. Evolution could then be a tool in his toolbox right?
To start, please tell me how do you know we cannot know anything about it? Did you experience this absolute negative? Can you observe it? Can you rationally infer it? I do know that God created every species after their own kind because He has revealed this in the Scriptures. Don't you trust revelation? I would be utterly confused if you don't based on my last paragraphs in this post. For the time being, at least please tell me something about what you trust as a source of knowledge.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Exactly. Its a book of parables written by man with the declaration of being inspired by god. It is not valid. You can't use scripture to argue against science. Sorry.
Granted: the Bible is a book written by man with the declaration of being inspired by God. Now, was it inspired or not? Why is it not valid? Is it not true that you can at least start with it as a reliable historical source? I hope you haven't studied the Bible in the same way you misread my post. If you read it again you should realize that I was not arguing against science, but clearly against its irrationally misuse and deification as the only way of knowing something. Please address a simple issue: explain how do you demand scientific proof of anything without proving first the elements you will use to evaluate that proof, i.e. the laws of logic and the reliability of your senses, your past experience, your memory, along with the principles of causality and induction? Do you trust them implicitly? Is it just because everybody else does? Or you just know they are there and would not even bother to answer nonsensical questions like this?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Funny. I've studied it.
You may find it funny, but if you have studied the Bible, how can you come to the conclusion that it is a "book of parables" when parables comprise just a small percentage of its contents? Well, probably the people, places and events mentioned there, along with their historical value, have been taken seriously by archeologists and historians just because they enjoy reading moral stories.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I'm even a Chri
juanfer68 wrote:
To start, please tell me how do you know we cannot know anything about it? Did you experience this absolute negative? Can you observe it? Can you rationally infer it?
Look, you are over thinking. We can't know, we can only believe. We can only infer. We can only assume. We can back that up in our own minds for sure, but it isn't knowledge.
juanfer68 wrote:
I do know that God created every species after their own kind because He has revealed this in the Scriptures. Don't you trust revelation? I would be utterly confused if you don't based on my last paragraphs in this post. For the time being, at least please tell me something about what you trust as a source of knowledge.
You are trusting words on paper. That's it. You put the value into the text with your own belief. Its not knowledge. Its assumption. A worthy one in my opinion, but an assumption nonetheless. Trust as a source of knowledge? Well, I trust experience. But even that can be false as its personal. I seek and I find. But I don't push what I find on others, that's for them to seek themselves. I also don't take for granted that everything claimed is true. WE DON'T KNOW.
juanfer68 wrote:
Is it not true that you can at least start with it [bible] as a reliable historical source?
I look to it as a book of parables outlining decent moral behavior. I look to it as a potential interpretation of history. Most of the old testament was put together during Babylonian captivity and is skewed to reinvigorate the jewish captives. The new testament was put together incomplete by those in Rome suiting their own purposes.
juanfer68 wrote:
Please address a simple issue: explain how do you demand scientific proof of anything without proving first the elements you will use to evaluate that proof, i.e. the laws of logic and the reliability of your senses, your past experience, your memory, along with the principles of causality and induction?
I don't naively assume that anything can be proven. I take the universe experientially and don't allow others to define this experience for me. I live it. Some of the data fits, some of it doesn't. Remember that the map isn't the territory.
juanfer68 wrote:
You may find it funny, but if you have studied the Bible
-
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
Ilíon wrote:
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 would suggest that there is prior art[^]. You're definitely in good company on that one.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
juanfer68 wrote:
To start, please tell me how do you know we cannot know anything about it? Did you experience this absolute negative? Can you observe it? Can you rationally infer it?
Look, you are over thinking. We can't know, we can only believe. We can only infer. We can only assume. We can back that up in our own minds for sure, but it isn't knowledge.
juanfer68 wrote:
I do know that God created every species after their own kind because He has revealed this in the Scriptures. Don't you trust revelation? I would be utterly confused if you don't based on my last paragraphs in this post. For the time being, at least please tell me something about what you trust as a source of knowledge.
You are trusting words on paper. That's it. You put the value into the text with your own belief. Its not knowledge. Its assumption. A worthy one in my opinion, but an assumption nonetheless. Trust as a source of knowledge? Well, I trust experience. But even that can be false as its personal. I seek and I find. But I don't push what I find on others, that's for them to seek themselves. I also don't take for granted that everything claimed is true. WE DON'T KNOW.
juanfer68 wrote:
Is it not true that you can at least start with it [bible] as a reliable historical source?
I look to it as a book of parables outlining decent moral behavior. I look to it as a potential interpretation of history. Most of the old testament was put together during Babylonian captivity and is skewed to reinvigorate the jewish captives. The new testament was put together incomplete by those in Rome suiting their own purposes.
juanfer68 wrote:
Please address a simple issue: explain how do you demand scientific proof of anything without proving first the elements you will use to evaluate that proof, i.e. the laws of logic and the reliability of your senses, your past experience, your memory, along with the principles of causality and induction?
I don't naively assume that anything can be proven. I take the universe experientially and don't allow others to define this experience for me. I live it. Some of the data fits, some of it doesn't. Remember that the map isn't the territory.
juanfer68 wrote:
You may find it funny, but if you have studied the Bible
Chris,
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Good luck with your arguments.
Now I am really confused and I think you are right, in a sense I would need luck with your 'statements' (an argument is a substantiated claim or premise that supports others and its use presupposes the laws of logic along with the possibility of knowledge). I say 'in a sense' because luck is not an option if God "worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph 1:11). The Bible provides the only consistent framework to harmonize rationally the whole package of our experience, reason, way of life and its consequences. For example, it accounts for and gives purpose to history, science, ethics, law, love, justice, mercy, etc. Out of it, every other worldview I have submitted to the test has failed due to their inconsistencies, arbitrariness or unsubstantiated claims. For an example of this you can check the case of materialism and its inadequacy in the final messages I exchanged with Chris Losinger after discussing how diamonds are created. Now, for an example of what I will call pseudo-messianism (which we can discuss later), let’s examine your post.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
We can't know, we can only believe. We can only infer. We can only assume.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
The Naassene principle is to know. Through experience.
On one hand you say we cannot know while, as a Naassene, you not only know but also know how we can know! Or simply: 'I know that I cannot know and I can tell you how'; how is it that I know at least that much?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
You are trusting words on paper.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Trust as a source of knowledge? Well, I trust experience.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Thomas was an apostle. Why discount the works and writings of one that walked with Jesus through his life in the flesh?
You imply that I should not trust words on paper as a source of knowledge. Now, how do you know about Thomas and his relationship with Jesus if not by... trusting words on paper? From my perspective it would make sense to at least consider Thomas' writings because, after all, I attribute some value to written words, right? How do you rationally reconcile both statements? I am willing to continue t