 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
nakhash
House Cat
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Posts: 171
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| thunder wrote: | The current secular Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Princeton, Bowling Green libraries of religious study are an unlikely place to find God, however, if you read the bible, it is an excellent guide and more but, never forget that, we are called to," come boldly before the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Hebrews 4:16
The instructions are so clear that the reader can understand, even without a double-Phd!
When a person wants to find God, simply find an altar for repantance, open your mouth and begin explaining to God ( in secret, silently (( outloud is better )) ) the exact nature of your weakness, failure, inability, flaws and with sincerety and with passion.
The Lord loves a repentant heart.
" For thus saith the high and lofty ONE that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones." Isaiah 57:15
Decades of research is not required, just repentance.
thunder |
Is ignorance as blissful as it is widely reputed to be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LuckyStrike
Sea Monkey
Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Posts: 10
Location: Valdosta, GA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:46 pm Post subject: Re: nakhash |
|
|
| nakhash wrote: | | thunder wrote: | The current secular Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Princeton, Bowling Green libraries of religious study are an unlikely place to find God, however, if you read the bible, it is an excellent guide and more but, never forget that, we are called to," come boldly before the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Hebrews 4:16
The instructions are so clear that the reader can understand, even without a double-Phd!
When a person wants to find God, simply find an altar for repantance, open your mouth and begin explaining to God ( in secret, silently (( outloud is better )) ) the exact nature of your weakness, failure, inability, flaws and with sincerety and with passion.
The Lord loves a repentant heart.
" For thus saith the high and lofty ONE that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones." Isaiah 57:15
Decades of research is not required, just repentance.
thunder |
Is ignorance as blissful as it is widely reputed to be? |
Perhaps you should know. You respond to opposing viewpoints with ad hominem attacks, not substantive refutations.
 Violation of logical empiricism.
_________________
1 Peter 3:15 [NIV]
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuckyStrike
Sea Monkey
Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Posts: 10
Location: Valdosta, GA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:06 pm Post subject: Re: FFT, SDMD, nakhash, ekspiulo |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Mainstream definitions are notoriously fallible. |
This is non-sequitur reasoning. Generalizations about mainstream definitions do not necessarily apply to all mainstream definitions.
| FFT wrote: | | Just because a "significant portion" of the secular humanist can be labeled skeptically hostile, does not mean that it is one of the attributes of secular humanism. |
Nowhere did the original definition of "secular humanism" state a specific definition or context of "hostility." When I said "express skeptical hostility," I was contrasting "secular humanists" who reject traditional religious beliefs, academically or irrationally, with "secular humanists" who were indifferent to or "accept" traditional religious beliefs.
Hostility: "1 a : deep-seated usually mutual ill will b (1) : hostile action (2) plural : overt acts of warfare : WAR 2 : conflict, opposition, or resistance in thought or principle" (ref.)
As shown by the above, "hostility" applies to a spectrum of concepts, such as in malevolence, the inhospitable, conflict, opposition, and resistance. Moreover, this spectrum of concepts can be applied to a variety of different contexts or situations, internally and externally. For instance, depending on individual perception, the concept of "hostility" could apply to your mental resistance to the traditional belief of Creationism, any collective of atheists on this board who actively oppose posts that favor Intelligent Design (ID) or Creationism, and any secular humanist who participates in "the culture war" to oppose "Christianity's" influence on society. Consequently, this is why the line between "skepticism" and "hostility" is blurry, if not non-existent.
Consequently, appealing to a narrow application of this term to disprove my usage of the term is logically fallacious.
| FFT wrote: | | Similarly, just because a significant portion of the population believes that the theory of evolution covers everything from the big bang to the present, does not change the fact that the theory of evolution starts with the first living cell. |
Abiogenesis is a logical component of Evolutionary theory. Specifically, if Evolutionary theory is about explaining biological diversity through change, then this purpose includes the biological changes surrounding all organisms, even original common ancestor(s). Consequently, one can assert that biological evolution began as soon as Abiogenesis began, thereby requiring Evolutionists to include Abiogenesis within the realm of Evolutionary theory.
Quite simply, the claim that "Abiogenesis is not a part of Evolutionary theory" is an attempt to dodge one of the most difficult problems Evolutionary theory faces today.
| FFT wrote: | | Irrelevant, see above. The actions of individuals are seperate from the whole. |
No. You see the above. You refutation is based on a narrow application of the concept of "hostility," thereby creating an unrepresentative sample logical fallacy.
| FFT wrote: | | You really like that red flag gif, don't you? Had it used on you too many times? |
 It is a nifty little .gif image, no? Just remember that if it is to be used effectively, it must accompany a valid point. So using it on me will be meaningless unless you actually make a valid point.
| FFT wrote: | | The hilarity of it all stands. |
Just as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," humor depends on individual perspective. This means that your efforts to pose your amusement as empirical observations of my person are logically fallacious.
| FFT wrote: | | I know that there is an utter lack of evidence for His existence. |
Just like many Charismatics know the Holy Spirit told them something? Violation of logical empiricism.
| FFT wrote: | Oops, it seems that you are unable to grasp "sarcasm." Since apparently it needs to be spelled out to you, I'll explain what was going on there.
Salvation12288: Due to the complexity of the world, you have to believe there is a God.
Me: So I believe there is a God, since I "have to." Oops, I don't actually believe in God. Looks like you went wrong somewhere.
Notice that earlier in that post, S had noted that he hadn't seen any people with tails, or fur, and that there would be people around like that if "there was evolution." I pointed out that there are, in fact, people with tails, as well as that there are, in fact, people covered in fur. So "ooops!" he was mistaken. |
Your assumption is incorrect. I knew there was sarcasm there, but in what context? "Yeah, that really convinces me to believe in God," or "Yeah, I find that highly convincing, but I believe in God anyway"? However, it seems that you are determined to assert the former premise to be contrarian.
God: "[. . .] (3): a person or thing of supreme value [ . . .]" (ref.)
By this definition of "god," whatever is of supreme value to any individual can be defined as that person's "god." Consequently, it can be said that everyone has a "god."
| FFT wrote: | | What it boils down to is how warped an individual's view of reality is. That there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for everything is not enough, people want to be special, unique. |
So if someone disagrees with your interpretation of certain physical evidence, then that person has a "warped view of reality" and is "unreasonable"? This qualifies as an generalized ad hominem attack. Violation of logical empiricism.
| FFT wrote: | | I will not. This thread has derailed enough as it is. I'm making a new thread just for you. |
I said "debate the concept of Intelligent Design on this thread." In case you have not noticed, I already have a lengthily 3-on-1 debate currently in progress on this thread. I do not have the time to start another debate on another thread.
| FFT wrote: | | Naturalism is presupposed in science just as it is in all things but religion. Naturalism nets results which work. I could explain that Zeus is in charge of thunderstorms, that all storms are at his whim. Does this have predictive power? No. I could, however, were I a meteorologist, explain to you exactly what conditions lead to a storm. |
But invoking Zeus as the cause of thunderstorms explains why thunderstorms "behave" as they do, not how thunderstorms manifest or operate physically. There is no reason why a meteorological study of thunderstorms should nullify Zeus as the cause of thunderstorms, unless one equivocates how and why thunderstorms occur. Consequently, the issue here is not about metaphysical naturalism, but simply observing the physical as is.
However, the question of who or what supernatural deities are truly behind thunderstorms is resolved with comparative religious studies, not the philosophy of Science.
Now, what is your criteria for "predictive power"?
| FFT wrote: | Perhaps in that "mainstream definition" you seem to hold to. However, you seem to have taken the dictionary definitions and misinterpreted them. "Proof is the evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." Note the bolded. Yes, there is evidence involved in proof. However, "proof" is when the evidence actually shows the assertion to be true. That "compel" bit is what sets it apart from evidence.
Evidence, on the other hand, is simply a sign of something. It is not proof of it. For instance, evidence in a murder trial. All sorts of things can be shown as evidence for a person's guilt. If the person is not, however, found guilty, none of those bits of evidence were enough to be proof. Evidence leads to proof, it is not equivalent to proof. Roads lead to Rome, the roads are not Rome.
Ultimately, you have commited an equivocation fallacy. |
Wrong. It seems that you are trying negate the definitions I referenced by referencing other definitions. As a result, you are engaging in a narrow definition logical fallacy.
Proof: "1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning [...] 3 : something that induces certainty or establishes validity" (ref.)
Evidence: "1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter" (ref.)
The definitions of "evidence" and "proof" reference each other. "Evidence" furnishes or provides "proof," while "proof" is the cogency or force of "evidence" that "compels" acceptance of something. Definition 1a of "evidence" does not negate this, for definition 1a describes the appearance of evidence, while definition 1b describes the force of evidence, of which evidence in legal proceedings is a specific application of this definition. This means that in referencing different definitions of "evidence," you are confusing different contextual applications of the term.
Moreover, the results of legal proceedings do not deny that "evidence" is "proof," for "evidence" is used to ascertain truth, not a specific viewpoint. In addition to this, such a premise neglects many other variant factors, such as in how people interpret the evidence, how the relevant legal proceedings handle the evidence, and nature of the evidence itself.As
| FFT wrote: | | Violation of logical empiricism. |
Where did I claim that I adhere to logical empiricism, or empiricism in general? Empiricism is impossible due to the fact that all knowledge is based on assumption, as shown through the infinite regression of justification. Instead, all knowledge or "facts" are categorized by their respective probability of veracity, not different forms of absolute "proof" or "disproof."
For instance, consider the "Law of Gravity." Before any object falls randomly or is purposefully dropped, can one empirically predict that the said object will fall to the ground? No. The "mediator" or "ultimate cause" of gravitation remains unknown. Instead, one can only assume this will be the case, based on consistent past occurrences of this action. Thus, the "Law of Gravity" is not "a law," but rather "a fact" of high probability, unless future inconsistencies suddenly emerge.
With this in mind, the "violations of logical empiricism" are employed for your benefit, since secular humanists pride themselves on being empirical when they are not.
| FFT wrote: | | Note that I said "absence of proof is not proof of absence." Being unable to prove an entity exists is not the same as proving that the entity does not exist. However, an absence of evidence, especially when there is expected to be evidence, is evidence of absence. |
Presupposing when evidence should or should not be expected begs the question. Violation of logical empiricism.
When does "absence of evidence or proof equal evidence or proof of absence"?
| FFT wrote: | | Her original question was "how does evolution explain it?" The answer is, "it doesn't." The theory of evolution is concerned with populations, not individuals. She then made a hasty generalization (we're all born the same, we all live on one planet, we all die) while ignoring that each of us has a unique life experience, which was what I pointed out in the previous post. I did not dodge lone-traveler's question, I gave my answer. |
The whole exchange over lone-traveler's question is irrelevant, for lone-traveler is not entirely sure about what she is asking. So quibbling over the merits of your answer is unproductive.
| FFT wrote: | | No. Why would I? I have not asserted that all aspects of individuality are the result of biological processes. I have asserted that they are the combined result of genetics and experience. I do so based on knowledge of myself and others. Had certain events in the past turned out differently, we would be different people. |
You are dodging my question. I am asking if you can "prove" that all aspects of individuality are the result of naturalistic or materialistic causes, such as in biological processes. Yet you are focusing on contrasting biological processes with environmental factors to avoid the focus of my question.
| FFT wrote: | | It is the most coherent of all options. It is reflected by behavior modification therapy. |
"Because you say so"? How do you know that it is "the most coherent of all options"? Violation of logical empiricism.
| FFT wrote: | | Wrong. Assertions are not violations of logic. I simply didn't have time to explain each of my assertions. Do you have a problem with any of them? If so, point it out, and I will back up my assertion. No violations here. |
No. You are offering conclusions, not mere assertions, based on the rationale of "because I say so." Violation of logical empiricism upheld.
| FFT wrote: | A statement that makes something comprehensible by describing the relevant structure or operation or circumstances.
Sai Baba's "miracles" are comprehensible by the fact that they are naught but simple parlor tricks. |
So if "an explanation" is composed of a normative naturalistic explanation, then are you not presupposing that the miracle in question is not a miracle before evaluating it?
Explanation: "1 : the act or process of explaining 2 : something that explains <gave no explanation>" (ref.)
Explain: "2 : to give the reason for or cause of" (ref.)
This is the basic definition of "explanation." No, without presupposing naturalism, how do you construct an impartial criteria for "an explanation"?
- - - - - - - - - -
FFT, while I enjoy playing your intellectual games, you are "stonewalling" this discussion with petty bickering. So, if you are not going to take this discussion seriously, then I would like to move on to other places that would provide more meaningful debate.
I believe that I now understand why this forum is basically dead. You unwittingly validate my definition of "secular humanism," for you preach, not debate, against the opposing viewpoint.
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
| SDMD wrote: | | Yes, yes, yes. I KNOW what it means. But what is the context and relevance here? |
| LuckyStrike wrote: | Hostility: "1 a : deep-seated usually mutual ill will b (1) : hostile action (2) plural : overt acts of warfare : WAR
2 : conflict, opposition, or resistance in thought or principle" (ref.)
As shown by the above, "hostility" applies to a spectrum of concepts, such as in malevolence, the inhospitable, conflict, opposition, and resistance. Moreover, this spectrum of concepts can be applied to a variety of different contexts or situations, internally and externally. For instance, depending on individual perception, the concept of "hostility" could apply to your mental resistance to the traditional belief of Creationism, any collective of atheists on this board who actively oppose posts that favor Intelligent Design (ID) or Creationism, and any secular humanist who participates in "the culture war" to oppose "Christianity's" influence on society. Consequently, this is why the line between "skepticism" and "hostility" is blurry, if not non-existent. |
The term applies to the individuals currently opposing me within discussion, within the concurrent context of "skeptical hostility" and humanistic priorities.
| SDMD wrote: | | Nope. I am observing that some creationists and IDers have tried to claim that one can not be both accepting Evolution and God at the same time. THAT is what I call silliness. |
Right. You are calling my position "silliness" before discussing with me, thereby qualifying as an appeal to predjudical language logical fallacy.
| SDMD wrote: | | And I wanted to be sure that you were not one of those people. I simply asked a question to that extend. |
But you preemptedly called those who take such a position "ignorant," thereby engaging in an ad hominem attack on my person before finding out my position on the matter.
| SDMD wrote: | | Your "just because I say so" claim does not match my observation. |
I provided my reasoning for this statement in the following sentences. So classifying my assertion as a "because you say so" argument is an presumptuous error.
| SDMD wrote: | | Your claim is false. Evolution AND ALL SCIENCE (as that is included in your description here) say nothing about God, doesn't speak against God and doesn’t claim God's absence. |
| SDMD wrote: | | Only if you insist on an either/or scenario. Actual science doesn't justify this. The Scientific Method is not validated to the point that you claim it is. The Scientific method doesn't exclude non-scientific aspects as proven wrong; rather it excludes them as not measurable. The science doesn't set itself up to replace non-science; it merely finds itself exploring a limited subset of the world, that which can be measured, while acknowledging that it is incapable of saying anything about the rest. It is a subset of the world, nothing else. Your claim of a paradox is false. |
Science cannot use the physical to draw a line between where the physical ends and the metaphysical or supernatural begins, for the supernatural or metaphysical transcends the physical, by definition. Consequently, neither naturalistic philosophy nor supernatural concepts are scientifically testable, quantifiable, or falsifiable.
However, Evolutionary theory violates this reality by utilizing methodological naturalism as its method of scientific inquiry. Specifically, if methodological naturalism is used as an epistemology, then philosophical naturalism logically follows as the conclusion. To illustrate this logical process in action, consider what is written on TalkOrigins.org:
| TalkOrigins.org wrote: | Notice, though, that the second sense is a view about what exists, while the former is a view about what can be known in science. If there is a spiritual realm which is not open to observation, then science cannot use it in explanation, for science is about explaining things that are observed.
If science cannot be used to explain things in terms of what it cannot see and test, this doesn't rule out other disciplines using non-natural explanations (like theology). It just means that science cannot use it as it undercuts the very notion of science. There are two ways science cannot be non-naturalistic. It cannot make the assumption that phenomena are themselves non-natural - it has to assume that everything observed is amenable to a naturalistic investigation. Call this methodological naturalism.
Science must also avoid non-natural explanations. This is explanatory naturalism. Any explanation that uses a non-natural explanans (thing doing the explaining) fails to be testable. I could propose that some process is the result of an Invisible Pink Unicorn's powers. You can neither falsify nor verify this (in the ordinary senses). The hallmark of science, perhaps the only hallmark, is that explanations are testable. |
Source: "Evolution and Philosophy, Naturalism: Is it Necessary?", by John S. Wilkins, TalkOrigins.org
Notice the reasoning employed here. The author reasons that if Science cannot test for, quantify, or falsify supernatural concepts, then Science must subject all physical phenomena to naturalistic investigation. Based on this, the author reasons that naturalistic investigation must yeild naturalic explanations, otherwise the original premise would be violated.
| TalkOrigins.org wrote: | The usual way to define non-natural is that it is not explicable in terms of natural laws; that is, it breaks the causal chain. If we abandon the methodological assumption of naturalism - that everything is open to empirical investigation - we can say that anything not presently explained by scientific laws is non-natural, but that's not what is meant. We can distinguish between our present ignorance and something that's in-principle not scientifically explicable, surely. We want something that is completely outside the course of physical events [some proponents of the term 'supernatural' use it to mean 'uncaused' - what that actually means is really unclear].
But if we had it, could we incorporate it into a scientific explanation? We could obviously not use empirical observations - they depend on the ordinary course of physical processes. So what else is there? The answer is, nothing. Non-natural explanations are not scientific. |
Source: "Evolution and Philosophy, Naturalism: Is it Necessary?", by John S. Wilkins, TalkOrigins.org
Next, the author defines "non-natural" as a break in the naturalistic causal chain. In other words, an explanation of a physical phenomenon must violate the chain of naturalistic explanations that caused a physical phenomenon. However, the author says that identifying such a non-natural break in the causal chain is scientifically impossible, therefore the possibility of such a break is inherently unscientific. Consequently, regardless of intention, the author just proved why methodological naturalism is synonymous with metaphysical naturalism.
| TalkOrigins.org wrote: | | Many scientists are also physicalists. They argue that if we do not need to postulate the reality of non-physical processes for science, then we can conclude that there are no such things. This argument is too quick. The claim that 'if A then B' explains B may be true, but there may also be a C that explains B. Moreover, many things in the physical world are caused by many things together rather than just a few. So, we might say that a physical event is caused both by God and by the physical causes, without being logically inconsistent. |
Source: "Evolution and Philosophy, Naturalism: Is it Necessary?", by John S. Wilkins, TalkOrigins.org
At the end, the author tries to amend his conclusion by arguing that God can cause naturalistic causes. However, this assertion is contradictory to his prior reasoning, for he defined the "non-natural" as what breaks the naturalistic casual chain. As a result, one can say that if God caused a naturalistic event, then the event ceases to be naturalistic in cause, thereby violating Science's explanatory power through methodological naturalism.
| SDMD wrote: | | Not true. God can be everywhere. We just can't measure or observe God, so we look at the patterns and changes we can measure. NOTHING says that this is not all caused by God. You are showing a fundamental misperception of science here. |
If God is behind Evolutionary theory's naturalistic explanations, then how can those naturalistic explanations still be naturalistic in nature? Does not God's involvement make such explanations supernatural in nature?
| Arthur N. Strahler wrote: | A specific event of history in a specific time segment must fall into either (a) divine causation or (b) natural causation. Our logic is as follows: 'If a [divine, supernatural causation], then not b [natural causation]. If b, then not a.' To follow with the proposal 'Both a and b' is therefore not logically possible. Moreover, one cannot get out of this bind by proposing that God is the sole causative agent of all natural causes, which in turn are the causative agents of the observed event. This 'First Cause/Secondary Cause' model, long a standby of the eighteenth-century school of natural theology ... adds up to 100 percent supernatural creation.
Consider the analogy of cosmic history as an unbroken chain [of causal explanations] made from all possible combinations of two kinds of links, a [supernatural cause, as in religion] and b [natural cause, as in science].... When a theist declares any link in the chain to be an a-link (whereas all the others are b-links), an element of the science set has been replaced by an element of the religion set. When this substitution has been accomplished, the entire ensuing sequence is flawed by that single antecedent event of divine creation and must be viewed as false science, or pseudoscience. The reason that replacement of a single link changed the character of all ensuing links is that each successor link is dependent upon its predecessor in a cause-effect relationship ... that divine act can never be detected by the scientist because, by definition, it is a supernatural act. There exists only the claim that such an act occurred, and science cannot deal in such claims. By the same token, science must reject revelation, as a means of obtaining empirical knowledge. |
Source: Arthur N. Strahler, Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1992), 345-346.
| SDMD wrote: | | And that is another illogical claim, as "sufficient" doesn't mean "only." |
Why does God need to "fix what is not broken"? If the naturalistic processes in question are progressing without involvement, then why does God need to get involved?
| SDMD wrote: | | SO? That doesn't mean that it is true. |
Wrong. If one intellectually rejects the concept of the supernatural, then one must believe that all things are the result of naturalistic or materialistic causes only, including all aspects of individual human personality. This means that regardless of if a naturalist or materialist verbalizes the claim or not, one must adhere to this claim. And this includes all naturalists or materialists, including scientists, psychologists, and medical doctors.
| SDMD wrote: | | individual people make individual claims. What scientific source have shown this idea that all aspects of personality can be explained through hard scientific facts? |
| SDMD wrote: | | No, I am asking for evidence of your claim, as I have not seen such an argument in the past by any scientist. |
These are strawman arguments. See the above response.
| SDMD wrote: | | Well, they are the answer to the question. |
The whole exchange over lone-traveler's question is irrelevant, for lone-traveler is not entirely sure about what she is asking. So quibbling over the merits of FFT's answer is unproductive.
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
| nakhash wrote: | | You'd be surprised to learn that I'm not a humanist, then. I don't disregard religion because I think it is contrary to the human condition. I don't even believe in a unified concept of "the human condition." |
Do you believe in the "social progress" or "social evolution" of humanity as a whole?
| nakhash wrote: | | Yup. Which is why God doesn't exist. Glad you agree. |
| nakhash wrote: | | Man, I love it when you guys do all the work for me. So we agree. God's existence is not necessary. |
Only if you presuppose naturalistic philosophy.
| nakhash wrote: | | Ontological supernaturalism is poorly supported and no one but theists take it seriously. |
All you are doing here is engaging in an appeal to popularity logical fallacy.
| nakhash wrote: | | God doesn't exist. |
"Because you say so"?
| nakhash wrote: | | The belief in God cripples any rational attempt to study the unknown because the individual will always find something they feel they cannot examine the mechanisms of because it is the spiritual territory of religion. |
You are engaging in an affirming the consequent logical fallacy while presupposing Naturalism. Just because certain religious individuals speculate that unexplained phenomena may be the result of supernatural activity does not mean that all religious people believe the same, thereby not necessarily crippling any rational attempt to study the unknown. But, at the same time, it seems that you are presupposing that all unknown phenomena should be explained with naturalistic explanations.
| nakhash wrote: | | Unless you're going to argue in favor of solipsism, which is not only a dead end, but is also based on poor logic, almost all epistemological schools of thought favor a monist universe. |
You are engaging in a false dilemma logical fallacy. The issue here is not about if the physical universe exists or not, but how you define the existence of the physical universe.
But, since you brought it up, can you disprove the "Brain-in-a-Vat" thought experiment, which is derived from Solipsism? And please do not resort to the "a positive premise requires positive evidence" argument, for that is the easy way out.
| nakhash wrote: | | What composes this monist universe differs depending on the school of thought, but the universe is monist just the same. In a monist universe, like substances can interact (whether this substance is matter/energy or perception or whatever) equally. Whatever you call this monist substance, the conclusions you can derive from monism are pretty much identical, thus making all decently suppported epistemological arguments nearly identical to empiricism. |
Your response is begging the question. How do you know that reality is composed of the existence of a monist universe, as opposed to dualistic existence? Are you presupposing that the physical universe is a closed system?
| nakhash wrote: | | You already agree that like substances are in fact the same substance. |
No. You are twisting my words. I said:
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | While I agree that two substances that share the same set of attributes must be the same, nothing requires that substances that share certain common attribute(s) must be the same. |
I set down an all or nothing proposition. Two substances must share the exact same set of attributes, or else the two substances in question cannot be said to be the same substance. To assert otherwise is to engage in non-sequitur reasoning.
| nakhash wrote: | Not appealing. Newton's Third Law of Motion is basically the same thing as Spinoza's axiom that substance can ony be limited by like substance, and that substance cannot be limited by unlike substance.
Basically, the statement is this. Like substance can only be limited by like substance and like substance can always limit like substance. While this is reflected in Newton's Third Law, it does not rely on it. |
You are begging the question again. Why cannot substance be limited or acted upon by unlike substance? Because of naturalistic or materialistic presuppositions?
| nakhash wrote: | | I don't. I favor "proof of absence equals proof of absence." There is proof of the absence of God. This is not a tenuous stance in the least. |
You are contradicting yourself here. Your "absence of God" argument does indeed fit the "absence of proof equals proof of absence" formula. Consequently, my question remains.
| nakhash wrote: | | What about them? Show me a miracle, demonstrate it to me, and not out of a book, and then show me that it is a physical impossibility and demonstrate that not only does it violate the laws of physics as we know them today, but that it violates ALL logically-deduced natural law. Show me that this miracle has no natural cause and can only have a cause that comes from outside the natural realm. I am not going to take the word of a book two thousand years old. |
Before I can do this, we must start by agreeing upon the criteria for detecting the occurrence of a miracle. This is why I asked the question, "What constitutes 'an explanation'?"
| nakhash wrote: | | As for personality, that's easy. Want to change a personality? Give a schizophrenic a couple Zyprexa. Give a depressed person some prozac. Give a person a lobotomy. It doesn't matter. Personality resudes in the brain. It is pattern in the brain; pattern of connections, pattern of chemical signals, pattern of hormones and RNAs. Personality is allowed by genetics and is then constructed by hormones and other chemicals in the process of learning. The chemical basis of learning has been demonstrated in more basal animals. Although it is certainly more complex in the human brain, that doesn't mean we won't eventually be able to understand it. To cite personality as a reason to doubt substance monism is foolish when personality is so clearly related to brain structure and chemistry. |
You are conceptually equivcating the means by which personality is expressed with the causes of personality. How do you know that the biological processes of the brain caused by the brain?
| nakhash wrote: | | Description of cause, effect, and function with predictive power. |
So if "an explanation" is composed of a normative naturalistic explanation, then are you not presupposing that the miracle in question is not a miracle before evaluating it?
Explanation: "1 : the act or process of explaining 2 : something that explains <gave no explanation>" (ref.)
Explain: "2 : to give the reason for or cause of" (ref.)
This is the basic definition of "explanation." No, without presupposing naturalism, how do you construct an impartial criteria for "an explanation"?
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
| ekspiulo wrote: | | LuckyStrike wrote: | | Secular humanist: "HUMANISM 3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a non-theistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion |
In addition to not accepting your cherry picked definitions of secular humanism (An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.) because they are overly specific for a term which has a very broad usage.
Keep the word humanist out of your mouth and out of your posts. You clearly have no [censorship is a tool of the ignorant] idea what humanism is. Humanism is a complete moral philosophy which at its core can be roughly described as "all human beings have the potential for perfection." Humanism has nothing to do with evolution with gods or with science. Humanists can be either theistic or atheistic. Nothing necessitates humanists aren't whatever flavor of fundamentalist [censorship is a tool of the ignorant] you believe in. A humanist simply also believes in another set of moral ideals. Secular humanists are humanists who are secular. That's really all there is to it. I don't believe in magic and I'm humanist. That makes me a secular humanist it also makes me a long litany of other things by definitions of other people that I'm not even aware of nor do I consciously identify with. It does not automatically entail that I believe in all that other [censorship is a tool of the ignorant] you ascribe to me by way of redefining labels.
Humanist is a label defined by the philosophy of humanism, and you clearly are so far from a similar definition in your own mind you strip meaning from your sentences by including it in them.
If you mean "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods" then use the word atheist if you mean someone who does not believe in the supernatural then use the word naturalist, but if you feel the need to use the word humanist remember, "you don't know [censorship is a tool of the ignorant] about humanism and go [censorship is a tool of the ignorant] yourself." |
Ekspiulo, I do not respond to ad hominem temper tantrums made out of aggression. Post a respectable post or do not post at all.
_________________
1 Peter 3:15 [NIV]
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6365
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The whole exchange over lone-traveler's question is irrelevant, for lone-traveler is not entirely sure about what she is asking. |
You all don't mind if I sit this one out...do ya? 
_________________
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuckyStrike
Sea Monkey
Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Posts: 10
Location: Valdosta, GA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:17 am Post subject: Re: lone-traveler |
|
|
| lone-traveler wrote: | | Quote: | | The whole exchange over lone-traveler's question is irrelevant, for lone-traveler is not entirely sure about what she is asking. |
You all don't mind if I sit this one out...do ya? |
Depending upon how much petty quibbling the responses contain, I might excuse myself from this thread, while moving on. Debate produces nothing if the opposing viewpoint remains stubbornly close-minded.
I have two other productive threads on two different boards to attend to. So, my priorities will shift accordingly.
_________________
1 Peter 3:15 [NIV]
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Abiogenesis is a logical component of Evolutionary theory. |
Wrong. It is completely seperate. The theory of evolution requires only that there is a living, reproducing cell. The origin of this cell is irrelevant. It could be God, it could be aliens, it could be abiogenetic. The theory of evolution covers only what happens after that first cell begins reproducing.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Specifically, if Evolutionary theory is about explaining biological diversity through change, then this purpose includes the biological changes surrounding all organisms, even original common ancestor(s). Consequently, one can assert that biological evolution began as soon as Abiogenesis began, thereby requiring Evolutionists to include Abiogenesis within the realm of Evolutionary theory. |
The theory of evolution covers only reproducing organisms. Abiogenesis covers life from not-life. The two fields are quite seperate.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Quite simply, the claim that "Abiogenesis is not a part of Evolutionary theory" is an attempt to dodge one of the most difficult problems Evolutionary theory faces today. |
The attempt to equivocate the two is a strawman attempt to discredit them both. Violation of logical empiricism. You also disregard that many advances have been made in the abiogenetic field. The RNA world hypothesis, proteinoids, and the Miller-Urey experiment.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | No. You see the above. You refutation is based on a narrow application of the concept of "hostility," thereby creating an unrepresentative sample logical fallacy. |
I'm afraid that you were the first to assert that secular humanists maintained skeptical hostility, without any support to back up the assertion. The burden of proof is on you to show that this is the case.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Just like many Charismatics know the Holy Spirit told them something? Violation of logical empiricism. |
I'm sorry, was there some evidence that I was unaware of? Are you hiding it?
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Your assumption is incorrect. |
My assumption was, by your own words, correct. You failed to grasp sarcasm.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | I knew there was sarcasm there, but in what context? "Yeah, that really convinces me to believe in God," or "Yeah, I find that highly convincing, but I believe in God anyway"? However, it seems that you are determined to assert the former premise to be contrarian. |
 I'm sorry that my sarcasm went over your head. Forgive me?
| LuckyStrike wrote: | God: "[. . .] (3): a person or thing of supreme value [ . . .]" (ref.)
By this definition of "god," whatever is of supreme value to any individual can be defined as that person's "god." Consequently, it can be said that everyone has a "god." |
Sure, if they hold something as a supreme value, by that definition. Note that it is the third definition of "god." You are engaging in a narrow definition logical fallacy to assert your point. Violation of logical empiricism.
I don't hold any person or thing to be of supreme value. I therefore do not have a god. Your assertion that everyone has a god is, therefore, false.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | So if someone disagrees with your interpretation of certain physical evidence, then that person has a "warped view of reality" and is "unreasonable"? This qualifies as an generalized ad hominem attack. Violation of logical empiricism. |
Do you deny that people hold warped views of reality? Only one interpretation of reality can be factual. All others, therefore, would be incorrect.
One view of reality that I am aware of can be shown to be more correct than others I am aware of. It is sensible, and makes as few assumptions as possible. As such, I assert that it is most likely the closest to factual.
So sure, I used some loaded language, but the point remains.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | I said "debate the concept of Intelligent Design on this thread." In case you have not noticed, I already have a lengthily 3-on-1 debate currently in progress on this thread. I do not have the time to start another debate on another thread. |
I don't particularly care what you have time for. You stated that you were okay with debating Intelligent Design. I simply responded that this thread has gone far enough from its original point, and that a new thread would be better suited for an intentionally new topic. The topic has already been made, by the way. It's right here. If you had time to debate it in this thread, what happened to that time that you are unable to do so in another thread?
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | But invoking Zeus as the cause of thunderstorms explains why thunderstorms "behave" as they do, not how thunderstorms manifest or operate physically. There is no reason why a meteorological study of thunderstorms should nullify Zeus as the cause of thunderstorms, unless one equivocates how and why thunderstorms occur. Consequently, the issue here is not about metaphysical naturalism, but simply observing the physical as is. |
The point is that it is not necessary to rely on the supernatural at all to explain the natural. We can observe the relative pressures of different areas and predict what will happen there.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Now, what is your criteria for "predictive power"? |
"The ability to make predictions which hold up to scrutiny?" Like "we have observed the relative pressures of these two areas, and we predict that air will flow from the area of higher pressure to the area of lower pressure."
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Wrong. It seems that you are trying negate the definitions I referenced by referencing other definitions. As a result, you are engaging in a narrow definition logical fallacy. |
Really? It seems to me like the only thing you've got going for you is that two seperate definition reference each other. You have equivocated the two based on this, while apparently ignoring what the definitions themselves say.
I'm curious: do you think that in murder trials, all evidence should be considered proof? What about when there is evidence on both sides? Do they somehow simultaneously prove something? How, exactly, is this possible?
Or, have you simply equivocated the two?
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Where did I claim that I adhere to logical empiricism, or empiricism in general? |
I'm sorry, explain to me why I shouldn't just ignore you entirely? You seem to have no idea how science works (I will explain this shortly). You appear to be unaware of the irrationality you display with your own statements, though you are quick to point it out in others'. So why should I bother?
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Empiricism is impossible due to the fact that all knowledge is based on assumption, as shown through the infinite regression of justification. |
Well, I know that I woke up yesterday. What assumptions does that lie on?
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | For instance, consider the "Law of Gravity." |
This is where I explain why you have no idea how science works.
"Laws" are observations. We have observed that while on Earth, and without outside influences (such as fans pointing up or some such thing), rocks will always fall when dropped. This is the Law of Gravity. The law is, "there is gravity."
The theory (or theories, I should say) of gravity explain why there is gravity, and why it behaves as it does.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Thus, the "Law of Gravity" is not "a law," but rather "a fact" of high probability, unless future inconsistencies suddenly emerge. |
It is a fact of ultimate probability. Apples fall when you let go of them, as long as they are not attached to something which can resist gravity due to the law of air pressure, etc. Apples will always fall when you let go of them, with the same caveat.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | With this in mind, the "violations of logical empiricism" are employed for your benefit, since secular humanists pride themselves on being empirical when they are not. |
I'm sorry, but much like how I labelled opposing views as "warped," you, too, must back up your claims.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | Presupposing when evidence should or should not be expected begs the question. Violation of logical empiricism. |
I'm sorry, please explain how "the Bible claims God covered the Earth with a flood. There is no evidence that this occurred (past the Bible itself). This is evidence that it did not occur as described in the Bible" is circular.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | When does "absence of evidence equal evidence of absence"? |
When does it not? When someone says to you "I can create dogs with a wave of my hand," do you simply accept his word for it? When he refuses to produce evidence that he is, in fact, able to do this, is this not evidence that he cannot? Remember, your equivocation of "proof" and "evidence" remains invalid.
That he does not wave his hand for you and create a dog is not proof that he lacks the power to, but rather, evidence that he lacks the power to.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | The whole exchange over lone-traveler's question is irrelevant, for lone-traveler is not entirely sure about what she is asking. So quibbling over the merits of your answer is unproductive. |
I agree. Why did you bother?
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | You are dodging my question. I am asking if you can "prove" that all aspects of individuality are the result of naturalistic or materialistic causes, such as in biological processes. Yet you are focusing on contrasting biological processes with environmental factors to avoid the focus of my question. |
Because there is a significant difference. Regardless:
The people in charge of making sure that scientists do not harm people with their tests would frown upon raising children from birth to see how different environmental stimula change the children's future personality. Even if someone were to actually go through with such a thing, it would never be enough to "prove" it. Why bother?
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | "Because you say so"? How do you know that it is "the most coherent of all options"? Violation of logical empiricism. |
Because it relies on the fewest assumptions.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | No. You are offering conclusions, not mere assertions, based on the rationale of "because I say so." Violation of logical empiricism upheld. |
Sorry, just like I said, I simply didn't have time to explain each in enough detail to satisfy your need. I would be happy to explain any that you have a problem with, simply point them out.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | So if "an explanation" is composed of a normative naturalistic explanation, then are you not presupposing that the miracle in question is not a miracle before evaluating it? |
So I should ignore the results?
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | FFT, while I enjoy playing your intellectual games, you are "stonewalling" this discussion with petty bickering. |
All I am able to do is defend my own viewpoints, as you have failed to reveal your own. All you have done is accuse and equivocate. I'm not impressed.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | I believe that I now understand why this forum is basically dead. You unwittingly validate my definition of "secular humanism," |
Gee, I guess it's a good thing I've never called myself a secular humanist, then. There's another violation of logical empiricism you're guilty of.
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | for you preach, not debate, against the opposing viewpoint. |
When, exactly?
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons."
-Michael Shermer
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5301
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Violation of logical empiricism........i..Yi...Yi...YiYi!!!!! 
...Schhhhhhhhhhh!!!! 
_________________
Much Love Nobby
CVP Smilies
dictionary Bible |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is just to much sophistry and bearing false witness for me to handle. I shall in the future ignore "lucky." If I enage that claptrap, I will surely be banned, so I shall abstain.
_________________
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekspiulo
Ferret
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is not an ad-hominem: LuckyStrike, you are an idiot.
I don't use the bible for much, but it tought me how to deal with you, "Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words." (Proverbs 23:9)
I have not and I will not debate anything with you, after this post I am done with the likes of you, and probably these boards.
I can't say they'll be worse for my leaving.
_________________
"The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job." - Sam Harris |
|
| Back to top |
| |
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
