|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
 Posted - 02/02/2003 : 09:03:31 [Permalink]
|
ST: quote:
I notice you failed to rebut two problems with dualism I mentioned.
Refresh my (predetermined/program by chance,according to your view) memory. quote:
I was expecting an answer, but you've yet to give one. All you've done is do what I asked you not to do, that is to give a whiny "Dualism is true but I'm not supplying any evidence or arguments" bit.
I think arguing from what we do know(see my ve post on p.2) is a legitimate form of argumentation and is used by scientist,historians,in our courts of law.I really don't understand why when someone calls your "bluff" you "so called tough-minded skeptics" all start screaming "foul"? |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 02/02/2003 09:27:57 |
 |
|
|
SleepyTemplar
New Member
USA
4 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2003 : 10:19:26 [Permalink]
|
Apparently you have difficulty understanding something very simple, so I'll type it in big words for you. STATE WHAT FORM OF DUALISM YOU ADHERE TO, AND THEN PROVIDE SUPPORT, IN THE FORM OF POSITIVE EVIDENCE, FOR IT. Appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy, which if you have any clue about logic, you ought to know. If you think it's a good form of reasoning, then I can easily turn around and say:
1. There is no credible evidence for dualism.
2. Dualism is false.
So, try avoiding the fallacies in your next post, and sticking to the topic, which is PROVIDING POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR DUALISM. Understand? If you prove unable to do this in your next post, there is no point continuing conversation with you.
>>"I take it that you didn't submit your form to collect your Million Dollars(http://www.us.net/life/ )? That speaks volumes,it tells me that in spite of your tough talk in claiming"
Appeal to ignorance fallacy again. Just been it hasn't been met, doesn't mean it won't. Secondly, I am a philosopher, NOT a biologist.
I could easily turn the fallacy around and say that because you haven't provide evidence for dualism, it must be false. Pretty cool, eh?
>>"that you haven't got a clue as to the origin of life or human thought.You see my friend it is you who "appeal to ignorance""
No, you make the appeal to ignorance by saying that because something hasn't been discovered, it won't. As you have yet to provide any positive support for dualism, there hasn't been any "clue" I'm overlooking.
>>"1.That design = Intelligence"
This relies upon the assumption that the universe exhibits design. Order exists, but order doesn't presuppose an orderer. Secondly, order is collary to the law of identity, that for something to exist, it has a set nature or qualities. Your analogy of comparing the universe to human artifacts fails due to ourselves having prior knowledge that human artifacts are manufactured. If I create a stone that looks identical to a stone found in nature, you would be unable to tell it had been designed unless your had prior knowledge of my designing it. Hence, you must first prove the "intelligent designer", otherwise you are invoking circular reasoning.
This isn't knowledge, by the way. Strong belief on your part does not equal justified true belief.
>>"2.That Life comes from Life"
*cough cough* Abiogenesis *cough cough*. Although still in its infancy, its progress undermines this "knowledge".
>>"3.By the same token, thought comes from THOUGHT"
Apparently advances in neuroscience are lost upon you, since they are revealing quite interestingly how thought, memory, learning, and control of ourselves are centered in our very physical brain. In light of neural dependence on the brain you must show how the mind is there and its function, when then leads to the unintelligibility of dualist interaction that I asked about. In addition, damage to the brain leads to damage to personality, something we would expect to find in a materialist position. Remember Phineas Gage (Apparently not, since you made no comment last time)?
Do you adhere to Berkeley's phenomenalism, by any chance?
>>"4.That what chance creates chance destroys."
This should be altered to be "what chance creates chance can also destroy". Evolution can show how traits through adaptation and mutation get passed along and become part of the gene pool of the population. In addition, what does this have to do with supporting dualism?
>>"These are indisputable facts my friend and they destroy your worldview"
Funny how they're indisputable yet I, scientists, philosophers, and others dispute them. Perhaps you've turned Fundy-vision on? Since you've YET to provide any support for dualism, materialism remains firmly intact.
>>"so its time to either deny what WE ALL KNOW or your materialistic worldview.(ed.for exc.wd's)."
False dilemma. I've shown that the above four are not instances of knowledge, plus you should understand, if you know anything about logic, that since all four are based upon inductive reasoning it's impossible to "know" these 100%. Do you know anything about epistemology, by the by? Apparently not, as there are people who will disagree with any instance of knowledge (even if you actually manage to present one) you cite. Simply saying global skeptics are wrong doesn't make it so. You must provide support as to why something is knowledge, hence the idea of knowledge being justified true belief (although the Gettier problem is another matter, which I don't really see as much of a problem).
>>"I think arguing from what we do know(see my ve post on p.2) is a legitimate form of argumentation and is used by scientist,historians,in our courts of law.I really don't understand why when someone calls your "bluff" you "so called tough-minded skeptics" all start screaming "foul"?"
And because you didn't provide instances of knowledge, your case fails.
And I'm only interested in yourself supporting dualism. If you can't do this, I will continue to press until you do so, or realize you're incapable of rational conversation and not bother with it. I've chosen the former because I give theists the benefit of the doubt until they've shown themselves to be incapable of such. |
The acceptance of unfalsifible beliefs with no evidence in a dogmatic sense leads to nonsense. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2003 : 12:00:50 [Permalink]
|
ST: quote:
Apparently you have difficulty understanding something very simple, so I'll type it in big words for you. STATE WHAT FORM OF DUALISM YOU ADHERE TO, AND THEN PROVIDE SUPPORT, IN THE FORM OF POSITIVE EVIDENCE, FOR IT.
Apparently you have difficulty reading,this thread is primarly concerning the Arguments for the Existence of God.The dualism issue was brought up to lead to The Trancedental Arguement (see below). However,since you insist:I am a substance dualist;some the more obvious reasons to believe this are:1.The Experience of First Person Subjectivity;2.The Existence of Secondary Qualities;3.Inentionality;4.Morailty,Responsibility,and Punishment.These should be enough for you to start a new thread with to discuss in detail. DA:(http://www.geocities.com/jesusotw/witness/Contemporary_Atheism2.htm) quote:
Whether Christian or humanist, we can only make sense of our observations and recognize principles by using the laws of logic. These laws are abstract (nonmaterial), invariant (will not change), universal (not based upon a particular, but applicable to all things), and eternal (independent of the finite universe). The laws of logic cannot come about by material, finite means because they are categorically different.
You can't pour a law of logic into a glass. You can't see a law of logic evolving in matter. (You can, however, use the laws of logic along with observation to determine how much water a glass will hold.)
The humanist's faith is based on his belief that nonrational causes cause rational beings (humans with minds) who are themselves composed entirely of the nonrational, and yet are somehow able to step outside of that nonrationality and reason to the conclusion that everything is material and therefore nonrational. Yet, if the nonrational material universe is “the whole show,” the humanist could never actually know if he is truly rational or only a nonrational material product with the illusion of rationality.
What is more reasonable to believe, that the nonrational produces the rational; or that a rational being (God) created other rational beings (humans) and a world founded on rational principles that can therefore be understood by these rational beings? The humanist must borrow from the theistic, Christian worldview, which can account for rationality. It is ironic that humanists often accuse Christians of possessing blind faith that the nonrational can produce the rational. Christianity gives birth to science, while humanism only gives birth to blindness. 22
Arguments for the Existence of God There are many demonstrations of the existence of God in addition to the transcendental argument. Some argue from design. God's nature is reflected in his creation, much as a book reflects the ideas of an author, and yet no one would believe that a book was produced by blind, mindless chance over time.
An argument from causation says that every effect must have a cause (and some effects are also causes of other effects). Since everything we can test in the material world is an effect (and therefore finite, not eternal), we must eventually arrive at the existence of a grand cause that is not an effect itself, God.
An argument from motion states that since the energy in the universe is not eternal (and is becoming more and more unusable), and could not have caused itself (nonexistence cannot “cause” anything), it must come from something (or Someone) eternal, God.
|
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 02/03/2003 12:47:02 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2003 : 12:43:48 [Permalink]
|
ST: quote:
Appeal to ignorance fallacy again.Just been it hasn't been met, doesn't mean it won't. " Secondly, I am a philosopher, NOT a biologist.
Interesting...let's apply a little reducto absurdum to the equation and see whats happens. First,who is really appealing to ignorance? For the sake of argument let us change the contest to "The Exceptions to Gravity Contest" and suppose you challenged me to submit my application and my response was "Just because it hasn't been met, doesn't mean it won't." (nuff said).Secondly, when you claim that you are a philosopher not biologist you are supporting my view.Have you come up with a measurementfor wisdom? In your view there is no room for concept such as wisdom only acquired survival techniques. May I remind you that my inquiry was originally posted to your cocksure comment which was"that matter, in the proper configuration,can lead to thought." ,now if you want to retract that statement and now claim "beats me I haven't got a clue but I KNOW it can't be dualism" that would be fine by me.At least I would know your objections are based purely for emotional reasons not intellectual, (I don't doubt your honesty when you claim that you are a philosopher your materialism is clouding your judgement).(ed. for sp.) |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 02/03/2003 18:45:45 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2003 : 13:47:39 [Permalink]
|
ST: quote:
No, you make the appeal to ignorance by saying that because something hasn't been discovered, it won't. As you have yet to provide any positive support for dualism, there hasn't been any "clue" I'm overlooking.
>>"1.That design = Intelligence"
This relies upon the assumption that the universe exhibits design. Order exists, but order doesn't presuppose an orderer. Secondly, order is collary to the law of identity, that for something to exist, it has a set nature or qualities. Your analogy of comparing the universe to human artifacts fails due to ourselves having prior knowledge that human artifacts are manufactured. If I create a stone that looks identical to a stone found in nature, you would be unable to tell it had been designed unless your had prior knowledge of my designing it. Hence, you must firs
You make an appeal to incoherence when you claim we must be dogmatically agnostic concerning the intuitive recognition of evidence of design in our lives.Again you repeat the argument from ignorance when you state "by saying that because something hasn't been discovered, it won't",once again "just because no hasn't seen water run uphill doesn't mean it won't".(ed./sp.) |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 02/03/2003 18:50:29 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2003 : 19:13:50 [Permalink]
|
ST:quote:
"1.That design = Intelligence"
This relies upon the assumption that the universe exhibits design. Order exists, but order doesn't presuppose an orderer.
This is ST on p.3 but on p. 2 he stated: quote:
The laws of logic act as the foundation of any serious stab at epistemology, since they are what we use in order to be
rational at all. The very concept of "evidence" and "proof" presuppose them (hence to ask someone to prove them is to
commit circular reasoning), and to deny them is the fallacy of the stolen concept (where what you try to disprove is
presuppose by your disproof. I.e. using sense data to disprove the external world, or saying logic is false when true and
falsehood presuppose the laws of logic).
Same with science. No one creates a phenomena. They observe it, and theories and laws are formulated to explain such.
The "Laws of Logic act as a foundation... for epistemology"[how we know what we know] I agree! Also " Order exists",again I agree! But what leap in Logic compelled you state the next statement"but order doesn't presuppose an orderer."??? Things (like thought in your view) just happen? The very fact that our minds are able to rationally infer cause and effect presupposes both "order" and an "Orderer",if not as Proffesor Brown stated 'the fabric of the space time contimuun may self destruct!' |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2003 : 20:45:47 [Permalink]
|
ST:quote:
False dilemma. I've shown that the above four are not instances of knowledge, plus you should understand, if you know
anything about logic, that since all four are based upon inductive reasoning it's impossible to "know" these 100%. Do you
know anything about epistemology, by the by? Apparently not, as there are people who will disagree with any instance
of knowledge (even if you actually manage to present one) you cite.
This was concerning the 4 "proofs" you claim to have addressed.However I didn't claim they were anayliticly true,therefore your criticism concerning 100% fails.They are ,however,syntheticallytrue.For example,can you give an example of:1. design that isn't attributed to intellegence;2.life arising from non-life;3.thought originating from mindlessness;4.something totally stochastically becoming organized and remaining so? quote:
This is not a "false dilemma" but reality.You may continue to comfort yourself by claiming that I am "appealing to ignorance" but these are existetenial facts. I am arguing from what is known. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 02/04/2003 00:37:51 |
|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2003 : 02:23:40 [Permalink]
|
I may be out of my depth, but here goes:
quote:
For example,can you give an example of:1. design that isn't attributed to intellegence;
Snowflake.
quote:
For example,can you give an example of:2....life arising from non-life;
The Earth, without invoking supernatural forces there is no other alternative!!
quote:
For example,can you give an example of:3...thought originating from mindlessness;
At risk of sounding inflammatory, you are providing yourself as an excellent example of this!!
quote:
For example,can you give an example of:4...something totally stochastically becoming organized and remaining so?
Assuming the definition of 'stochastically' to be (of a process) characterized by a sequence of random variables. http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=426409&secid=.4.1.-&JServSessionIdxrefer=m6xgrf0u7d&hh=1#s.4.1.-
How does pebble sorting on a beach suit you. Or maybe evolution?
(all quotes from DA)
|
"Frazier is so ugly he should donate his face to the US Bureau of Wild Life."
"I am America. I am the part you won't recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky. My name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me."
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
---- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2003 : 05:30:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Let us take a look the arguments pro and con .
So five days and 14 uninteresting posts later DA haven't produced any argument pro or con.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2003 : 10:19:18 [Permalink]
|
Let's see your basing your argument on:1.A Snowflake(seems a little flaky to me );2.appeal to ignorance ;3.an ad homineman ;4.and a "pebble". Thanks, I just don't how anyone oppose could logic and evidence like that. (ed. for proper order) |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 02/05/2003 18:21:52 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2003 : 10:43:32 [Permalink]
|
Starman: quote:
So five days and 14 uninteresting posts later DA haven't produced any argument pro or con.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First,if you had read the post you would have seen that the argument was, can mind come from mindless matter? I provided arguments that if you assert that it can you have basically sawed off the tree limb you siting on because if the source of our reasoning isn't above the natural order then our thinking processes are either determined(hence we couldn't help it)or stochastic and therefore unreliable.Once you realize the truth of this very real dilemma you canreason (quite logically) that there is aREASON for our reason.And to quote the good Doctor "That REASON is GOD".(ed.for][) |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 02/04/2003 19:54:30 |
|
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2003 : 12:43:59 [Permalink]
|
chainsaw: quote:
DA, here's an interesting example of self organization. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0005BEE2-3FE9-1E28-8B3B809EC588EEDF
Do you "beleive" this to be a result of physics or ID? And if the interaction between simple soil and rocks can yield this level of organization, what prevents more complex molecules from organizing to even more astonishing levels?
First,good question yes it appears to contradict my position .However, thank God for microbiologist who have mapped out the intricacies of DNA ...the comparaisons are like apples and oranges(with information content).For example,the information content in your soil and rocks(and snowflakes) is like this...ME ME ME ME ME ME...."By contrast,DNA uses what can only be described as linguistic terms code,transcribe, and translate. The genetic code is composed of letters(nucleotides),words(condons or triplets),sentences(genes),paragraphs(operons),chapters(chromosomes),and books(living organisms).Such talk is not anthropomorphic,it is literal[emp.mine].Living organisms do not contain only order but information as well.By contrast to THE SIMPLE REPETITION OF ME,THE GENETIC CODE IS LIKE THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA" (emp.mine),(J.P. Moreland,Scaling the Secular Cityp.51).Like I said good question ,but when you think about it there's no comparasion. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2003 : 17:47:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Let us take a look the arguments pro and con .
here are some atheological arguments that you might find interesting. |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2003 : 01:07:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by walt fristoe
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Let us take a look the arguments pro and con .
here are some atheological arguments that you might find interesting.
No he wont!
DA has yet again shown that he cant grasp the concepts of evidence, argument, logic or critical thinking.
He starts a thread called DOES GOD EXIST? and fills it with nothing but non sequiturs, false analogies, and ignorance.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
