|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
 Posted - 02/05/2003 : 02:22:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
originally posted by DA
Let's see your basing your argument on:1.A Snowflake(seems a little flaky to me );2. an ad hominem;3.an appeal to ignorance;4.and a "pebble". Thanks, I just don't how anyone oppose could logic and evidence like that.
I was going to let your arrogance and pompousity remain unanswered, then when I thought of you telling your deluded creationist pals that you'd beaten some sceptics, I thought it would be better to respond.
You asked us to give an example to the four points you raised;
No. 1 being; "design that isn't attributed to intellegence"
to which I responded "snowflake", rather than repeat the answer and add "seems a little flaky to me". Why didn't you refute it? Is it refutable? NO! The tried and tested creationist 'debating' methodology of ignoring harmful (to creationist arguements) FACTS may work in Sunday school, but not here. Either attempt to refute it or go post on RRBB.
No. 2 was; "life arising from non-life", I responded with; "The Earth, without invoking supernatural forces there is no other alternative" to which your retort was "an ad hominem". Do you know what that means, if we look at how you've applied it whithin your response it appears obvious that you don't, so let me explain / translate for you; AD HOMINEM: Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." So the simple fact that my response touched a nerve means that I attacked YOU. NO! I'm afraid you need to brush up on your fallacies and how they are employed. No person was being attacked in my response, however it could be (mis)construed that I was attacking your beleaguered belief systems. No reasonable person would consider my statement to be an Ad Hominem. (to assist you in this matter I suggest you try http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index, it may prevent you from displaying your ignorance in the future!
No. 3 was; "thought originating from mindlessness", to which I returned; "....you are providing yourself as an excellent example of this!!" you then attempted to refute this with "an appeal to ignorance". At risk of repeating myself you really do need to polish your knowledge of fallacious arguements, for the record 'an appeal to ignorance' is defined as "An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence." http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/ignorant.html If we look at your previous posts you will see that there is an abundance of evidence to support my statement. You often shoot from the hip, you rarely address any points raised, you ignore damning evidence that demonstrates against your foolish misgivings and it is eay to see why @tomic and Slater et al have repeatedly become annoyed with your abject refusal to substantiate most, if not all of your capricious arguements. So I stand by my initial response.
No. 4 was; "something totally stochastically becoming organized and remaining so". I correctly offered the example(s) of "How does pebble sorting on a beach suit you. Or maybe evolution?" Again you employed the tried and failed creationist methodology of ignoring the truth. As I stated in point 1, ignoring the truth won't make it go away!
So DA, to encapsulate, either adress the points that YOU RAISED and I successfully answered or go post on some myth indoctrinated woo-woo board! But remember this, we are onto you, we can see through your obfuscation and fanatical rhetoric. |
"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
|
 |
|
|
Wurrwakh the Ass Monkey
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2003 : 02:51:33 [Permalink]
|
Hmmm...God exists no more or less than Gaia.
We don't need a god to explain the origin of the origin of existence, but a god will do just as well as anything else. We can perhaps trace everything back to a single living molecule--but what before then? Show of hands of those who witnessed the first act of creation!
One thing we can say with fair certainty is that God as most of us know him does not, could not, never did and never will exist. The scriptures simply cannot be reconciled with history. Now, coming from a background in literature, I know you can take any work and twist the language to mean just about whatever the hell you need it to--but c'mon now...
Maybe we'd all be a lot better off if we accepted the inexplicable as just what it is. There's nothing inherently scary or wrong with mystery, and a little bit of awe wouldn't be so bad every once in awhile...
Maybe the real question is: Would it be so bad if God does exist? |
--Wurrwakh, A.M. |
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2003 : 03:26:04 [Permalink]
|
> 2. an ad hominem;
Do you even know what "ad hominem" means?
> 3.an appeal to ignorance;
Are you looking at philosophy sites and randomly picking the names of logical fallacies?
> Thanks, I just don't how anyone oppose could logic and evidence like
> that.
Well, you didn't even attempt to provide a rebuttal.
> 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".
This is an example of why you lost me months ago.
> AD HOMINEM: Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means
> "against the man" or "against the person."
The "ad" usually means "to" or "towards," but in this case, "against" is okay.
Some people use the "hominem" as if it must mean "adult male human." The "hominem" is another form of "homo," as in "Homo sapiens." It actually means "man" in the sense of "human being." So "ad hominem" can be used to refer to a man or woman. "Adult male human" is "vir" in Latin, and "adult female human" is "femina" in Latin. So, "ad virum" means "to the adult man" and "ad feminam" means "to the adult woman."  |
Antie. DIES GAUDII.
Facies Fabulosarum Feminarum
If you can name all six of the females in the picture above without looking up their names, and you can read the Latin phrase, pat yourself on the back. You're smart. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2003 : 06:43:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
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?
1. You have already been given good examples
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm
But to me these 4 question are on things that we do not yet fully understand. Just because we do not fully understand these issues is no reason to throw up our hands and proclaim "God do it". To paraphrase Albert Einstein, "Though we know little about our universe and origins. What we do know is the most precious thing we have".
quote:
I am arguing from what is known.
Again your question are not based upon what is known, they are based on the present fact that we do know on these issues is incomplete. Would you have us all just stop thinking and pursuing the answers to these question ? Science is progressive and cumulative, it is not fixed to the beliefs from 2000 years ago.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2003 : 09:51:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
-- Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man (1871)
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2003 : 19:09:17 [Permalink]
|
wd: quote:
I was going to let your arrogance and pompousity remain unanswered, then when I thought of you telling your deluded
creationist pals that you'd beaten some sceptics, I thought it would be better to respond.
I apologize if I came off arrogant sorry.I corrected the order of my responses the ad hominen was to your thoughtful and kind reference that I was "mindless".I will try and respond to all of the post in a timely manner. |
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 - 02/05/2003 : 23:14:10 [Permalink]
|
wd: quote:
No. 1 being; "design that isn't attributed to intellegence"
to which I responded "snowflake", rather than repeat the answer and add "seems a little flaky to me". Why didn't you
refute it? Is it refutable? NO! The tried and tested creationist 'debating' methodology of ignoring harmful (to creationist
arguements) FACTS may work in Sunday school, but not here. Either attempt to refute it or go post on RRBB.
The use of a "snowflake" as example of "design that isn't attributed to intelligence" fails on several points.First,it's predictable,namely it's like saying that water freezes at 32%f.Secondly,the information content in such a "design" is redundant like I pointed out in another post: quote:
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 suggest that this reptetive redundant example is an answer to my question is to truly be grasping a straws. |
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 23:17:11 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2003 : 04:21:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
The use of a "snowflake" as example of "design that isn't attributed to intelligence" fails on several points.First,it's predictable,namely it's like saying that water freezes at 32%f.
So you have never seen a snowflake.
With this limited knowledge of the world, you think you are able to teach others.
BTW, the freezing point of a liquid depend on pressure and temperature.
quote:
Secondly,the information content in such a "design" is redundant like I pointed out in another post:
Laughable!
Is it the word information or redundant that you don't understand?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2003 : 11:54:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wurrwakh the Ass Monkey
Would it be so bad if God does exist?
...Yes...? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2003 : 12:03:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Wurrwakh the Ass Monkey
Would it be so bad if God does exist?
...Yes...?
"Are you in a universe that is ruled by natural laws and, threrfore, is stable, firm, absolute--and knowable? Or are you in an incomprehensible chaos, a realm of inexplicable miracles, an unpredictable, unknowable flux,which your mind is impotent to grasp? The nature of your actions--and of your ambition--will be different according to which set of answers you come to accept." Ayn Rand |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2003 : 17:27:28 [Permalink]
|
OK,
Senor DA, You have, throughout this thread, completely ignored salient points put forth by educated persons (I'll exclude myself from that category to avoid the cheap shots!) solely to ingratiate yourself with the author(s) of the philisophical sites that you so dearly love to quote.
You have addressed or rebutted absolutely no points put forward, yet concentrated on single sentences (that have nothing to do with the crux of this thread) within comprehensive, and damaging posts that show the obvious cracks in your position.
Why don't we throw the "Uses and misuses of logic handbook" away for a few moments and tackle the matter in hand. To put it another way;
DEFEND YOUR POSITION WITH AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS OR SHUT UP!!!
It is sickening to watch you squirm and wriggle while you attempt to employ various means of subterfuge to avoid the answers to questions that you originally posed, solely because you don't like the answers.
BE A MAN and stand up for what you believe, don't hide behind the scurrilous reparte of Kent Hovind, Ian Taylor, Bob Bales, Phillip Johnson and that Morris fellow. You obviously aren't stupid, why do you wish to appear so.
Incidentally your original question to which I answered (and a few others have defended) 'snowflake' was simply "design that isn't attributed to intellegence", you made no allusion to 'predictability' nor 'information content' it is both unfair and unreasonable to change the question after the correct answer has been recieved!!!
Oh yes, if you don't like snowflakes, how about (and I'll remind you of your original question.... "design that isn't attributed to intellegence") the concoidal fracture of dolomite? It appears to be designed and is beautiful in the right light yet isn't the work of a designer.
Oooh, oooh, you could also try and explain the amazingly flat fracture of slate while your at it! Remember, IT IS NOT DEEMED CORRECT NOR FITTING TO CHANGE THE QUESTION, AFTER YOU'VE RECIEVED THE ANSWER THAT YOU DID NOT WANT TO HEAR!!!!! |
"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
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2003 : 20:44:37 [Permalink]
|
My original argument for the Existence of God is based on the futility of a impersonal mindless origin of our reasoning ability: quote:
ELABORATION: INTERACTIVE DUALISM NOT PHYSICALISM
The epistemological argument against Naturalism is also developed in J. P. Moreland's Scaling the Secular
City (chapter three); especially pages 90-96). Moreland's argument is more sophisticated than Sire's and
appeals to the philosophical problems of physicalism (Materialism) in explaining our mental states and their
potential verdicality. He argues that since physicalism reduces to or logically entails determinism, there
would be no reason to think that a materially necessitated brain would know truth--which involves
intellectual assessment and rational deliberation not allowed of determined mechanisms. Thought would be
reduced to a mere reflex action on the order of a muscle twinge. But can glorified muscle twinges weigh
evidence and reach warranted conclusions?
C. S. Lewis argues in a similar, but less developed, fashion in Miracles where he distinguishes between
clauses for phenomena and reasons for holding beliefs. The former are nonrational while the latter demand
an ability to have insight into truth. Consider how we use the world “because.” If we say “X moved
because it was propelled by Y” we are using “because” in a causal fashion. Yet if we say “I believe X on
the basis of Y” we are using “because” not in a causal fashion but with respect to reasons or grounds for
believing X. Lewis argues that if Naturalism is true we could never grant reasons for holding beliefs since
all our brain states would be rigorously determined in a materialistically caused fashion. Both Lewis and
Moreland are arguing not only for a rational God to ensure that knowledge is possible, but that we require a
mind distinct but related to our bodies (interactive dualism) in order to know truth. They also argue that
mind is best explained by the Christian world view. Sire's version of the epistemological argument does not
mention the need for an immaterial mind, but proceeds on more general grounds concerning the nature of
the universe and humans according to the Naturalistic world view.
MORE ON THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Thus based on a purly materialistic view of reason we have no ontological foundation for our confidence in reason. quote:
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"
|
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 02/06/2003 21:00:06 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2003 : 20:49:35 [Permalink]
|
walt: quote:
"Are you in a universe that is ruled by natural laws and, threrfore, is stable, firm, absolute--and knowable? Or are you
in an incomprehensible chaos, a realm of inexplicable miracles, an unpredictable, unknowable flux,which your mind is
impotent to grasp? The nature of your actions--and of your ambition--will be different according to which set of
answers you come to accept." Ayn Rand
You are begging the question,since the Theistic view asserts that the metaphysical bases for a universe is that there is a law giver who orders the universe. |
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 - 02/06/2003 : 20:58:08 [Permalink]
|
welshdean: quote:
Why don't we throw the "Uses and misuses of logic handbook" away for a few moments and tackle the matter in hand.
To put it another way;
I already corrected my typo where I put ad hominen in place of an appeal to ignorance. quote:
DEFEND YOUR POSITION WITH AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS OR SHUT UP!!!
It is sickening to watch you squirm and wriggle while you attempt to employ various means of subterfuge to
avoid the answers to questions that you originally posed, solely because you don't like the answers.
I have both presented FACTS and answered your objections.If you wish to maintain that when certain phyiscal and chemical reactions of geometric patterns constitute design on the level that compare with DNA or our ability to reason,I 've said and will say again that it you who is grasping at straws to maintain your purly materialistic view. |
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 - 02/07/2003 : 00:18:37 [Permalink]
|
Starman: quote:
Laughable!
Is it the word information or redundant that you don't understand?
What's really laughable is that you can't see the diference between the example I used , the origin of DNA, as evidence of Intelligent Design,and a redundant predictable (the fact that under certain repeatable condtions) a "Snowflake" will occur. |
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? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
