|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2003 : 11:03:55 [Permalink]
|
Tim has hit it right on the head.
su•per•sti'tion, n 1. Any belief or attitude that is inconsistent with the known laws of science or with what is generally considered in the particular society as true and rational; especially a belief in charms, omens, the supernatural, etc.
The word comes from the Old French sistere meaning to stare or stand and super meaning to stand fear above the rational.
I think that we can all agree that DA has turned the Bible from a book into a magic charm.
The threads that contain biblical prophecies are certainly the very definition of "omens."
His unwavering claims of magic plus his attacks on "Naturalism" and "Materialism" are a belief in the supernatural.
His attacks on basic scientific principals such as evolution and his inability to reason pretty much cinch it.
Couple all of this with his utter disregard of the philosophical underpinnings of the religion; other than to claim that his are better than anyone else's is.
There is no religion being discussed here at all. DA has no religion; only a superstition. Good call Tim.
|
| Edited by - Slater on 02/19/2003 11:04:56 |
 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2003 : 23:43:40 [Permalink]
|
Tim: quote:
Can the book of Genesis ever really be compattible with the real world of materialism and science?
I can't figure it out. How about you?
Tim the whole first part of this thread argues that your world of materialism can't account for:mind; the laws of ratonal thought;the principles behind the study of science itself. |
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 - 02/22/2003 : 11:27:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Tim: quote:
Can the book of Genesis ever really be compattible with the real world of materialism and science?
I can't figure it out. How about you?
Tim the whole first part of this thread argues that your world of materialism can't account for:mind; the laws of ratonal thought;the principles behind the study of science itself.
Just because the scientific worldview hasn't yet fully accounted for the existence of mind doesn't mean that it can't or that it never will. You seem to be invoking the God of the Gaps fallacy. |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2003 : 10:48:59 [Permalink]
|
walt fristoe: quote:
Just because the scientific worldview hasn't yet fully accounted for the existence of mind doesn't mean that it can't or that it never will. You seem to be invoking the God of the Gaps fallacy.
Walt pay attention again to what I said:Tim the whole first part of this thread argues that your world of materialism can't account for:mind; the laws of rational thought;the principles behind the study of science itself. "Materialism" walto can't account for "science" itself so how can it be "the scientific worldview "?.Secondly, no it is't "invoking the God of the Gaps fallacy" because we are seeking an "efficient cause for mind" and as we know that an effect can't be greater than the cause(scientificly),therefore, we are justified in rationally concluding that the source of our minds must be a greater mind.No gaps in that argument walt. |
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? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2003 : 11:55:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
...and as we know that an effect can't be greater than the cause(scientificly)...
Try explaining that to the victims of witchcraft hysteria worldwide. The effect is very large, considering that the supposed cause doesn't exist. It sounds like you're trying to apply the laws of thermodynamics to everything, which just won't work. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2003 : 17:20:52 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.: quote:
quote:
[ DA: ] ...and as we know that an effect can't be greater than the cause(scientificly)...
[ Dave W.: ] Try explaining that to the victims of witchcraft hysteria worldwide. The effect is very large, considering that the
supposed cause doesn't exist. It sounds like you're trying to apply the laws of thermodynamics to everything, which just
won't work.
 What are you trying to say? |
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 02/24/2003 17:22:20 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2003 : 19:11:18 [Permalink]
|
 oops |
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 02/24/2003 19:18:07 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2003 : 09:01:58 [Permalink]
|
DA wrote:quote:
What are you trying to say?
You claimed that, scientifically, we know that effects cannot be larger than their causes. I presented a counter-example which proves that generalized premise to be false. Would you like another? If I push down three inches on my gas pedal for 60 seconds, my car moves a hell of a lot more than 3 inches during that time. Little cause, big effect.
DA cited: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ511.HTM
Is it just me, or do all of Dave Armstrong's arguments boil down to "I'm not a philosopher, and I'm unsure of the 'rules' of logical reasoning, therefore you're wrong"? According to the disclaimer and addendum on page 2, I've pretty much pegged it.
DA cited: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith5.html
If that is actually Quentin Smith's argument, he's an idiot. Of course, Dr. Craig is also an idiot, for not arguing that Smith's argument is simply pathetic. Premise 1 needs a mountain of argument just to support itself, and Dr. Craig's objections to it are neither relevant to that problem, nor are they, themselves, logically defensible. Just because Dr. Craig can't find a reason for it to be true doesn't mean it is necessarily false - and he certainly does not present a convincing counter-example which would logically prove that Smith's premise 1 is false (or if he did, he fails to end his objections there, but instead continues with this "can't find any reason to think it's true" nonsense). All in all, Smith's argument is simply dumb, and Craig's rebuttal is therefore a tremendous waste of time and energy.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2003 : 20:46:56 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.: quote:
You claimed that, scientifically, we know that effects cannot be larger than their causes. I presented a counter-example
which proves that generalized premise to be false. Would you like another? If I push down three inches on my gas pedal
for 60 seconds, my car moves a hell of a lot more than 3 inches during that time. Little cause, big effect.
Your first example is still confusing? Your second one though is very clear;fallacious but clear.I really do hope you were joking,surely you don't believe that the cause of your car's movement is directly related to the you pushing on the gas pedal(indirectly yes)? The cars movement is directly caused by the workings of your car's internal combustion engine which in turn moves the driveshaft ect... .The amount of movement depends on the horsepower ect...At no time is the performance of your car's movement going against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Therefore,your analogy fails. |
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 02/25/2003 20:48:20 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2003 : 07:55:08 [Permalink]
|
DA wrote:quote:
Your first example is still confusing?
What, you're confused by the fact that even in these enlightened days, some group of people (A) think that another group of people (B) is practicing witchcraft, and so A kills B? That is a very large effect with a very small - feeble-minded, even - cause.
quote:
Your second one though is very clear;fallacious but clear.I really do hope you were joking,surely you don't believe that the cause of your car's movement is directly related to the you pushing on the gas pedal(indirectly yes)?
No, it is directly related, as far as cause-and-effect goes. The car won't move unless I:
A) Turn the engine on
B) Release the parking break
C) Put the transmission in "Drive"
D) Step on the gas pedal
All of those actions, further, are caused by neurons firing in my head, which cause very large limb movements (in relation to the very small discharge of neurotransmitters). But, the point is that the car will not move unless I do all of those things.
quote:
The cars movement is directly caused by the workings of your car's internal combustion engine which in turn moves the driveshaft ect... .The amount of movement depends on the horsepower ect...
On both points, you're absolutely wrong if the transmission is in neutral.
quote:
At no time is the performance of your car's movement going against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Therefore,your analogy fails.
You never mentioned the 2nd law of thermodynamics in your original statement, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not say that "no effect can be greater than its cause," so you're quite mistaken that my analogy fails. (And I made a correct guess that you are, indeed, trying to mis-apply the Laws of Thermodynamics.)
The very reason we have so many automobiles is because we can cause them to carry us long distances, which is much easier than walking. My vehicle doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics, but it sure isn't moving around on its own - I control it. I cause it to move. The engine helps, but will do nothing if I don't cause it to by turning it on. If I fail to keep fuel in the gas tank, my car won't go anywhere, either.
Now, if you had said that (paraphrasing), "per the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, a mind can only be created by a larger mind," how well do you think that would have gone over? Instead, you try to equivocate "entropy" with "cause-and-effect" in order to try to make a point, and fail miserably on both attempts.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2003 : 09:40:14 [Permalink]
|
Dave, if you'll look at past threads you'll find that DA has had the 2nd LTD explained, and re-explained, to him by different people every few weeks. His MO is to wait 'til a new person arrives on the board and then try his original version on them.
You are speaking of cumulative effects in an open system, which is covered by the 2nd LTD. DA knows this but ignores it. He is just a troll, don't waste your time on him like I did.
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2003 : 12:18:07 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.: quote:
You never mentioned the 2nd law of thermodynamics in your original statement, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not say that "no effect can be greater than its cause," so you're quite mistaken that my analogy fails.
For once your right I didn't mention the 2nd law in my "orignial statement" but you mentioned"It sounds like you're trying to apply the laws of thermodynamics to everything, which just
won't work." But by the way you are fooling yourself if you really belive it doesn't apply has your "foot pushes on the pedal[expending calorlic energy proportioned to the amount 'work'required to do so] this then regulates the amount fule to be burned in the internal combustion engine which causes the work to be performed.Are you on any kind medication which would prevent you from making such logical observations? |
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 - 02/26/2003 : 12:26:06 [Permalink]
|
Slater: quote:
Dave, if you'll look at past threads you'll find that DA has had the 2nd LTD explained, and re-explained, to him by different people every few weeks. His MO is to wait 'til a new person arrives on the board and then try his original version on them.
You are speaking of cumulative effects in an open system, which is covered by the 2nd LTD. DA knows this but ignores it. He is just a troll, don't waste your time on him like I did.
Which translates toI [Slater] couldn't refute him[DA]therfore,I resorted to slandering him and calling him a liar,troll ect...but we he called me on it I couldn't produce 1 lie so I will just continue to slander with my drive by's . |
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? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2003 : 12:31:43 [Permalink]
|
Slater, I'm well aware that DA is a waste of energy, but it's almost too much fun to watch him lug the goalposts from one place to another over and over again.
DA, you're still not getting it. My engine wouldn't burn fuel at all unless something else caused it to. That it burns fuel in porportion to how hard I push on the pedal (disregarding gears for now) is precisely how effects in an open system can be larger than their causes. This is how many machines work. If it can't happen, then numerous machines would simply fail, like your attempts at logic.
For your initial assertion, even modified to take the 2nd LoT into account, you would have to show evidence that "minds creating minds" is a closed system, and not an open one. Actually, first you'll have to show that only minds can create other minds. But first, carefully define 'mind' in terms anyone can understand.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
