09 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Agergthere are some people that cannot accept any truth in the fact that the earth is not 6000 years old, or that in base 2 arithmetic 1+1 = 10
[b]Er.. no. The "truth of facts" (whatever that means) would be the facts themselves. If the evidence were such that God were the only logical possible explanation then it would constitute part of a logical proof.
there are some people that cannot accept any truth in the fact that the earth is not 6000 years old, or that in base 2 arithmetic 1+1 = 10 le than invisible pink unicorns...they are both ridiculous, as is my view with God.[/b]
That has to be one of the silliest attempts at defaming your opponent(s) rather than debating them I've ever seen. Naturally, it's also irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Have you ever met a person who understands how base 2 arithmetic works but denies that, in base 2, 1+1=10?
While both propositions ("The earth is not 6000 years old" and "in base 2, 1+1=10" ) may be true, they are two completely different kinds of truths. One is empirical, a posteriori, contingent. The other is analytical, a priori, necessary. That 1+1=10 in base 2 can be determined simply by analysing the terms involved; it is true by definition. That the earth is not 6000 years old depends on the coupling of scientific theories with observed data.
Indeed, that the age of the earth is not 6000 years is a theory. A well-validated one by multiple means, no doubt, but still a scientific theory. And, as anybody who has worked in scientific fields can tell you, a theory always retains a probability (however infinitesimal) of being wrong.
Leave the rhetoric to the politicians, please.
what is important is that faith is subscription to an idea that has neither been justified, verified experimentally, or analysed logically such that contradictions are removed...a fact is the inverse.
I'm sorry -- but that is the strawman Dawkins (and you) want to set up so that you can knock it down; which is what this thread is about. People of faith do not subscribe to your mis-characterisation.
Don't see what to comment here because I don't see what you're attacking
The idea that "rational" people do not use faith (lowercase 'f'😉 in their daily lives.
Because philosophical argumentation of a theistic type tends not only to rely upon circular reasoning and/ or mis-representing the evidence but also resolves nothing that another proposition cannot answer without alluding to God (etc...), of those philosophical arguments for which we have not yet found a decent answer, ie: what started the Big Bang etc...we simply don't know yet!, your argument is still only an un-tested and un-justified idea.
LOL! Can you actually back up any of these statements or are you simply throwing out phrases in the hope that one will stick?
Where, in this thread, have I resorted to 'circular reasoning' or 'misrepresenting evidence'?
What other proposition resolves the question of the First Cause other than God? The Big Bang? The idea that the Big Bang is the first cause of this universe is predicated on the notion that causality is nothing but a regular concurrence of events of type A followed by events of type B (Humean regularity). Since the Big Bang was the first event in the universe, therefore it is the "cause" of everything that followed in this account. But, as I've pointed out numerous times, such a view of causality is severely flawed (as Hume himself recognised). For one thing, there is absolutely no reason why, say, if I threw up a ball today, it should not come down but float away. In other words, induction (and therefore science) cannot be justified in such an account. Other problems include problems with counter-factuals, accidental generalisations, single instances etc.
Once you switch over to the alternative account (agent causation), then the Big Bang would no longer be the First Cause.
That the existence of God is ontologically different from magic pots, FSM, hobgoblins does not mean that the existence of God is any more credible...that is your own subjective view.
More phrase-throwing. And, in this case, you didn't even read what I wrote. I said that the ontological difference means that the manner in which evidence is used (indeed, even what evidence is used) would differ.
09 Jan 07
16 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerthere are some people that cannot accept any truth in the fact that the earth is not 6000 years old, or that in base 2 arithmetic 1+1 = 10
there are some people that cannot accept any truth in the fact that the earth is not 6000 years old, or that in base 2 arithmetic 1+1 = 10
That has to be one of the silliest attempts at defaming your opponent(s) rather than debating them I've ever seen. Naturally, it's also irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Have you ever met a person who which evidence is used (indeed, even what evidence is used) would differ.[/b]
That has to be one of the silliest attempts at defaming your opponent(s) rather than debating them I've ever seen. Naturally, it's also irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Have you ever met a person who understands how base 2 arithmetic works but denies that, in base 2, 1+1=10?
While both propositions ("The earth is not 6000 years old" and "in base 2, 1+1=10" ) may be true, they are two completely different kinds of truths. One is empirical, a posteriori, contingent. The other is analytical, a priori, necessary. That 1+1=10 in base 2 can be determined simply by analysing the terms involved; it is true by definition. That the earth is not 6000 years old depends on the coupling of scientific theories with observed data.
Indeed, that the age of the earth is not 6000 years is a theory. A well-validated one by multiple means, no doubt, but still a scientific theory. And, as anybody who has worked in scientific fields can tell you, a theory always retains a probability (however infinitesimal) of being wrong.
Leave the rhetoric to the politicians, please.
Silly boy!!! I am well aware that they are 2 different types of fact....to counter your: "truth of facts (whatever that means)" I chose those 2 facts very carefully to illustrate the difference and justify what you questioned...some do not see truth in the earth not being 6000 years old (a fact based upon physical evidence...just like the fact that if you throw a brick upwards, it will fall back down again...both facts some might argue have not been conclusively *proven*)...others (the not very numerical inclined) would not see the fact that 1+1 can indeed be equal to 10 in a different base than the number of fingers they have (a fact as you say by definition)
what is important is that faith is subscription to an idea that has neither been justified, verified experimentally, or analysed logically such that contradictions are removed...a fact is the inverse.
I'm sorry -- but that is the strawman Dawkins (and you) want to set up so that you can knock it down; which is what this thread is about. People of faith do not subscribe to your mis-characterisation.
we didn't set up this fairy tale entity that can defy the laws of physics at will...the justification for which not being backed up by any physical or spiritual evidence such that we can apreciate it's truth...we do not see anyone presenting us with the means to test your stories of never never land...and it certainly hasn't been properly thought through logically because religion contains a myriad of different contradictions.
If it is a strawman, then it is you and other theists that made it for us.
Because philosophical argumentation of a theistic type tends not only to rely upon circular reasoning and/ or mis-representing the evidence but also resolves nothing that another proposition cannot answer without alluding to God (etc...), of those philosophical arguments for which we have not yet found a decent answer, ie: what started the Big Bang etc...we simply don't know yet!, your argument is still only an un-tested and un-justified idea.
LOL! Can you actually back up any of these statements or are you simply throwing out phrases in the hope that one will stick?
Where, in this thread, have I resorted to 'circular reasoning' or 'misrepresenting evidence'?
What other proposition resolves the question of the First Cause other than God? The Big Bang? The idea that the Big Bang is the first cause of this universe is predicated on the notion that causality is nothing but a regular concurrence of events of type A followed by events of type B (Humean regularity). Since the Big Bang was the first event in the universe, therefore it is the "cause" of everything that followed in this account. But, as I've pointed out numerous times, such a view of causality is severely flawed (as Hume himself recognised). For one thing, there is absolutely no reason why, say, if I threw up a ball today, it should not come down but float away. In other words, induction (and therefore science) cannot be justified in such an account. Other problems include problems with counter-factuals, accidental generalisations, single instances etc.
Once you switch over to the alternative account (agent causation), then the Big Bang would no longer be the First Cause.
Being silly again...I never specified that *you* have used circular reasoning in *this* thread...I said that in general philosophical argumentation tends to rely upon circular reasoning...there is a slight difference that you didn't notice (why does that not surprise me!)
you want me to back up the assertion that you amongst others mis-represent evidence? ok, how about ID...using the watch analogy they claim the universe is so complicated and intricate it must have an intelligent puppet master behind the scene. Utter bullocks!...of course it's bloody intricate, but if things didn't work, then we wouldn't be here discussing it (doesn't it seem strange that we haven't found any real evidence of life on mars?...might that be that the conditions for life there are somewhat limited?...nah, I'm sure you don't agree with this, you'd say they're hiding.).
The number of different ways this universe turned out is uncountable and we amongst other things are far from perfect. It just so happens that the way things turned out is like this. Natural selection is a logical and rational explanation for why we are like we are.
Also...to help define circular reasoning for you (because it seems you don't really understand the notion sufficiently) it means asserting p without proving it, using this to derive q, and then using q to prove p...analogous to this is an argument like: There is a god (asserting p)...if there is a god only he would have created the universe like this (deriving q) you cannot create a universe without a God (using q)...therefore God must exist (proving p) Hey! thats a bit like what you keep saying!!! (most use the Bible too! or the Qu-ran etc...)
as for other propositions?....FSM, Muffy, a magic pot...all these are just as valid as your God...there are other theories such as the big bang and big collapse, there may be other theories too but the difference is that theists are presumptious enough to claim that their ideas are fact without any justification...I am big enough to say I do not know what came before the big bang...you say there is a god (and counter the question "who created god?" with no-one created God, he always existed. Never quite seeing the contradiction)
I know, I know!..in your world if you were sat under the only apple tree for 20 miles and something green resembling one of the many apples you have seen before hit you on the head; you would have absolutely no reason whatsoever to expect that it originated from the apple tree you were sat under and may infact have been sent by God (who made it magically appear from thin air!)...most people have better resoning skills than this however.
That the existence of God is ontologically different from magic pots, FSM, hobgoblins does not mean that the existence of God is any more credible...that is your own subjective view.
More phrase-throwing. And, in this case, you didn't even read what I wrote. I said that the ontological difference means that the manner in which evidence is used (indeed, even what evidence is used) would differ.
and what is this evidence eh?...your reasoning? 🙄...Feel free to say that God is fundamentally ontologically different to whatever but without anything to back it up all you have is a fairy tale.
You are merely preaching to the nursery with these sort of responses LH...I'm sure the likes of Freaky, (and yourself!) are hanging off your every word. Foolish!
09 Jan 07
Originally posted by AgergIt took you 16 edits to finally add me to your ramblings? Where are your priorities, man?
there are some people that cannot accept any truth in the fact that the earth is not 6000 years old, or that in base 2 arithmetic 1+1 = 10
That has to be one of the silliest attempts at defaming your opponent(s) rather than debating them I've ever seen. Naturally, it's also irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Have you ever met a person who under ...[text shortened]... ky, (and yourself!) are hanging off your every word. Foolish!
09 Jan 07
Originally posted by AgergYou use many words and yet say very little. You've not once supported your argument (outside juvenile insistence) that a belief in the FSM and God should be taken on the same plane. To do so would require both a refutation of the arguments for God as well as some type of relevance for the existence of the FSM. But why bother with such trivialities? You look so much more smahta simply leveling baseless charges that do not require true thoughtfulness. Keep fighting the good fight.
I like to tweak my posts...so what?
09 Jan 07
6 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou take the words from a book written by men to be the word of God (without proof)...you haven't seen God, you haven't seen people walk on water (what we know about physics suggests that this is impossible, feel free to dis-abuse such a valid logical inference by showing us a counter-example), all the creatures of the world fitting into an ark would require a very *very* big ark, the legacy of which no-one has found (very suspicious that!), amongst a number of other problems (where I and many others have made suitable responses in my own or other threads) All I have to go on is that lots and lots of people are told by other people that the Bible is indeed the word of the only supreme deity...I assert that they are buying into a fallacy. An alternate fallacy is belief that some of you made a mistake and it is actually the Qu-ran that is the true word of the only supreme deity..another alternate fallacy is that The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the word of the only supreme deity.
You use many words and yet say very little. You've not once supported your argument (outside juvenile insistence) that a belief in the FSM and God should be taken on the same plane. To do so would require both a refutation of the arguments for God as well as some type of relevance for the existence of the FSM. But why bother with such trivialities? You ...[text shortened]... veling baseless charges that do not require true thoughtfulness. Keep fighting the good fight.
09 Jan 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerNot at all. Hume just didn't realise that all your (fallacious) deductive arguments about the Big Bang are precisely fallacious because time didn't exist prior to the Big Bang, therefore neither did the need for causality.
At least Hume was honest enough to admit that his account of causation meant the death of scientific investigation.
A point his "successors" conveniently forget.
09 Jan 07
7 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerWe've discussed this before. Hume said no so thing, and proposed a sceptical solution to his sceptical "problem".
At least Hume was honest enough to admit that his account of causation meant the death of scientific investigation.
A point his "successors" conveniently forget.
There are plently of "theories" of causation - probabilities-based accounts, counterfactual accounts, etc.
What exactly is your understanding of Aristotle's treatment of causation? "Agent causation" is usually distinguished from "event causation"; the difference being that the latter is cause by some fact or event, while the latter is cause by an agent. Belief that there is a sort of causation that can be called agent causation can be neutral between different theories/accounts of causation. I'm not sure how agent causation can be thought of as a "theory of causation" at all. It doesn't, for most people (including those who believe there is such a thing as agent causation), explain simple causal events in the physical world (rain causing rivers to swell, etc.) It doesn't explain what causation is; what it means to say x caused y.
And another thing to ponder - couldn't one construct a Humean sceptical argument regarding agent-caused events/facts, too?
10 Jan 07
"Or in other words; having found, in many instances, that any two kinds of objects—flame and heat, snow and cold—have always been conjoined together; if flame or snow be presented anew to the senses, the mind is carried by custom to expect heat or cold, and to believe that such a quality does exist, and will discover itself upon a nearer approach. This belief is the necessary result of placing the mind in such circumstances. It is an operation of the soul, when we are so situated, as unavoidable as to feel the passion of love, when we receive benefits; or hatred, when we meet with injuries. All these operations are a species of natural instincts, which no reasoning or process of the thought and understanding is able either to produce or to prevent."
10 Jan 07
Originally posted by AgergYou take the words from a book written by men to be the word of God (without proof)
You take the words from a book written by men to be the word of God (without proof)...you haven't seen God, you haven't seen people walk on water (what we know about physics suggests that this is impossible, feel free to dis-abuse such a valid logical inference by showing us a counter-example), all the creatures of the world fitting into an ark would require a ...[text shortened]... is the true word of god...another alternate fallacy is belief in the Flying spaghetti Monster.
Subjected to as many tests of discipline as are available to us at any given point in time--- up to and including the present--- and yet it remains standing.
you haven't seen God
And that's a problem: why? You haven't seen Gerald Ford, yet you were pretty certain of his existence. Now that he's gone, how would you go about proving he ever existed?
you haven't seen people walk on water
Jesus' walking on water was not for my benefit. It was for the benefit of those who were alive during the first advent. Those who exist prior to the second advent have different tests of faith, one of which you and I are discussing now.
what we know about physics suggests that this is impossible
Absolutely right: 'what we know about physics' being key, of course. Given our increasing development in the field, I wouldn't be surprised to have His mastery over the physical world eventually explained. If not, we can always ask Him later. You are a believer, I assume?
all the creatures of the world fitting into an ark would require a very *very* big ark
Asked, asked and asked again; answered, answered and answered again.
the legacy of which no-one has found (very suspicious that!)
Not all that curious, really. In fact, I would be surprised to see it ever discovered, given how long ago that ark settled on the mountains in Ararat. However, should it ever be found, it would only be as relevant for the generation which found it as the miracles were for the generation of the Lord Jesus Christ.
An alternate fallacy is belief that some of you made a mistake
There is always that possibility. But then what would folks such as yourself do with all that free time on your hands?