|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
mike the wiz writes:
No, but your likelihood of making untrue claims rises sharply the less you know of the subject. I was politely assuming that your flawed concepts of biology stemmed from lack of knowledge and not design.
My knowledge of biology is not relevant to the truth-value of a claim. mike the wiz writes:
Even *if* there was no data that showed life can originate from matter, a stance with which I strongly disagree, your "solution" to the problem is not worthy of attention. Unless you have convincing supporting evidence to back up your claimed solution it holds no more weight than any other random idea.
There is ZERO data that shows life can come from matter arranging itself and an inteligence solves this problem. mike the wiz writes:
You have lost me here. First of all, why and how are you distinguishing fact from evidence? Second, your claim that DNA is purely information and information only matters to intelligence is ludicrous! DNA is a chemical compound; are you suggesting that chemical compounds don't operate as their structure defines unless there is an intelligence there to witness it?
DNA is fact not evidence. It is a code gets designs, and information only matters to intelligence. mike the wiz writes:
This is where you went wrong, you are misusing one of the simplest logical constructs. Your theory is that if X, then Y. In order to properly go about "affirming the antecedent" the logic would be: We have something stronger than evidence. I define evidence as something which is weak, which makes a theory viable. i.e. the consequent of your modus ponen. If theory X then Y should follow.If X, then Y. X. Therefore, Y. Instead you say that you are using the consequent of the modus ponen as your evidence. This is a formal fallacy called "affirming the consequent". You are trying to do this:If X, then Y. Y. Therefore, X. This does not logically work. If I have misinterpreted any part of your post please attempt to explain your point again, I had an extremely difficult time getting a coherent though out of your post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Mike writes: Of course it can. It always will if my knowledge is based on hard evidence and your wisdom is based on subjective experiences and hearsay Your first response to me was an argument from authority. My knowledge of biology is not relevant to the truth-value of a claim. That is basic logic. Your knowledge of biology may not be relevant to the actual truth of the claim but it is indisputably relevant to your ability to recognise or ascertain the truth or otherwise of the claim. No?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Instead you say that you are using the consequent of the modus ponen as your evidence. This is a formal fallacy called "affirming the consequent". You are trying to do this: If X, then Y. Y. Therefore, X. This does not logically work. I know it does not work. I am not claiming the affirmation. In science an evidence is tentative, which means there is no affirmation as such - only an induction build-up. So if I have a theory that somebody wears socks for most of their lives, then I should expect them to wear socks. If I find them wearing them, the theory is "viable". This means that you can CONTINUE your theory UNTIL it is falsified. That is why I did not claim that if X=Y then Y=X, because I know how science works. Hence the term, "viable". Do you understand the term?
I was politely assuming that your flawed concepts of biology stemmed from lack of knowledge and not design. That's quite allright, thankyou Sir. Infacxt I do not have a flawed concept of biology, as my claims aren't anything to do with any knowledge I don't have. I am not a biologist, but my only BIOLOGICAL claim is that there is DNA, and that it gives rise to the different organisms. My actual claims themselves are philosophical because they pertain to God-concepts. This is why you get into dangerous territory, if you think that you know what I know. I have not revealed what I know, nor do you know me at all. I do not NEED to mke statements about you or your knowledge. I am sure you know many things I do not know, and I will accept correction. However, 100% of all data shows lifeforms come from lifeforms. Logic will show any readers that this claim is not biological - but that it come from observation of facts. Thankyou for your time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I am tired with debating things about ME.
As far as I am aware, I am more capable than most people are of understanding concepts. If you think I don't understand biology, I will admitt I am not a biologist but then neither are you. These boards are always the same. The claims are always drowned with several fallacies. Poisoning the well, appeals to authority etc.. Gentlemen we are discussing God. I cannot prove God objectively, but if I am to state anything at all, I first need words. I am tired now, thankyou. TTFN.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
The foundation of wisdom is knowledge.
If you have no knowledge of a subject you cannot wisely apply that knowledge. Biologists make predictions on the basis of their knowledge. Predictions which have been and are being verified. Thus a degree of both knowledge and wisdom has been objectively demonstrated through the discovery of new evidence based on the knowledge of prior evidence. You claim little knowledge yet great wisdom and yet can demonstrate neither in any objective terms. Thus your position must be considered undeniably inferior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
My post 138 shown that affirming the antecedant is sound. (Two ways, ponen and tollens).
That was a use of objective logic from logical notation. So that rebutts your that says;
You claim little knowledge yet great wisdom and yet can demonstrate neither in any objective terms. Claimed great wisdom? Huh? Wisdom does not follow if you have knowledge. Knowledge is more the retaining of information, and wisdom is putting it together. I would always claim little knowledge, no matter how much I knew. I can give an example of the evidence definition if you like. If I have a theory that there are only red balls in a bag, and I can't see them until I pick them up, then it should follow that when I pick one out it will be red. If I pick one out, the antecedant is confirmed and I can CONTINUE red-ball theory UNTIL I pick one that is not red. Your problem isn't my knowledge. Your problem is that you have a problem with me because there is nothing wrong with what I said because it doesn't even favour Theism. And this is the amusing thing about your type. You will point blank disagree, NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT I SAY, but because of what I believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
And this is the amusing thing about your type. You will point blank disagree, NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT I SAY, but because of what I believe. No. Most of what you say is just as nonsensical too.
Straggler writes: You claim little knowledge yet great wisdom and yet can demonstrate neither in any objective terms. Wisdom does not follow if you have knowledge. Knowledge is more the retaining of information, and wisdom is putting it together. You can only wisely put together knowledge if you have that knowledge in the first place. You apparently, by your own declaration, do not have that knowledge. Both the knowledge and and the ability to put that knowledge together wisely have been repeatedly demonstrated by the ability of evolutionary science to make predictions and discover new evidence.
I can give an example of the evidence definition if you like. You can define evidence any damn way you like but if we are unable to make discoveries with the knowledge or methods you propose then they are worthless as a means of understanding and discovering nature. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Stile writes: Lots? I doubt whether lots of people have had this "bad and evil" experience that you claim. There are lots of people who say they've made this decision and their lives turn out very nice and good, very similar to how my life is now. There are lots of people who say they've made this decision and their lives turn out very bad and evil, committing incredibly horrific atrocities.Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo One of the major purposes of debate is to help you hone your arguments. Yours are pretty bad. They can use all the honing they can get.~Ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
The foundation of wisdom is knowledge. I disagree. The foundation of wisdom is knowledge+experience. Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo One of the major purposes of debate is to help you hone your arguments. Yours are pretty bad. They can use all the honing they can get.~Ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Phat writes: Lots? I doubt whether lots of people have had this "bad and evil" experience that you claim. North American jails are full of lots of people who say they've turned their life to God and their lives turn out very bad and evil, committing incredibly horrific atrocities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Stile writes: I dont see this--and I have spent a lot of time visiting jails. While there are occasional examples of someone who turned to God(or claimed to) early in life and then did something atrocious, Most inmates who claim to have met God at all did so after they had been sentenced for crimes earlier in life. I dont mean to suggest that converts as a group behave any better than the general population---though I would expect this to be so. I believe that there is real change and power behind genuine conversion. If it was proven that there is no discernable difference between converts and the general population, one could rightly question any merit behind conversion or power from same. North American jails are full of lots of people who say they've turned their life to God and their lives turn out very bad and evil, committing incredibly horrific atrocities.Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo One of the major purposes of debate is to help you hone your arguments. Yours are pretty bad. They can use all the honing they can get.~Ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Phat writes: If it was proven that there is no discernable difference between converts and the general population, one could rightly question any merit behind conversion or power from same. What do you mean "if"?This has been proven many, many, many times in the past. It continues to be proven over and over again with every new study on religious affiliation in regards to society. If you think there is some discernible difference, might you be able to state one? Here's a few examples (I think you may have heard of them as well): Divorce Rates:
And Prisons:
I don't intend for this data to show you that atheists are better than Christians or anything like that.I do, however, think that it's quite sufficient to show you that there are studies that are done on such things, and those studies overwhelmingly show us that "that is no discernible difference between converts and the general population." If there was a difference... more people would be Christian.Just like we can see a difference in owning a car... therefore, more people own cars. Because cars make a discernible difference. Being a Christian just doesn't make a discernible difference.Please feel free to show a difference if you think otherwise, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Sometimes when I'm bored, I travel back in time to our old archives and revisit conversations made by myself and my friendly fellow posters at EvC. To wit:
Stile,talking with John 10:10 writes: I never claimed to know anything about Christianity. Neither do I claim to reject who Jesus is or what He says He will do for His children. I only claim to know about objective-ness, and if things are objective or not. This has nothing to do with knowing anything about Christianity. Example:I also don't claim to know anything about black-holes. But, I know they're objectively true, because Mr. Hawking can show them to be true independent of himself and others, and he has done so. Black Holes are inanimate. They are objective truths about the behavior of matter. When talking about Christianity, however, we have a necessary God-In Human Flesh,(Jesus Christ) and a History of human believers. We can't divorce Christianity from Christ nor can we divorce Christ from humanity. (Unless our brains were wired for objective evidence--independent of our own subjective feelings, bias, and desires) Other than that, you made a strong case for your reasoning. You seem to me to be more of an agnostic than a staunch atheist, Stile. Any 2015 thoughts to add to our 2009-2014 dialogues? For the record, I applaud the recent decision by the RCC--through Pope Francis--to stop trying to convert Jews. Oddly, most charismatic/fundamentalists that I know think its a terrible move and not only unbiblical but unwise. Perhaps the more liberal that one is, the less likely one is to have more answers than questions. Edited by Phat, : tidied up a few loose words Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
I'll venture to answer your questions as best I can. But as others have commented, your questions and categories are somewhat simplistic, so some of my answers will be somewhat complex.
First, some general comments:1) the Christian faith is multifaceted, with numerous aspects. It encompasses beliefs about God, nature, man, sin, salvation, etc. We often have slightly different reasons for our beliefs in each of these topics. 2) more specifically, your questions touch on two separate topics: A) belief in the existence of a god B) a personal relationship with God These are separate topics. Many people believe in god's existence, but do not have a personal relationship with Him. 3) you ask essentially biographical, historical questions of how we came to our faith positions. This is fine, but it doesn't address the question of why we believe these things now. Our present epistemology is often different from our entrance into faith. As an analogy, I first believed in the concept of gravity as a child, simply on the authority of my parents and teachers. But as I got older, I studied and understood more about gravity. I still believe in gravity, but now I believe it based on experiments, observations, and equations. Straggler writes:
I believed in God's existence since a very young child.
QUESTIONS1) Which came first for you personally (honestly) - Belief in God/Jesus/Bible or knowledge of the empirical evidence that you consider to support this position? I entered into a personal relationship with God through Jesus as an older child. I went through a period of mild questioning while in college. I questioned my epistemology (why I believed these things) and realized that this had been based mainly on authority of others who I trusted. I thought through the issues and decided that there was both good empirical evidence and enough first-hand personal experience to be sure of these things.
Straggler writes:
Chronologically, the beliefs came first.
2) Are your beliefs the result of rational and objective conclusions based on physical evidence which have been confirmed by your relationship with God OR are your beliefs based on your relationship with God which you deem to have been confirmed by the objective physical evidence available? Which way round is it?
Epistemologically, both are involved, but the personal relationship is probably primary.
Straggler writes:
Yes, I don't really need external evidence for my position, so long as I have a personal relationship with God.
3) Could you maintain your faith in the absence of any objective empirical evidence that supports this position? (I.e. how faithful are you?)
But it would be a problem for me if there were objective empirical evidence against my position. I am a scientist. I could believe something where there was lack of evidence, but would have serious trouble believing something which was contradicted by evidence.
Straggler writes:
I really don't know what I would believe apart from a personal relationship with God. I suspect that I would try to deny the empirical evidence that supports my beliefs.
4) If the objective empirical evidence which you deem to support your beliefs were present but the relationship with God side of your faith was absent would you still believe as you do? (I.e. is the empirical evidence alone enough to maintain your position?)
Straggler writes:
Both are involved, but the personal relationship is more important.
5) Is empirical evidence or subjective knowledge of God's presence the root basis of your beliefs?
Straggler writes:
This is a very different question from asking about our own personal journeys of faith (each of which is unique). Especially for someone like me, who came to faith as a child and thought it through on an intellectual level much later.
END QUESTIONS SUMMARYUltimately I am trying to determine whether those advocating the more extreme Christian position think that it is possible for anyone who does not, and never will have, a personal and subjective relationship with God to draw the same conclusions that they have from the empirical evidence alone? Or is a degree of irrational belief essential? I believe that if anyone is honestly open to 1) God's existence, 2) the possibility of a personal relationship with Him, and 3) the possibility of submitting one's life to Him as Lord and Master, then the empirical evidence will be sufficient to draw this person into a personal relationship with God. As Jesus said, "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself." (John 7:17) But if someone is not open to submitting his life to God, I believe that he will (pehaps subconsciously) find a way to explain away all of the empirical evidence and will not view it the same way that believers do."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Can we divorce the medium from the message?
We can't divorce Christianity from Christ nor can we divorce Christ from humanity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024