Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 91 of 115 (67347)
11-18-2003 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by crashfrog
11-17-2003 11:51 PM


crashfrog writes:
Grace? Am I talking to myself, here?
Gee, don't I know what that feels like!
Yet Grace persists declaring that his assertions have been demonstrated in the face of my contestations and unanswered questions.
Oh well, at least you got YOUR post addressed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2003 11:51 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 12:26 PM :æ: has replied

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 115 (67357)
11-18-2003 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by NosyNed
11-18-2003 11:16 AM


Could you elucidate these laws of thought please?
1)Identity — ‘A is A’
2)Contradiction — ‘A is not both B and not B’
3)Excluded Middle — ‘A is either B or not B’.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by NosyNed, posted 11-18-2003 11:16 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by :æ:, posted 11-18-2003 1:08 PM grace2u has replied
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2003 2:49 PM grace2u has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 93 of 115 (67358)
11-18-2003 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by grace2u
11-18-2003 10:35 AM


grace2u
Please tell me this is a typo.
If it can be demonstrated that He can not exist, then He must exist.
Rigorous this is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 10:35 AM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 12:20 PM sidelined has not replied

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 115 (67360)
11-18-2003 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by sidelined
11-18-2003 12:16 PM


sidelined writes:
Please tell me this is a typo.
grace2u writes:
If it can be demonstrated that He can not exist, then He must exist.
Thanks for the correction. Yes it is a typo. Correction follows :
If it can be demonstrated that He can not NOT exist, then He must exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by sidelined, posted 11-18-2003 12:16 PM sidelined has not replied

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 115 (67364)
11-18-2003 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by :æ:
11-18-2003 11:57 AM


ae, I will respond to both you and Paul as time permits. Thanks for your patience. BTW, what does :ae: mean?
[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by :æ:, posted 11-18-2003 11:57 AM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by :æ:, posted 11-18-2003 1:12 PM grace2u has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 115 (67365)
11-18-2003 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by grace2u
11-17-2003 8:45 PM


Sure. One of the characteristics of this God that is presupposed as well as evidenced is that He is an eternal entity that is the standard of reason(logic) by which we judge all reason or logic by.
We can't know if God is logical unless we have something to compare him to. The same goes for morality. We can't judge God to be just unless we already know what just is. Maybe it would be helpful to define God's logic in regards to simple geometry. Where in the Bible and God's teachings can I find the relationships between sides of a triangle in relation to the adjacent angle? Where's the logical proof? What I am trying to say is that we have to come up with our own logic in many instances without invoking God.
Because of this, a theist can at least begin to have a rational discussion about this entity or what laws this entitiy might radiate or define since a theists worldview accounts for these truths. The theist can do this while the atheist is left defending the low-ground by denying these absolute truths, when most of humanity(yes, scientists included) would clearly accept them for what rational thought says they are. Atheists then are forced into a more unreasonable position since they can not account for these self evident truths.
You are already presupposing that the diety radiates ALL truth and logic. Why would you delve further into something you already require for the existence of logic and truth. I would argue that theists are on as unreasonable ground as athiests because of their presuppositions. That is, you assume 2+2=4 because that logic comes from God. Therefore, 2+2 could equal 5 but God is making you think it is 4, you can't know because humans by themselves cannot reach any conclusion without God. The athiest says 2+2=4 because he has evidence and shared experience to back it up. As long as experiments and data hold up 2+2=4, the logic will remain.
You argue that you are not claiming self evident truths, but I have not seen anyting but that claim. Presupposing truths are the same as self-evident claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 8:45 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by grace2u, posted 11-19-2003 1:10 AM Loudmouth has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 97 of 115 (67374)
11-18-2003 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by grace2u
11-18-2003 12:15 PM


grace2u writes:
NoseyNed writes:
Could you elucidate these laws of thought please?
1)Identity — ‘A is A’
Gee, that's funny... I have already shown that this does not hold at the quantum level yet received no response. Where X = Spin up, Y= Spin down and A = Spin of elementary particle B, X <> Y, yet A = X or Y. In other words, part of reality says A = X and another part of reality simultaneously says A = Y yet X does not equal Y and therefore in a real sense A = A is not entirely true. What say ye to that, Grace?
grace2u writes:
2)Contradiction — ‘A is not both B and not B’
3)Excluded Middle — ‘A is either B or not B’.
The falsity of these statements follows from quantum logic as I described above. A = B or ~B even when A <> B and A <> ~B.
Now, how is it that quantum physicists could have conceived these if our thoughts were bound by your so-called "laws"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 12:15 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 4:43 PM :æ: has replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 98 of 115 (67378)
11-18-2003 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by grace2u
11-18-2003 12:26 PM


grace2u writes:
ae, I will respond to both you and Paul as time permits. Thanks for your patience.
Very well, I'll just sit here with a worm on my tongue.
grace2u writes:
BTW, what does :ae: mean?
:: = my username, that's all. If there's greater significance to it than that, I am ignorant of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 12:26 PM grace2u has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 99 of 115 (67431)
11-18-2003 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by grace2u
11-18-2003 10:35 AM


I agree that they are, but how can these be universal and invariant in your worldview??
Why wouldn't they? We literally have no idea what kind of universes can exist. It's only speculation that the laws of physics could be any different than they are. So the fact that they're the way they are is not significant.
Perhaps it would be more clear if I said the laws of reason as opposed to laws of logic, to clear up any semantic related problems.
But there don't have to be laws of reason in order for us to both reason together. After all we have the same kind of brain, don't you think? There's no reason that the "laws of reason" (good luck trying to enumerate those) have to be a property of the whole damn universe for us both to have reason. They simply have to be universal to the human condition, which they are.
I would imagine an astrophysicist would contend that at a minimum, the laws of thoguht are neccessary to begin the conversation and that the laws of logic are to deduce anything from any observations made.
Did you ask any astrophysicists?
Look, the laws of logic or whatever don't have to be truly universal for all observers to see the same thing. They just have to be universal among observers.
It behaves in an orderly way for the most part.
No, it behaves the way it does. We as observers label it "orderly", because all observers we're aware of - humans - label the same quality as "orderly". That's not a universal quality. It's a shared human experience.
If absolute truths exist what are they? It is not enough to say they are just there.
Yes! Very true. In addition to absolute truths there has to be a vehicle for their transmission. You've postulated the existence of invariant laws of morality, for one thing. So what are they? And more important, how do you know you know what they are?
The existence of God may be enough to account for the existence of absolutes, but it doesn't begin to account for how you know what the absolutes are.
He is eternal. This is a presupposition as well as evidenced.
What's your evidence? Remember deduction from your premises doesn't count as evidence. Only observation. What observations do you make that suggest an infinite god? What kind of observation could you make?
And why isn't "they're eternal" enough explanation for the laws of physics? Isn't that a double standard? Why can God be eternal, but not the laws of physics?
Why do you contend atheism is more rational?
Because God does not act in the world. That's basically it. There's no observations made of God. There's no physical evidence. What there is are a bunch of contradictory religions that all claim to have the same amount of evidence. They can't all be right. None of them can support their statements with evidence. So why assume any of them are?
The only god that's believable and consistent with the evidence is a god who is either powerless or immoral, and why bother with such gods? Neither one of them would be able to create a universe.
There have been over 100 formal arguments made for the existence of God. If just one is correct theism is valid.
None of them are correct, though. They all rely on circular reasoning, assuming the consequent, or other logical fallacies.
I have really never seen anything come close for atheism.
Yet, atheism is the most consistent with the evidence. This is not a universe in which a powerful, moral god lives.
This is a philisophical debate more than a scientific one.
I realize that. However philosophy isn't needed here. You're proposing the existence of an entity that would leave tell-tale evidence of his existence. Since no such evidence can be found we can statistically conclude that a powerful, moral god doesn't exist.
I haven't really argued from morality as strong as I will in my next post but they are not changing and they are not local.
Then why don't all cultures have the same morals? If they're "unchanging", then why do they change?
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 10:35 AM grace2u has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by compmage, posted 11-18-2003 3:11 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 100 of 115 (67433)
11-18-2003 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by grace2u
11-18-2003 12:15 PM


Excluded Middle — ‘A is either B or not B’.
Um, so is grey white or black? By your universal law of thought, it must be one or the other.
In a multi-valent universe, you can't exclude the middle. Bi-valent logic is insufficient to model the universe. How does your law of excluded middle deal with a quantum superposition, after all?
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 12:15 PM grace2u has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 101 of 115 (67443)
11-18-2003 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog
11-18-2003 2:45 PM


crashfrog writes:
either powerless or immoral, and why bother with such gods? Neither one of them would be able to create a universe.
Just to be picky, an immoral god could create a universe, I just don't know if such a god would be worth of worship.
------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2003 2:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by :æ:, posted 11-18-2003 4:08 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2003 4:09 PM compmage has replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 102 of 115 (67473)
11-18-2003 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by compmage
11-18-2003 3:11 PM


compmage writes:
Just to be picky, an immoral god could create a universe, I just don't know if such a god would be worth of worship.
Well, by any ordinary moral standard commanding genocide is an immoral act. Thus, if the entity described as God in the Bible did actually create the universe, it is an immoral being according to that standard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by compmage, posted 11-18-2003 3:11 PM compmage has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 103 of 115 (67475)
11-18-2003 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by compmage
11-18-2003 3:11 PM


Just to be picky, an immoral god could create a universe
I don't think such a god would, though - creation being generally a morally positive act, after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by compmage, posted 11-18-2003 3:11 PM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by zephyr, posted 11-18-2003 9:17 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 114 by compmage, posted 11-19-2003 2:27 AM crashfrog has not replied

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 115 (67490)
11-18-2003 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by :æ:
11-18-2003 1:08 PM


Nice try :ae:
Gee, that's funny... I have already shown that this does not hold at the quantum level yet received no response. Where X = Spin up, Y= Spin down and A = Spin of elementary particle B, X <> Y, yet A = X or Y.
Lets go through this again(in as simple terms as possible)
A=spin of an elementary particle .
x=spin up
y=spin down
{A=x or y}... {A=x|y}... {A=x+y} depending on how you want to put it.
In other words, part of reality says A = X and another part of reality simultaneously says A = Y yet X does not equal Y and therefore in a real sense A = A is not entirely true. What say ye to that, Grace?
Reality says that A can be x or y as my equation demonstrates. The identity theorem does not say that x needs to equal y. This is the sloppiest attempt to debunk my statement yet. Originally I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you meant something else. Do you mean something else yet again? BTW where are all the unbiased mathematicians now? You guys can't let him get away with this can you???
therefore in a real sense A = A is not entirely true
How is {the spin of a particle} not equal to {the spin of a aparticle}???? Again, are any mathematicians or even logicians going to correct him? You have demonstrated by this statement that you do not fully grasp the concepts I am describing. For a third time, you have been sloppy and made statements that any unbiased scientist,engineer or logician would error you in.
I am not trying to insult your intelligence, if you mean something else please clear that up.
Again I apologize if I sound rude but I am simply speaking the truth as I see it.
At any rate, I do appreciate the comments and will continue to respond to them as time allows me to.
"Christe eleison"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by :æ:, posted 11-18-2003 1:08 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by :æ:, posted 11-18-2003 5:20 PM grace2u has replied
 Message 106 by :æ:, posted 11-18-2003 5:20 PM grace2u has not replied
 Message 107 by helena, posted 11-18-2003 5:23 PM grace2u has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 105 of 115 (67496)
11-18-2003 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by grace2u
11-18-2003 4:43 PM


grace2u writes:
Lets go through this again(in as simple terms as possible)
A=spin of an elementary particle .
x=spin up
y=spin down
{A=x or y}... {A=x|y}... {A=x+y} depending on how you want to put it.
It seems that you don't understand how superposition works. The three statements on your last line do not express the same thing.
grace2u writes:
Reality says that A can be x or y as my equation demonstrates. The identity theorem does not say that x needs to equal y.
This is what I mean when I say it seems you don't understand how superposition works. A = X and A = Y are BOTH TRUE to certain degrees, yet if the identity axiom (it's not a theorem, BTW) held this would be impossible. They would have to be ONLY one or the other since X <> Y. Yet the eigenstate, superposition, the state of simultaneously existing in multiple non-identical states, is the natural state of the particle.
grace2u writes:
How is {the spin of a particle} not equal to {the spin of a aparticle}????
Because 'spin up' does not equal 'spin down' yet both must be included in a complete description of the state of the particle. Look at it this way. Let's assign numbers to the truth values. Let True = 1 and False = 0. Then, A = ('spin up' or 'spin down') = 1, A = 'spin down' = 0, and A = 'spin up' = 0. If we were to allow fuzzy truth values, then we might say that A = 'spin up' = 0.5, and A = 'spin down' = 0.5. If the identity axiom were universally true, then A = 'spin up' and A = 'spin down' could not have identical truth values.
grace2u writes:
You have demonstrated by this statement that you do not fully grasp the concepts I am describing.
Now if THAT isn't irony at its finest...
Now, what I was REALLY hoping for was a direct answer to these questions:
If logic were indeed universal, then we would expect that there would exist no statement X such that X is a well-formed statement and yet we can not prove X true or false logically, do you agree? In other words, assuming that logic is universal, absolute and fixed, we would expect that every conceivable statement is theoretically decideably true or false, right? A simple yes or no will suffice. If your answer is no, please explain how logic can be universal, absolute and fixed and yet there exist well-formed statements which it cannot prove true or false.
So what is it? Yes or no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 4:43 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 9:13 PM :æ: has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024