Balancing Faith and Science

I simply noted thata) your assertions indicated a failure to understand a basic point of rational argumentand
b) suggested that if you really did fail to understand rational argument that this group was not for you.Neither of these points is an ad hominem attack.

We seem to be wandering further and further away from the issue of Balancing Faith and Science.Can we head back towards that?

---

I mentioned no other option. It is if one is trying to prove another option merely by eliminating the first. But if one is not trying to do that--if one is quite agnostic about the other option--then there is nothing wrong with such an argument that suggests there are difficulties--perhaps insuperable difficulties--in imagining the evolution of reason.

Your tone was obnoxious.

Well perhaps then you can accept that I am justifiably annoyed that you engaged in an obvious misrepresentationm of my argument (Message 106) and then made an invalid attempt to justify that misrepresentation despite being corrected (Message 111).Do you accept the point I made in Message 113 ? If you do understand that can you explain why you twice tried to paint my argument as an argument FOR the evolution of human reasoning ability, when all I did point out that Lewis' argument to the contrary was invalid ?

You're not justified in insulting people even if they make logical errors.I never meant to suggest that you were also engaging in an argument from incredulity.I never engaged in an argument from incredulity either--but you just assumed that that was what I was doing. You and Ned both.Never did I suggest an alternative explanation.You assumed it because you're all set and ready to jump on some dumb creationist which is what you think I am.Your whole attitude is full of steretypical assumptions.edited for spelling.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-08-2005 02:28 PM

And I told you this before, but you ignored it in your eagerness to show what a dumbass I was, I being a stupid creationist--which, by the way, I am not.My comment from an earlier post:

SO you are insulted by the mere suggestion that your very basic error represented a genuine failure to understand. Perhaps you can suggest an explanation which you don't find insulting.ALso I must point out that I did not say that YOU were engaged in an argument from personal incredulity. That is how I characterised Lewis' argument on the simple grounds that that is what it wasAnd I have no idea what this means:

quote:

---

You assumed it because you're all set and ready to jump on some dumb creationist which is what you think I am.

​

Your whole attitude is full of steretypical assumptions.

---

What "stereotypical assumptiosn are you talking about ? What do you think you are ? The head of some fanatical Lewis-worshipping ccult which will hunt me down for daring to point out the worthlessness of your idol's arguments ? I really can't see what this has to do with the points I have made - although I suspect that it may have a lot to do with your inability to defend Lewis' arguments.

Which error was that? Because you also say: So it cannot be that I am in error from the argument from incredulity, because you say that I was not arguing that.So what error did I make?As far as your insults, you suggested that I was really not capable of talking on this forum--and perhaps I should leave. That's what you suggested.What is this about Lewis-worshipping? I told you before and again that I do not agree with Lewis' conclusions. This is what I mean when I say that you are full of stereotypical assumptions. I told you twice that I did not agree with Lewis' conclusions, and you still don't want to accept it.

This may have nothing to do with what you're talking about (I haven't read the thread back far enough to know why you're bringing this up), and maybe I don't understand what you're saying. However, in case I do:It would be possible to prove that there does not exist any two even numbers that total an odd number when added together. In fact, I think math often attempts to prove a positive in order to prove a negative.I understand that science doesn't attempt to "prove" anything. Theories and laws are always subject to overthrow, and thus perhaps in science one cannot prove a negative. In math and in law, however, it's done pretty often. The only reason we don't have an innocent verdict is because it's not necessary, not because it's not possible. I believe that we could establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Neil Armstrong was innocent of first degree murder in every murder case that occurred on earth during his trip to the moon, for example.

Since you seem to have forgotten what you wrote a few hours ago - despite the reminders: first you tried to characterise my criticism of Lewis' argument as an argument FOR the idea that huiman reasoning ability evolved.THEN - after you had been corrected - you attempted to argue that you were correct on the gorounds that I beleived that the human ability to reason was the product of evolution.SO what is your explanation ? (For the FOURTH time ?)And the reference to "Lewis worshipping" was a query, not an assertion. Although we do have the evidence that you absolutely refuse to accept criticism of Lewis' arguments despite being unable to rebut those criticisms.

This is all I said in response to the following statement. Out of this you are trying to say that I am a dumbass who should not be on this forum, and that I relgiously worship Lewis' arguments, etc

Let's take the "I said, you said" discussions elsewhere.Try to head back towards the topic when this reopens.

---

Let's see if we can move back towards the actual topic.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-08-2005 06:46 PM

What this argument shows us, Jar, is bias.People just assume--and they ought not to assume.