Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   GOD IS DEAD
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 241 of 304 (485311)
10-07-2008 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by cavediver
10-06-2008 7:04 PM


Re: ADDENDUM
Cavediver (rocket scientist)
You know, when you're in the Antarctic, but think you're in the Sahara, don't be surprised when people piss themselves laughing when you try to give them tips in geography
Did Percy put up an ad somewhere recently saying arrogant idiots wanted for a debate site? 'Cos if he did, he's certainly got his money's worth...
Ah, Cavediver, the clown from the UK, that supposes if he is abusive and rude, this somehow allows him to avoid obvious evidence to the contrary. You pathetic attempts at intimidation won't work with me junior.
So what? You stated that there were only two *possibilities* for the Universe, and I have demolished your argument. You are now furiously backpeddling in a subject about which you know next to nothing.
You have got to be kidding me. You have'nt even scratched the surface at an attempt to meet the challenge.
And I'm not going to give you further explanations in this thread, they are unnecessary for the task at hand - which was to demonstrate that you are talking out of your arse.
Which is the equivalent of saying you cant and like any poor debater you make excuses for your quick exit. See ya junior.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by cavediver, posted 10-06-2008 7:04 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by cavediver, posted 10-07-2008 9:09 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 242 of 304 (485313)
10-07-2008 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Dawn Bertot
10-07-2008 8:59 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
Which is the equivalent of saying you cant
Yep, that's why I invited you to ask questions in another thread - 'cos I don't know what I'm talking about
But don't worry - anyone who reads EvC knows about my utter lack of knowldge in these areas, and my inability to answer questions regarding fundemental physics, quantum theory, relativity, etc. So don't worry - you're really not looking like a complete wanker to them
But I like the 'junior' comment - given my age that makes me feel much much better Thanks!
You have got to be kidding me. You have'nt(sic) even scratched the surface at an attempt to meet the challenge.
Ah, that would be your lack of reading comprehension. You're in luck! I'm a cosmologist, but my wife is an English scholar and teacher - we'll have you squared away in no time (especially that appalling apostrophe usage.) She does specialise in remedial work...
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-07-2008 8:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-08-2008 1:54 AM cavediver has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 243 of 304 (485396)
10-08-2008 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by cavediver
10-07-2008 9:09 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
Cosmo Cavediver writes
But don't worry - anyone who reads EvC knows about my utter lack of knowldge in these areas, and my inability to answer questions regarding fundemental physics, quantum theory, relativity, etc. So don't worry - you're really not looking like a complete wanker to them
Most wankers as you call them would understand that the thread is not primarily about physcis but about God. Since however, you havent understood much else, its doubtful you could comprehend the main thrust of the thread either. Take it real slow, youll get it after a while.
Ah, that would be your lack of reading comprehension. You're in luck! I'm a cosmologist, but my wife is an English scholar and teacher - we'll have you squared away in no time (especially that appalling apostrophe usage.) She does specialise in remedial work...
Cosmologist. That explains alot. An ape like creature that is limited to a puny planet in an insignificant galaxy, that hasnt even been to the moon himself or past it trying to understand the whole ball of wax. Talk about an exercise in futility. I suppose someone has to do it.
I get the further impression that you like to promote yourself and your status in the world in this website, but since it would be rude of me to say so, I will not. Question, do you have any logicians in your family, if so, I would seek them out gain the benifit of thier specialties.
If you will excuse me now I have to respond to Onifre's last post, one with actual arguments, that are worthy of some attention
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by cavediver, posted 10-07-2008 9:09 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by cavediver, posted 10-08-2008 7:18 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 244 of 304 (485406)
10-08-2008 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Dawn Bertot
10-08-2008 1:54 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
the thread is not primarily about physcis but about God. Since however, you havent understood much else, its doubtful you could comprehend the main thrust of the thread either.
Oh, I don't know. I was a born-again evangelical Christian for 22 years, including all of my time as a professional cosmologist and mathematician. I have a vague idea of discussions concerning God
More to the point, I was demolishing YOUR assertion, and you decided to try and argue me on the physics - brave, but rather foolish...
There are many possibilities to our existence - we cannot yet decide between them all as we do not yet have sufficient evidence and knowledge. Some old ideas have been removed because of evidence, and many new ideas have arisen on the back of new knowledge. And not one of these possibilities is Goddidit - Goddidit can lie behind ALL of these possibilities - but that is simply a matter of faith...
I get the further impression that you like to promote yourself and your status in the world in this website
Well, given that I remain anonymous here, it is hardly any level of status Ok, I admit to some level of pride in my knowledge and accomplishments - it is a weakness, I know. But more so than that, I am proud of and delight in the knowledge and accomplishments of others here at EvC. It is hard to appreciate just how much I have learned while hanging out here. And I like to think I have given something back.
Question, do you have any logicians in your family
I'm a mathematician and have taught the odd class on logic. What do you want to know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-08-2008 1:54 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 245 of 304 (485417)
10-08-2008 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by onifre
10-06-2008 1:32 PM


Re: ADDENDUM
Bertot writes:
However, because things do exist or anything exists it becomes very unlikely that there was ever "nothingness", yet such apremise remains from a purely Logical standpoint.
Onifre writes:
I'd like for you to define that logical standpoint from an objective PoV, and not from a subjective interpretation.
Surely your kidding, but ok. Objectivity has to do with sound principles in relation to real world properties. When you apply that objectivity to the sound principles of dedutive reasoning, conclusions will follow that are definitive and absolute and unavoidable, at times. In this instance it has to do with the ultimate or absolute nature of things. I
Well not absolute of course. There's Astrophysics, astronomy, astrochemistry. BUt, it is still within the scope of science, and derives it's answers using the scientific method.
It is truely amazing that without even trying or mentioning it you exclude out of your list, the science of deductive reasoning, I dont think this is done by accident. The foundation for all of the sciences and those you mention above, is 'deductive reasoning', before , during and afterwards. It should be clear to any thinking person that deductive reasoning is inseperable from any science, especially to those that are dealing with the ultimate nature of things.
The so-called "scientific method" you advocate is an misnomer. It makes great use of the science of deductive reasoning in its tenets, then at the same time rejects those same principles in use of finding answers in the question of things. It assumes that the same principles it employs in one connection to explain physical properties, may not be used to explain other questions of existence and origins. The simple point is that the science of deductive reasoning is the only way to explain the answers to the very difficult questions. The physical sciences as they are called are of very great value and should be pursued at all costs, however, the science of deductive reasoning should not take a back seat to anything. Its only when you change the meanings of words, concepts and ideas, that 'deductive reasoning' and its obvious and inexcapable conclusions gets left behind. And I dont think it is on accident, its to avoid conclusions that people just dont like.
You are using human evolved language to place significance, in a human sense, to the universe. The 'reason' the universe is here is just another human philosophical type question that we give importance to.
Try real hard to understand this very simple principle. Deductive reasoning applied to the real world often times and especially inthis instance have nothing to do with Human evolved langualge, arm chair musings, philosophy, ideologies, religiosity or any other ology. Its is a scientific principle brought about by the oldest form of scientific endeavor, logic. Sometimes those conclusions based on that science are irresistable and unavoidable and relate and correspond directly to the real world.
It is meaningless to think that there is a purpose, or reason, behind nature. It seems like humans, in their quest for answers from a self-centered perspective, feel a need to think that there is a 'reason' to their existance beyond, procreation and survival. As of yet, no one has made a good argument for the purpose of the universe. It exists. We have come very close to understanding it's functions at the most fundamental levels that we've been able to determine based on our current level of knowledge. That is all we know...purpose does not seem to be required IMO.
"Meaningless", "pointless" and "purpose", have nothing to do initially with the understanding of thecold hard facts. Those facts are that our reasoning abilites demonstrate the obvious conclusions of certain deducible and unavoidable facts, which others much better than myself have adequately demonstrated. Now watch this, if there were no human beings or any other reasoning creatures here, this would not change this simple fact. The fact that humans are here helps give "meaning" and "purpose" to those cold hard facts.
Your contention that no one has given a good reason for the purpose of the universe, is I believe, the mother of all silly assertions. Reality has, Reason has, Humans have, Design has, Cosmology has, All sciences have, a simple observation and experiential association with the real world has. Puropose most certainly does have meaning if there are only a couple of logical possibilites and conclusions and for all intents and PURPOSES only one real possibilty, God. Its is no great accomplishment to set aside reality and a very obvious reasons for the existence and puorpose of things. It only takes an exercising of Will.
How did you conclude the latter? The first explanation is derived from the observable, the second explanation is derived from primitive mythologies about God and Goddesses. Why would the second explanation warrent equal inquiry?
I believe I have now demonstrated why that is the case. The "second" which is actually the first warrents enquiry for very obvious 'scientific reasons', unless you want to throw reason and its obvious conclusions out the window.
Should we investigate any imagined deity that hnmans have been able to conjure up? We must let science take us where the evidence points to and explain what it has observed. If we are going to allow anyone to postulate from their own personal logic and reasoning, then there will be no end to the ridiculous claims made by men.
Investigate anything you want. But when you do you will be using that God given ability to reason and deduce and conclude. The science if you apply ALL OF IT and correctly will point you to a creator, who ever you think it is or what that may be.
Correct "logic and reasoning" will point to a creator without initially any ridiculous claims. What one believes after that will be based on other available evidence. Go Bible, go Bible, go Bible, go Bible, wag you head back and forth and move your shoulders while singing that diddy.
That depends on what is meant by infinite. If it is explaning an equation then yes, physics, or mathematics, are required. If you are using the word to mean eternity, or Gods infinite power, or something like that, then sure have as much fun with the word infinite as you want. But then at that point you are no longer talking about physics, or the BB...you have ventured into the realm of theology.
No remember infinity has nothing to do with theology its reality, reason, and commonsense. Something had to exists forever without beggining or end. To demonstrate that it was not God, one would have to prove that matter itself is eternal, a conclusion I believe that you have admittely stated is short of physics abilites. I can reproduce those quotes from yourself if you wish. No theology or philosophy yet.
We were talking about Hawkings No-Boundary proposal. Philosophical view points of reality have no place within that theory, and does nothing to explain it. The theory deals with physics, and mathematical equations, not with your own personal interpretation of reality. You can't mix philosophy and physics.
I agree totally. You however, can mix physics and reason.
This is why I challenged Cavediver to put the very technical terms, concepts and ideas in simple readable english and explanations. Onc e this is done it will be very clear that there are no other possibilites than those already purposed. I believe the best that has been offered thus far is that certain particles seem to come from nowhere, a conlcusion that would need to be demonstrated that it was coming form "nowhere" a conclusion which could not be demonstrated, tested or actualized in any way form or fashion. There will always be "something" else, in this context..
No, the physics equations, and cosmological models of the univese, is what determines what occured 14 Billion years ago. Reasoning at that point is out the window. What is needed is theoretical physics, good theories, and good mathematics. Other than that, you're just speculating based off of religious beliefs.
What possibilty may have occured 14 Billion, six months, two days, 30 minutes and 1 second ago. Cant physics reduce it to an exact time? Reasoning at that point TAKES OVER, its not out the window. Something produced those results and so on and so on and so on and so on. Even as the super braniac wheelchair dude indicates,as quoted by the Agobot. The reason I believe the braniac makes this statement, is due to the fact that reason compels him in that direction.
I await your dogmatic reply, ha ha.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by onifre, posted 10-06-2008 1:32 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by onifre, posted 10-08-2008 1:38 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 246 of 304 (485433)
10-08-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Dawn Bertot
10-08-2008 9:31 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
Hi Bertot,
Lets sum up your entire post to "logic and reasoning bring you to the belief in God".
Cool...
But, your goal was to show it to the rest of the class...not to show me how you come to the conclusion that God must have set this universe in motion, but to demonstrate just how that conclusion is plausable.
To that you simply argue that your logic and reasoning(and it is only YOUR opinion that you can speak of because MY logic and reasoning do not force me to conclude as you do), bring you to the conclusion that God is the creator.
This is un-debatable. How can I debate opinions?
If you'd like to hold to those conclusions, enjoy. If you care to give examples of HOW you came to these conclusions, without trying to use technical words like logic and reasoning because frankly you just have an opinion based off of your own personal beliefs, then please put forth your evidence.
Your entire position is from incredulity, it's simply an opinion that you have not given proof for, and NO simply saying I use logic and reasoning, just like them scientist do, is not the same as what is done in science.
Simply put, deductive reasoning did not bring you to the conclusion that God did it, your own personal belief in God brought you to that conclusion. You can try to argue all you want from a semantical angle, to change YOUR opinion to , YOUR logical conclusion just to give it some validity, but we can all see right through that bs. Science does not limit themselves to deductive reasoning, and for a FACT, theories aren't given validity because they drew their conclusions only with logical reasoning.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-08-2008 9:31 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-09-2008 8:49 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 253 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-10-2008 3:35 AM onifre has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 247 of 304 (485477)
10-08-2008 5:45 PM


Recipe
Can anyone guess what this recipe is for(no, it's not candy)?
Oxygen (65%)
Carbon (18%)
Hydrogen (10%)
Nitrogen (3%)
Calcium (1.5%)
Phosphorus (1.0%)
Potassium (0.35%)
Sulfur (0.25%)
Sodium (0.15%)
Magnesium (0.05%)
Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)
Hint: that's the recipe that wrote my signature .
I am not claiming anything, just thought it was funny and maybe somebody will ponder what life is.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by bluescat48, posted 10-08-2008 11:07 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 256 by Larni, posted 10-10-2008 9:01 AM Agobot has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 248 of 304 (485501)
10-08-2008 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Agobot
10-08-2008 5:45 PM


Re: Recipe
Looks like thr recipe for Homo sapiens

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Agobot, posted 10-08-2008 5:45 PM Agobot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-09-2008 9:33 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 249 of 304 (485524)
10-09-2008 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by onifre
10-08-2008 1:38 PM


Re: ADDENDUM
Onifre writes:
Your entire position is from incredulity, it's simply an opinion that you have not given proof for, and NO simply saying I use logic and reasoning, just like them scientist do, is not the same as what is done in science.
Onifre, thanks for your latest response its very odd but interesting and I believe I can demonstrate why. I wll get to it later this evening, you know real world crap and all that.
Thanks
D Berot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by onifre, posted 10-08-2008 1:38 PM onifre has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 250 of 304 (485530)
10-09-2008 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by bluescat48
10-08-2008 11:07 PM


Re: Recipe
Bluesbrothers writes:
Looks like the recipe for Homo sapiens
I thought we werent suppose to use the word "Homo" on this website. Ofcourse I an just kidding for all you Homo Erectus' out there.
The reason I bring it us is this, (Gesturing with hands)Its because, well, you see, that, you know um, its just due to the fact that, because certain, if you think about it, sorta of what were talking about is that, well you see, because. Ok Ill stop here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by bluescat48, posted 10-08-2008 11:07 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Agobot, posted 10-09-2008 10:46 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 251 of 304 (485536)
10-09-2008 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Dawn Bertot
10-09-2008 9:33 AM


Re: Recipe
Bertot writes:
I thought we werent suppose to use the word "Homo" on this website. Ofcourse I an just kidding for all you Homo Erectus' out there.
You still think we did not descend from Homo Erectus. Did your biblical god spread around fake bones and skeletons of homo erectus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-09-2008 9:33 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-09-2008 11:19 AM Agobot has not replied
 Message 258 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-10-2008 9:34 AM Agobot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 252 of 304 (485539)
10-09-2008 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Agobot
10-09-2008 10:46 AM


Re: Recipe
Agobot writes:
You still think we did not descend from Homo Erectus. Did your biblical god spread around fake bones and skeletons of homo erectus?
Perhaps the stand up comedian (Onifre) could assist you as to what I was on about, I guess it went over your head.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Agobot, posted 10-09-2008 10:46 AM Agobot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 253 of 304 (485603)
10-10-2008 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by onifre
10-08-2008 1:38 PM


Re: ADDENDUM
Onfrie writes;
But, your goal was to show it to the rest of the class...not to show me how you come to the conclusion that God must have set this universe in motion, but to demonstrate just how that conclusion is plausable.
My task here gets easier as we proceed, I will demonstrate why that is so in another paragraph. In the first place I dont see what the difference would be showing one person verses one thousand, so that part of your sentence has no relevance. Actually I have demonstrated and shown why God is really the only logical conclusion, even if there are only two possibilties.
While you have been arguing "at" my position I would like to point out to the rest of the class that you have failed to provide another explanation in the area of possibiltes for the existence of things besides the only two. This is an old debating tactic that is usually effective if your opponent is not unable to see it, ofcourse I do. I thought I would just point that out to the rest of the class, since you brought them up, the class that is.
I dont know where you learned how to draw valid conclusions but if I have not demonstrated the plausability of God's existence, then it is doubtful you will be unable to percieve anything. I will deal with that once again for you down below.
To that you simply argue that your logic and reasoning(and it is only YOUR opinion that you can speak of because MY logic and reasoning do not force me to conclude as you do), bring you to the conclusion that God is the creator.
This is un-debatable. How can I debate opinions?
Now to demonstrate how my task is becoming easier and easier. Do you remember that episode of 'Sanford and Son', where they went to that one individuals house to pick up a piano the fellow was giving away. Whilst, amoung other things, making fun of his very effeminate nature, Fred and Lamont tried getting the piano out the door, they were having trouble. Fred said, its not going to work. Lamont said that the first law of physics says if it came in the door it could go out. After trying again it got wedged, to which Fred said, and the second law of physics is STUCK. You had to be there, trust me it was funny, if you saw Fred do it.
Simply put Onifre, your stuck. Your physics, as wonderful as they are and as applicable as they are, will only allow you to argue and demonstrate a position such as the existence of things to a certain point. Amassing all physical knowledge that is possibile will not undo or change these very basic principles After that point, observation, experience, the nature and existenceof things falls squarely under the perview of logic and deductive reasoning. Reguardless of what you discover by this science, it will not allow you to formulate a conclusion above and beyond the principle of, two and only two possibilites. That being that either matter is eternal or a God that is eternal created that matter and set it in motion. Your sentence I believe above involved the word "plausabile", correct? If one cannot see as even Hawking can that this very much allows the plausibility of a creator, it is doubtful you will see anything.
You are also correct in your contention that it is "un-debatable", not because one cannot form a Valid conclusion in the matters. Its un-debatable, because it will reach a logical empass in the choices that reason will allow. That is exacally why my task is getting easier and easier in this context, you have no where to go in the argument or in reality. as your ability to debate the topic fades and as your inability to provide alternate possiblites fails, you resort to calling the science of logic and deductive reasoning, "opinions".
Your further slipping away is demonstrated in refering to logic and deductive reasoning and axiomaic truths, as "My logic" or "Your logic". They are simple demonstratable truths whether you believe them or not. I could very easily believe that because I have not died yet, or experienced death, that I somehow will not die. My opinion does not count agaisnt reality Onifre. These truth a are not musings or opinions. Because of the nature of things, Entropy, Infinite progession and regression and the such like, it becomes even less likey that matter is eternal in any real sense. One would have to find properties that do not exhibit these qualites to demonstrate that there is no need for a creator. Assuming the universe in self-contained and demonstrating it are two different things.
If you'd like to hold to those conclusions, enjoy. If you care to give examples of HOW you came to these conclusions, without trying to use technical words like logic and reasoning because frankly you just have an opinion based off of your own personal beliefs, then please put forth your evidence.
My examples are reality and the very existence of things. In physics you demonstrate principles based on observation and experimentation of physical properties. These principles were real before you discovered them, correct? Bear in mind that Logic and deductive reasoning are simply terms to define reality. Reality and its conclusions are what they are if we decide to deduce its principles or not. Or if we decide to classify them as logical, deductive principles. Its reality first, valid conclusions second. Again, as I stated before, if no thinking person or creature were here it would not change the principles. Was gravity an actuality before anyone discovered it?
So your contention that this is "My logic" or "Your logic', falls by the wayside as an argument, or as a negation of the principles that I have set out.
Your entire position is from incredulity, it's simply an opinion that you have not given proof for, and NO simply saying I use logic and reasoning, just like them scientist do, is not the same as what is done in science.
If you want to define, reality, axiomatic truths and valid conclusions as "skeptical" (incredulity), then be my guest. I will simpy wait for other explanations, which you have failed to provide. Your assertion that these obvious truths are tenative is certainly not a refutation of them. What more could a person do except to point out reality.
Actually I said that the scientist used fundamental principles that allow them to draw at times very valid conclusions, I didnt say that they always use it in a different way than anyone else or religous people If it is done right anyone can use it correctly to form valid conclusions. However, in this instance and the topic at hand, the axiomatic truths are there regardless of how you view them or evaluate them. You will always come to or forced to the same conclusion, regardless the amount of information obtained.
Simply put, deductive reasoning did not bring you to the conclusion that God did it, your own personal belief in God brought you to that conclusion.
Your hung up on terms and phrases. Reality and the existence of things, applied to deductive reasoning brought me to this conclusion, youve got it exacally backwards. Its all the same principles everyone uses in everyday walks of life. I dont have to experience being hit by a bus to know or understand all of the principles, to know it will hurt. Observation of reality and simple understanding allow me this priveledge. My belief in a creator comes from reality then reason.
YOUR logical conclusion just to give it some validity, but we can all see right through that bs. Science does not limit themselves to deductive reasoning, and for a FACT, theories aren't given validity because they drew their conclusions only with logical reasoning.
As I read your comments, it reminds me of a person that, however they came to be unable to physically walk, trying to do physical therapy to show them how to walk again. Remember, Its Reality and truths in reality along with deductive reasoning together to form as in this instance, irresistible conclusion, void of opinions or beliefs.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by onifre, posted 10-08-2008 1:38 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Vacate, posted 10-10-2008 8:01 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 260 by Stile, posted 10-10-2008 11:23 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 261 by onifre, posted 10-10-2008 1:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 254 of 304 (485628)
10-10-2008 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Dawn Bertot
10-10-2008 3:35 AM


A larger list
While you have been arguing "at" my position I would like to point out to the rest of the class that you have failed to provide another explanation in the area of possibiltes for the existence of things besides the only two.
Before I went to raise my hand I wanted to first see what your option was. Do I have your possibility summed up correctly here:
Bertot in message 245 writes:
Go Bible, go Bible, go Bible, go Bible, wag you head back and forth and move your shoulders while singing that diddy
Quite a narrow viewpoint. So I will raise my hand.
A large list of dieties. Add each and every one of them to your "two possibilities for the existance of things". Why so picky?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-10-2008 3:35 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-10-2008 8:58 AM Vacate has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 255 of 304 (485635)
10-10-2008 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Vacate
10-10-2008 8:01 AM


Re: A larger list
Vacation writes:
Quite a narrow viewpoint. So I will raise my hand.
A large list of dieties. Add each and every one of them to your "two possibilities for the existance of things". Why so picky?
So your main argument is that your are not denying the very real possiblity of a deity, that a diety is a valid explanation for the existence of things and it should be included as a valid explanation of things in the classroom, concerning the Origins of life in the universe. Oh happy day.
Some nitwit, bubbleheaded judge, notwithstanding, eh.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Vacate, posted 10-10-2008 8:01 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Vacate, posted 10-10-2008 9:28 AM Dawn Bertot 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