|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God says this, and God says that | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: It isn't all that hard then is it? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: It doesn't matter. My argument doesn't rest on the extreme nature of anything, whatever that thing may be. You are the one who brought that up.
quote: ummmm.... it is an argument from authority. It rests on the idea that "most people believe.... " How is that not an argument from the authority of public opinion?
quote: Rare makes no difference. Use a stick of gum instead. Use anything. The object doesn't matter. I just thought it was more convincing, and appropriate, to have someone look for something of value rather than something like a paper football.
quote: It doesn't make any difference. The key element is the claim that 1) the diamond or 2) God, exists. It is the claim that is under attack.
quote: Can't argue there. But probability isn't the issue. The issue is the claim that God exists. In that respect, both claims are identical. The inability to even calculate a probability makes the situation worse for God. My diamond analogy is actually slightly weighted towards your side. Even at that, it is pretty obvious that that believing I have a diamond which I refuse to produce is patently absurd. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Like I said, gene. It isn't that hard then is it? It is funny though that I am the one who thinks that we ought to be able to accumulate enough statistical evidence for God to, if not prove it, at least bring it into the realm of rationality. While you insist it cannot be done. Why is that? Are you more afraid of the result than I? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The issue is who is claiming that the study has no validity. Scientist? Nope. Congress. This is inappropriate.
quote: So reword it. Congress has dismissed a properly done study not for scientific reasons, but due to political, religious and emotional implications and reactions. This is censorship. Period.
quote: Well, of course. I'd call for independant analysis too. THIS IS THE PROPER COURSE OF SCIENCE. And this isn't the issue. That Congress took the role of peer review board and then judge, jury, and executioner is the issue. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: This hard empiricism is no better for your belief. Are you sure you want to go there?
quote: No it isn't. The fact that you can access it is the reason the analogy is faulty. It doesn't track with the claims made by religion.
quote: Sorry. No. I insist that your view of what is inside the box is unfounded, not wrong, and that the fact that it is unfounded is sufficient to make it unreasonable. Why is it that you cannot understand that "ignoring what we don't know" is different from "assuming that we know something for which we have no evidence?"
quote: If it is intangible it isn't male. But you are just making semantic quibbles. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 12-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yeah, you do. Our key adaptation is social structure. Even if you deny that, it would be very hard to avoid society.
quote: Right, and when God's law includes slaughtering sinners the executioner cannot be blamed either.
quote: Wait. Aren't you anti-stereotype Gene? Or is it only a problem when the stereotype offends you? I happen to believe exactly the opposite and that really seems to piss you off. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: And your analogy is not like the claim made by religion about God. Hence it is a false analogy and a fallacy.
quote: What?
John is sitting around arguing with me because he insists that my view of what is in the box is wrong. Is that not me?
quote: Strike me as tautological actually-- id, by definition.
quote: Sure it does. You pulled it out of thin air.
quote: ummmm.... no. The existence of other rocks has nothing to do with the existence of this particular rock in this particular box.
quote: Your version of what is reasonable is essentially "anything that anybody makes up"
quote: Not knowing whether there is a God is not necessary to argue that a particular religion is wrong, or highly questionable. Internal contradictions are quite sufficient for the purpose. Religion and GOD are not the same thing. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The athiest's claim is that: where E = evidence and B = belief "If no evidence then no belief." 1) ~E ⊃ ~BWhich is equivalent to "If belief, then evidence" 2) B ⊃ E Transposition. Christians claim to have belief. 3) B Therefore, there must be evidence. 4 ) ∴ E Modus ponens The christian claim is: "Not evidence and belief" ~E • BAnd that is pretty much the end of it. Now if we merge the two arguments and use the Christian claim as premise #3. Like so: 1) ~E ⊃ ~B2) B ⊃ E Transposition. 3) ~E • B Then seperate #3 4) ~E Subtraction5) B Subtraction You can easily see that premises #1 and #4 give ~B which conflicts with #5. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I doubt I could cut all ties to society. Even so, once a critical number of people becomes hermits and fugitives, the social structure collapses and people start dying. We are simply not built to survive outside a society.
quote: That is a big if... and you have no evidence, as you keep insisting. Consequently, an enormous moral power can be wielded by anyone who can convince people that he or she speaks for GOD. This is the problem.
quote: You are stating what you want to believe. Do you know all athiests?
quote: Really? How is it then that I, a non-theist, disagree?
quote: Yes, it would. Just like your claims about morality are opinions.
quote: hmmm.... I don't believe you. Isn't that what you told me when I said that I am very tolerant of individuals?
quote: And do you really need to have tolerance defined for you again? Lets see. There is a roofing supply house in town. This supply house is run by a man whom we'd probably both label religiously fanatical. Scripture is spray painted on the walls of the store. Religious fliers and books are all over the place. The place is pretty breath-taking actually. It also happens to be the best roofing supply house in town. Do I avoid it because the guy is Christian? Nope. Do I threaten him? Nope. Organize protests? No. And I'd oppose the protests if they were organized. I respect the guys right to push his religion. I buy stuff from him knowing that my money is going to go to his cause. This is tolerance. This is necessary for peaceful cooperative living. But you seem to think it means keeping one's mouth shut. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Symbolic logic ala Irving M. Copi. It is great fun.
quote: Well, that's what tolerance means to me. It is about living together constructively, not about censoring ideas. I have also been working in a Synagog for a couple of months now. I don't go there and hassle people. In fact, if I can catch someone willing to chat, I quiz them on Judaism-- not why do you believe but what do you believe and what's up with the knotted rope around your waist. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 12-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: For an analogy to be valid it has to track the relevant feature of that to which it is supposed to be analogous. Money 1) Gene has cash2) Gene goes to bank 3) Gene deposits money 4) Money is in vault and as such is not directly observable 5) Gene withdraws money God 1) hmmmmm.... No one has ever seen God2) No one has ever seen the supposed bank 3) One has never had God to deposit into the bank which no one has ever seen. 4) God is undetectable. Wow. Got one!!! 5) One cannot test withdraw God from the bank-- ie, one cannot test God. One out of five, gene. That is a pretty bad score.
quote: You are trying to make the whole analogy rest on this one thing. It doesn't. Rather, if you want the analogy to rest on this one thing you have to reformulate it like so: 1) Somebody claims that there is money in the bank, but doesn't know who deposited it, or where the bank is located, or how to get the money back out. The fact that money can be shuffled into and out of the bank screws up your analogy. This isn't direct observation, but I never claimed direct observation was necessary. Inference from data is acceptable.
quote: There is no lack of evidence. The existence of the money can be inferred. I'd accept this with God as well.
quote: It is. All definitions are.
[quote](From Merriam-Webster OnLine, Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary ) reasonable: being in accordance with reason b : not extreme or excessive [/b][/quote] You are really going to claim that unfounded assertions are reasonable.
quote: There isn't anything extreme or excessive about a rock sitting in that box. But the statement, based on no evidence, THAT a rock is sitting in that box, is unreasonable. How can it be REASONABLE when there is NO REASON for the claim?
quote: Reasonable == having reasonUnfounded == not having foundations-- IE, not having REASONS quote: But could be inferred.
quote: Because it could be inferred.
quote: Not really. Founded is based on something, unfounded is based on nothing. Based on nothing is having no reasons. Hence, it is unreasonable. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: It wasn't always so. It didn't become doctrine until 1854. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I've been through this same romp with forgiven. It is interesting to see the same assertions recur.
quote: Actually, I think forgiven quite believes what he says. Any muddling isn't intentional.
quote: If you read forgiven carefully you'll notice how extraordinarily Platonic he is. He treats ideas and concepts as if they were independently existing things. This is the base for his statements that atheists cannot account for metaphysical entities. The catch is that forgiven simply assumes that such entities exist, so the argument is toothless. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: thanks... i am-- a little.
quote: ummm..... if you simply assume, there is no reason anyone has to account for them. It is something you made up. Big deal.
quote: Calling something 'the law of non-contradiction' doesn't make it a thing either. This the the error you make repeatedly -- assuming that concepts that have names are actually things. See your own statement below:
quote: Yes, indeed. Nor is naming something proof that it is a metaphysical thing, yet this is precisely what you insist.
quote: This is meaningless. Either object A is or it isn't. Very profound. The implicit comparison of energy jets associated with super-massive black holes and an artificial analytical system is laughable.
quote: You assume that meta-entities exist, ie. you make them up, and then gloat that you can account for them by making up more stuff? How can you take yourself seriously? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The laws of logic are concepts-- descriptions-- not THINGS. They are derived from our experiences of the world. The underlying physics may be stable, and that isn't looking too good, but the physics isn't the DESCRIPTIONS we have made up to describe them.
quote: ummm.... it doesn't exist. It is a concept we made up to describe the world around us, and it applies almost universally. Almost, but not quite... particle physics has been shooting this myth down for nearly a century. Welcome to the present.
quote: It is you who are attempting a dictionary war. This is precisely what I was pointing out. "We have the word 'logic' so logic is a meta-thingie. We have the 'love' so love is a meta-thingie." Yes? Sorry, but no. Labelling something does not make it exist. A hundred years ago much of physics was based on something called 'ether.' Does ether exist in the meta-world as a thing-in-itself, or was it just a concept that didn't work out well? Applying your logic, ether exists as a meta-thingie. In fact, everything I, or anyone else, can make up exists as a meta-thingie. Its silly. Everything exists, lets go home and play dominoes.
quote: Actually, I said what I said above, that the underlying physics existed but that logic is our invention, like mathematics and language.
quote: If I ever say that YOU made up the laws of logic then I certainly couldn't take myself seriously. But that isn't what I have said.
quote: Indeed you do gloat over being able to account for things which you merely assume exist. It is comical, really. I wish you could get the joke. You just make stuff up and challenge everyone else to account for that stuff. LOL..... This is probably where you got the notion that I accuse you of making up the laws of logic. I accuse you not of making up those laws, but of making them into metaphysical things.
quote: Rational? Make up stuff and challenge everyone to account for it? LOL.....
quote: I'm sorry. Answer the question, BUT ONLY GIVE THE ANSWER FORGIVEN WANTS!!!!! LOL.......................... LOL..................... LOL................. LOL.................... ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024