|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The ToE dismisses the argument that species must have been created. However that only rebuts an argument for a God, it does not constitute a direct case against the existence of a God.
However, as I have stated,with regard to death and suffering, at most it projects the curent situation into the past and in fact even when the ToE was proposed by Darwin and Wallace there was strong supporting evidence for that idea. Simply recognising that (some) fossils represented the remains of pre-human life and that some of them were predators is adequate to make a strong case that death and suffering preceded human existence. Thus that portion of the argument was already established, before Darwin and Wallace formulated their theories. And according to you that already made belief in God untenable - to people who knew nothing of evolution.t
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If your definitio of nihilism was not crafted to support this sort of argument, why did you praise it for suitability for that task and seem so uninterested in whether it accurately captures the usage of the word ?f
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
If your definitio of nihilism was not crafted to support this sort of argument, why did you praise it for suitability for that task and seem so uninterested in whether it accurately captures the usage of the word I wasn't praising it for suitability to a task: I just thought it was neat and clear. I think one possible definition of "nihilism" is that life has no meaning, no purpose, that morals are arbitrary, etc. I think my definition fits within the range of that broad definition. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-02-2006 05:10 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
No, your definition is much more limited. For a start it only refers to the species, although individuals can be "made" for a purpose. It says nothing about morality or even meaning. So your definition is really very narrow, and avoids the major features of nihilism.
(I, for one, regard morality as culturally shaped intersubjective values built on a biological basis - and although some aspects may be arbitrary, much of morality is not. Thus in that respect I cannot be a nihilist even though I do not beleive that humanity as a species has a formal purpse).n
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
what proof have you that your belief does not come from within? i would argue that that in itself is a matter of faith. but please. prove me wrong. Before I listen to your argument could you prove to me there is an 'I' to argue in the first place. You know you exist, but you can't prove it to me. My 'proof' sits in the same category as knowing I exist - I know it simply because I know it. Proving it to someone else - though at first flush, desirable, is not all that vital to me. But if I am wrong then I cannot know I exist either. As Crash says elsewhere "you gotta get out of bed sometime" and presuming I exist, and that there is an objective reality around me, is that place. My knowing God exists sits above any empirical possibility of proving it just as my knowing I exist sits beyond any empirical possibility of proving it. All I can say is go find out for yourself. If you come to know it then you can attempt to decide for yourself what it is. But the last place you will look in aiding you to decide is empirical proof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: Regardless of whether it is a matter of deduction or what you call revelation, it is still all internal. We begin with an assertion
While you very likely believe that there was a revelation from God, you cannot know that. We continue with an assertion...
You can believe it, believe it very strongly, but there can be no evidence of that external impartation. If God exists, could he impart the evidence to a person that he exists in such a way a person knows that he exists? Patently he can. is there a requirement that such impartation by God must be measurable empirically. Patently not.
There is no such thing as belief from without unless you can provide some way that it can be tested and independently verified. That is a philosopical statement. Who has verified this, empirically. We know that God says that he will come and take up residence in certain people. He didn't say that this would be empirically verifiable. Well he did "by their fruits ye shall know them" But he didn't say how you could separate the sheep from the goats to empirically measure them
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But he didn't say how you could separate the sheep from the goats to empirically measure them Oh, but he did, we've been over that. LOL Belief has nothing to do with Sheep or Goats as you well know. In fact, the Bible says that the Goats will be the believers.
jar writes: There is no such thing as belief from without unless you can provide some way that it can be tested and independently verified. to which iano replied:
That is a philosopical statement. Not really. It's a statement of fact. Until you can provide some evidence that impartation exists there is simply no reason to assume its existence. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Oh, but he did, we've been over that. LOL Maybe we should include Matt 25 alongside Nazism as subjects that are sure to be referred to if a web conversation goes on long enough.
That is a philosopical statement.
Not really. It's a statement of fact. Until you can provide some evidence that impartation exists there is simply no reason to assume its existence. Your simply repeating the same point.
There is no such thing as belief from without unless you can provide some way that it can be tested and independently verified. so I ask again. Were is the verification that empiricism is the only way to determine if things exist or not? Clearly empiricism cannot verify empiricism. That would be circular reasoning {abe} Lets leave it Jar. We're hauling off topic and there aren't many posts left. Reply if you like and I'll read and not respond...here This message has been edited by iano, 03-Feb-2006 12:49 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Were is the verification that empiricism is the only way to determine if things exist or not? That is not at all what I said. What I said is that it is the only way we can know something, verify it. If it cannot be verified, it is but personal belief, nothing more. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
that's not true. i'm sure you could easily demonstrate that the thoughts you have follow the 'response to stimuli' pattern rather than the 'making shit up' pattern. but we'd really have to ask schraf's hubby.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
That is not at all what I said. What I said is that it is the only way we can know something, verify it. If it cannot be verified, it is but personal belief, nothing more. I think what Iano is saying is that the process of verification itself is ungrounded, which is true. We just have to assume that induction is valid. Our logic becomes especially questionable if our world is completely physical. That would mean our thoughts are physically caused. Evolution tells us that our world is completely physical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
I think what Iano is saying is that the process of verification itself is ungrounded, which is true.
The type of verification used within a science is well grounded by the methods of that science.
We just have to assume that induction is valid.
Induction is not valid. Fortunately, science does not require any such assumption.
Our logic becomes especially questionable if our world is completely physical. That would mean our thoughts are physically caused.
What is questionable about that? We are near the end of the second thread on this topic, and you still haven't explained it. Many people think it important that our thoughts are caused -- by us. The opposite to our thoughts being caused by us would be that our thoughts are completely random and arbitrary.
Evolution tells us that our world is completely physical.
No, it does not say anything of the kind. It merely accounts for the physical processes that result in the diverse biology we see. Evolution says nothing at all about the non-physical. As far as evolution is concerned, there could be a complex non-physical world about which evolution says nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
We just have to assume that induction is valid.
quote: Maybe I missed something here, but can someone explain what this means, that "induction is not valid?" You mean it's not valid AT ALL, or in this particular context, or what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
The turkey welcomes the farmer who comes to feed him every day for 364 days. Then, one day in November...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, yes, conclusions from inductive reasoning are always tentative until you apply other tests, but can you explain what is meant on this particular subject?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024