|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The problem with EVC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
If the FSM were equivalent to God the satire would lose its point rather, don't you think? The question is whether the two can be distinguished. If they can't, it's a mere trival name change. If they can be distinguuished in the sense that FSM is not the creator, then FSM is an extraneous entity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
You're missing the point, rr. And all those people who are trying to explain how the FSM is equivalent to God are missing the point too. The FSM is a satire on ID, not on God or religion. A being, FSM, is being analogized in satirical fashion with another being, God. If FSM is the Designer (the creator), then he's just another name for God. If FSM is not the Creator, then what does FSM do? When I asked this of Crashfrog, he said "Where do you think all those spaghetti and meatballs come from?" Is that the same type of question as, "Where did the universe come from?" In order for the analogy to work, there has to be the same degree of uncertainty in regard to speghetti and meatballs, if that's what FSM does, as there is in regard to the origin of the universe. If FSM is a being that arose from nature, rather than the creator, then he is logically extraneous. There's no reason for anyone to believe in him. God, however, might be the creator of the universe, so he might not be extraneous. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It isn't necessary to agree with science to understand it. But if you don't understand it then it is mere tilting at windmills to criticize it. Well, I certainly agree with science. I don't discuss science except maybe to ask questions. I discuss philosophy. However, if somebody says that such and such is a FACT, I might like to know what he means by that and how he knows it.
Too many members who confuse casual dismissal of addlepated comments with ill treatment at the hands of snobs. I'm not convinced my ideas are "addlepated." Well, the word has a couple of meanings: (1)confused and (2)eccentric. Eccentric maybe. I don't think they are confused. But I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with me. It was their manner of doing so that I objected to. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given. Statement of basic position: I am a nihilist, which means, in my sense of the word, that life has no objective purpose. This entails a lack of belief in God. My beliefs are tentative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
You seem like a good person to me, and its making me sad that your frustration is so palpable. I hope you aren't feeling too pissed off. Thanks. This thread has been therapeutic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Perhaps someone can explain how this difference of opinion about FSM is indicative of what's wrong with EvC? It's mentioned in the OP. (admittedly, the OP was vaguely stated).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It is because nobody else at EVC will understand that God and the FSM are "logically" the same. Because this is such rigid point of discussion then it derails the whole conversation. If only the rest of EVC knew about "logic" then all of this nonsense would go away. Yeah, I probably shouldn't use that word "logic" anymoe. Maybe I could say, "It seems reasonable to me . . ."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Then you would eliminate everyone always asking you spell out the logic. I do try to spell out why something seems reasonable to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Well, trying to peel the onion here, how is something that seems reasonable to you but not to others a problem with EvC? The problem I was noting in the OP was not receiving replies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
In other words, doesn't it all really boil down to this being harder and more intricate than you thought? Some have been rather vague about this hardness and intricacy. Some just note that I don't understand logic and the like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I wasn't referring to the inherent difficulty of the subject material, which I realize some have concluded you're having trouble with, but to the difficulty of clear communication on complex topics. You believe you're capable of understanding, someone else believes they're capable of explaining clearly, yet it isn't happening. That's because discussion boards are a far from ideal venue for accomplishing this. Even tiny baby steps of comprehension deserve plaudits. Like I implied before, it was the tone of the responses that I objected to rather than the fact that there was a lack of communication. The lack of communication may have been due to my speaking too briefly on the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
But some people ask good questions, some don't. Some ask questions to learn, some just to challenge the answers. Some are thinking about the answers, and some are just asking "why" no matter what the answer. If you are making reference to the questions I was asking on the thread entitled "Evolution Simplified," my goal was to try to figure out if there was something ineluctable about the facts presented in the OP--if, given the nature of the evolutionary process, these facts could be deduced rather than just observed. I mentioned that several times.
I guess I can't really tell where you want to take this topic The OP was written in an emotional state of anger, so initially I just wanted to express my anger. There's nothing wrong with EVC per se. I think there's something inappropriate about a poster's comment that I can't use the common meaning of the word "logic" because he and certain others prefer a specialized meaning. I think that's an example of snobbery. His meaning of the word is the only one that counts; his group is the only group that can think about something logically. The rest of us just have to say that something might be "reasonable." So according to him, I should be banned from using the word "logic" in the common sense, in which it is a synonym for "reason." Perhaps he thinks that I should be banned from expressing myself about these ultimate questions at all. After all, what do I know? Have I a degree in formal logic? Obviously not. ABE: Every man need not be a scientist, but everyone in some sense is their own philosopher. edited for typos Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I don't read all the threads but I don't recall seeing anyone do this. Could you link to some examples? I don't know that I want to start parading examples, but the phrase "world-class university" is a direct quote from one boaster.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
And what do you mean by, 'It's far too political'? The contemptuous chuckling among the in-crowd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I haven't had this much fun since Dark Shadows went off the air. Yeah, I'm having fun too now. I wonder what "research" they are talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
You may want to think that active theoretical research is no more valuable than the man-on-the-street's musings, but shall we compare track-records over the past century? Would the research be to test the hypothesis that God is "outside our timeline"?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024