Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God caused or uncaused?
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 106 of 297 (417146)
08-19-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by mark24
08-19-2007 2:47 PM


Re: For the love of reason, slow down mark...
Wait just a minute mark. I was denying that empericism was valid on it's own. Your trick question was this.
mark24:
So your observation of the bible is not evidence it exists?
Now you could have just as easily said, 'any book' or 'a rock', or 'a glass of water'. It so happens you used the 'the bible'.
That was the context of my answer. So I have put in 'a glass of water' in place of 'the bible' to illustrate.
Rob:
My answer to your question above: Not in and of itself no.
My 'observations' (internal consistency)) + 'a glass of water' = internal and external consistency. Empericism (external coherence)apart from philosophy (internal coherence) is invalid because it immediately becomes internally incoherent.
If there is a glass of orange juice, and my perceptions say it's a glass of water, then there is no overall consistency.
Now here is the problem; the key is in knowing what it actually is. And that is dependant upon the authority of our observations. if our internal perceptions are illogical, then we cannot know what it is.
We must assume logic to actually reflect the natural world.
When the two agree we have 'the emperical'. They agree on logical grounds. Our perceptions match the product. As sidelined said, our perceptions must conform to the reality. We cannot change what it is.
I cannot believe you disagree with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by mark24, posted 08-19-2007 2:47 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by mark24, posted 08-19-2007 6:34 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 108 of 297 (417197)
08-19-2007 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by mark24
08-19-2007 6:34 PM


Re: For the love of reason, slow down mark...
Rob:
If there is a glass of orange juice, and my perceptions say it's a glass of water, then there is no overall consistency.
mark24: Yeah, but you said that empiricism immediately becomes internally coherant.
No I didn't. You misread me. We have to slow down. This is critical thinking, so it's easy to miss a step. It's no big deal...
You quoted me in your own reply here: http://EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused? -->EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused?
I said:
Empericism (external coherence) apart from philosophy (internal coherence) is invalid because it immediately becomes internally incoherent.
And my statement is simply stating the obvious (which is the hardest thing to see sometimes). If you remove internal coherence, you will no longer have internal coherence.
mark24:
It doesn't matter whether you are holding a bible or a glass of water, you just can't tell, it's incoherent logic acording to you.
Wrong!
You can tell only because you have an internal pattern (assuming it is internally coherent) that correctly matches the external pattern you hold in your hand.
Both the item and your own bias are internally consistent. We must meld the two. Then and only then... do we have true empericism ie. tested fact.
The external natural and physical cannot speak. Only the logical pattern can. And that is what we use to interact and ultimately 'view' with.
So the only actaul revelation comes in the form of the logic (or logos / the word). And that of course is assuming that the physical world is logical (and it is as far as we can tell), and that therfore logic is a valid tool to use. As Paul Davies said, that is a theological position. Sorry mark24, but that's what it is.
Now... what happens if you have an internally coherent pattern, and an externally coherent pattern (and let's face it... the external world is assumed (because of our own philosophical assumptions) to always be coherent even though we cannot ultimately tell for lack of technology and information) but the two do not meld into agreement?
We no longer have empericism... we have theory and theology.
mark24:
Like I said, you are hoist by your own petard.
Don't hang me yet...
mark24:
As far as you are concerned, the notion that the bible exists is internally incoherent & your argument vanishes in a puff of your own illogic.
That's not what I said mark... who's hanging who here?
I never said that because I can hold the Bible in my hand that such evidence is internally incoherent. I said, that without my own internal pattern that agrees btw... that I have a book (and the whole book concept and all).
So the agreement of the two is sufficient evidence to believe that I know what a book is, that it is real, and I hold it in my hand.
You an anglagard are totally jumping the gun here. You're far too eager to entrap me and help me hang myself, and therefore do not here a word I am saying.
Your internal bias, does not match the external pattern. ie. you are in error.
I've been wrong too (a whole bunch of times) so it's no big deal. I certainly wouldn't say you're hanging yourself.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by mark24, posted 08-19-2007 6:34 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by mark24, posted 08-20-2007 5:49 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 109 of 297 (417223)
08-19-2007 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by sidelined
08-19-2007 5:41 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Sidelined:
Philosophers suppose while scientists test and that is an enormous distinction.
And testing is supposed to be valid (a philsophical premise). You keep missing that part.
Beyond expanding on what I just said, the rest of your post is essentially answered here: http://EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused? -->EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by sidelined, posted 08-19-2007 5:41 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by sidelined, posted 08-20-2007 7:57 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 112 of 297 (417330)
08-20-2007 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by mark24
08-20-2007 5:49 AM


Re: For the love of reason, slow down mark...
Rob: I never said that because I can hold the Bible in my hand that such evidence is internally incoherent.
mark24: Yes you did.
{Rob: Empericism (external coherence)apart from philosophy (internal coherence) is invalid becaue it immediately becomes internally incoherent.}
You empirically have evidence that you are holding a bible in your hand, you can feel it & touch it. This is empiricism.
And it matches the philsophical construct internally.
When I said, 'invalid becaue it immediately becomes internally incoherent.', meant as a new and combined whole formula.
To know emperically that I have abook in my hand, takes both an understanding of the concept, plus the physical thing itself, and their agreement.
Only then can I know that books exists, and that it is indeed a book.
It wouldn't do any good scientifically to know that 'something exists'! That is the minimal philosophical understanding we can have.
My 14 month old daughter knows that something exists, but she doesn't emperically believe in much. It's mostly a mystery to her...
mark24:
Empiricism is internally coherant or it isn't. You say it isn't, so any attempt to make statements about the world via your own senses is internally incoherent.
I thought we were on the same page... I have not explained myself well enough?
Let's try again...
The natural world is assumed to be coherent, but it is external to our biases. Our philosophical constructs are assumed to be neither unless... when we add the external world, to our perceptions of reality, and they agree... then we have the emperical.
As far as we know, our logical inferences are valid when the two, internal coherence (our philosophical construct) + external coherence (the actual construct) + their matched agreement = emperical fact.
Any belief to the contrary is strictly unemperical.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by mark24, posted 08-20-2007 5:49 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by mark24, posted 08-20-2007 5:37 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 113 of 297 (417333)
08-20-2007 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by sidelined
08-20-2007 7:57 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
sidelined:
Testing is not supposed to be valid, it is demonstrated to be valid and that is the difference.
Tested with what sidelined? The only test that ultimately applies is the law of non contradiction.
We must have a coherent philosophical construct of the actual entity being observed, and add that to the pattern of the actual entity. When there is a match and agreement between the two, we then have 'total coherence' and a system.
It then becomes 'emperical' fact.
If there is incoherence of the total system, then our philosophical bias must be assumed to be (at least) partially false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by sidelined, posted 08-20-2007 7:57 AM sidelined has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 116 of 297 (417407)
08-20-2007 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by mark24
08-20-2007 5:37 PM


Re: For the love of reason, slow down mark...
mark24:
Empirical is data derived via our senses, regardless of whether they agree with our internal coherence, whatever that is, or not.
No wonder you can't understand what I am saying. Your using a different definition. I hadn't bothered to look it up myself until now.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=empirical
em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
4 : of or relating to empiricism
Well, now I see your point. I am afraid that this is one of those rare occasions when we're both right.
You're using definition 1.
And I am using definition 2.
So who will be the impartial and objective judge between us?
Since the 4th def. is 'of or relating to empericism', let's look at that one; and in particular, the 2nd of the 3 definitions for 'empericism' which is the closest to your context (the natural sciences).
Empiricism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
2 a : the practice of relying on 'observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences b : a tenet arrived at empirically
So in terms of natural science, 'the emperical' is arrived at (as I said) by coherence between observation and experiment. As I explained to 'Sidelined', the test (experiment) is ultimately one of coherence. It seeks to find out if we have agreement between the parties being tested?
If we only saw with our eyes, what would we say about it?
The fact is, two people often see the same thing, and come to different conclusions or theories about what it is...
The most coherent theory wins, because logic is the only impartial and objective judge, and is the primary foundational assumption for 'science' to begin with. To be scientific is ultimately to be logical (at least that is what the definition should be).
Your eyes are a tool for your mind with which to interpret reality. The cannot interpret it for you. You must think...
"...Unless human reasoning is valid, no science can be true.
It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained eveything else in the whole universe but which made it imposssible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory itself would have been arrived at by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed it's own credentials. It would be an argument which proved no argument was sound -a proof that there are no such thing as proofs- which is nonsense."
(C.S. Lewis 'Miracles', chap 3 'The cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism' pgs 21, 22)
The only proof of anything is ultimately 'logical coherence' surrounding the observation of the entity. Fortunately, we have a physical universe with which to use as mirror to test our hypotheses. But the physical universe cannot speak other than of it's imminently logical and elegant structure. For we have no other means of engaging it.
You forget that you are yourself a part of the structure. Therefore you cannot rely only upon your experience within it to verify objectively where you are. You're in a prejudicial position by definition. You must get outside of the box and test your assumptions.
Now Emannuel Kant said this was not possible... but how can he know without having gone outside to see?
It is an inevitable difficulty, and lewis captures it with straightforward grace.
My apologies if I am not so agile as he...
We cannot trust our senses if they leave us in a position of logical incoherence. The physical world proves itself to be logical. We expect ourselves (and especially others) to be logical.
Which brings me to a fascinating quote. Pay close attention to the bold section.
"The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data, for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
(Watson D.M.S. / Adaptation, Nature, No. 3119, Vol. 124, August 10, 1929, pp.231-234)
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by mark24, posted 08-20-2007 5:37 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Doddy, posted 08-21-2007 12:23 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 118 of 297 (417438)
08-21-2007 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Doddy
08-21-2007 12:23 AM


Re: For the love of reason, slow down mark...
Well it appears I misunderstood you?
Or, your a genius?
That's right, Rob. Even in 1929, they knew that creationism made no sense.
Fortunately for us, 78 years later, we have mountains more evidence, especially from genetics, showing evolution to be true.
Lot's of evidence + wrong philosophy = incoherence. Evidence cannot prove it's own validity. You need a good (or bad) Lawyer to take it, and paint a picture for the jury.
As an aside... did you see this article on artificial life?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070820/ap_on_sc/artificial_life
There is a very interesting excerpt that is close to my heart. And I know it is close to molbiogirl's, nosy's, Matt P's, and Percy's heart too.
Bedau figures there are three major hurdles to creating synthetic life:
” A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply.
” A genetic system that controls the functions of the cell, enabling it to reproduce and mutate in response to environmental changes.
” A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy.
I have a friend. His name is reality. And He loves His Son logic. And logic never lies...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Doddy, posted 08-21-2007 12:23 AM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by mark24, posted 08-21-2007 3:55 AM Rob has replied
 Message 126 by bluegenes, posted 08-21-2007 2:09 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 127 by mike the wiz, posted 08-21-2007 2:12 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 123 of 297 (417481)
08-21-2007 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by mark24
08-21-2007 3:55 AM


mark24:
No evidence & wrong philosophy = incoherence in creationisms case.
We're all using the same evidence mark. It is being interpreted differently.
mark24:
Please define coherence. Specifically internal & external coherence.
Rob:
Lot's of evidence + wrong philosophy = incoherence.
You can answer that for yourself...
In the sciences, how is one theory chosen over another?
I'll simply defer to my previous answer now that you have the benefit of understanding the 'full definitio of emperical:
Rob:
The natural world is assumed to be coherent, but it is external to our biases. Our philosophical constructs are assumed to be neither unless... when we add the external world, to our perceptions of reality, and they agree... then we have the emperical.
Anything less is subjective. We are looking for 'objective' validation and evidence. Science is supposed to be objective right?
As far as we know, our logical inferences are valid when the two, internal coherence (our philosophical construct) + external coherence (the actual construct) + their 'total coherence' and agreement = emperical fact.
So my question to you is relevant, and relates to how we decide which theories are best, when we only have partial coherence between our construct, and the actual construct.
In the sciences, how is one theory chosen over another?
It's not intuitively difficult to follow mark. I have laid it out step by step. You either cannot follow the mathematical formula (which would be idiocy), or you refuse to accept where logic is leading you. I don't think it is the former.
[Evolution is] universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.
Life is incredible...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by mark24, posted 08-21-2007 3:55 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 08-21-2007 10:54 AM Rob has replied
 Message 125 by mark24, posted 08-21-2007 11:41 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 128 of 297 (417560)
08-21-2007 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by mark24
08-21-2007 11:41 AM


mark24:
For clarification, internal coherence/construct is the theory, external coherence is the reality we try to make the internal coherence match to?
That would be sound science yes!
But that is not what you are doing within the 'emperical' definition you are using. It seems to you that you do... but only because very sophisticated philosophers have pulled the wool over your eyes.
The ultimate test is whether our internal bias coheres with the external. Our internal bias will always allign with the evidence by default.
We have to test it...
If they do not cohere, then what do we have?
mrk24:
...creationists ignore it when it doesn't suit them.
See? You understand...
That is the 'philosophical coherence' test that IDer's like myself are talking about. Not so much the internal coherence of the theory, but the philosophical coherence of the philosophy (applied logic), to philosophy (self existent logic) of the entity.
But as it turns out, the shoe is on the other foot. It's not the creationists who ignore what the evidence says. It's the evolutionists who ignore whether or not their philosophical bias matches the philosophy of the evidence.
For example, an evolutionist sees a pattern in the fossil record, the enormous diversity of life from simple to complex, but that is not the pattern, that is only the evidence. How do we account for their unity, in spite of their diversity?
The answers to those questions are the constructs that must be made to cohere.
The IDer's have a more coherent philosophy in terms of a matching pattern.
You've been led to believe that philosophical coherence is a one sided equation. It's not! We interact with evidence by way of logic. We seek consistency, and coherence, by testing.
Their is a 'combined philosophy' (or system) of the logical order of the evidence, paired with the logical order of the philosophical assumption.
Let me explain further, because at this point, it still probably sound to you like I am saying the very same thing. I'm not!
You've been seeing the evidence through a one-sided glass. You've been seeing the evidence through the prism of your own philosophy. Well, even I can do that. But that's not science.
And the establishment has been calling it science since about the 16th and 17th centuries.
Science is by definition philosophical. It is an assumption. It is a dependant and desperate reliance on the credibility of consistency and logic. I believe it is valid so do not misunderstand. I say desperate, only because we cannot directly interact with any entity.
We must rely upon logic.
Our senses are not logical. There is nothing logical about a tree as far as the eyes are concerned. They do not tell us anything about logic. They are tools with which the mind can observe. All of the logical faculties are in the mind. Same with the ears, nose mouth and ears. They are only receptors.
If that was not the case, there would be no need for tests (for logical coherence). You would just look at a thing and say, 'I see'.
And science often does when it confuses 'theory', with fact.
We say, 'What is that'? And then we test and examine. We philosophize (theorize) about possible explainations.
When our philosophy matches the philosophy of the entity, we then have 'total philosophical coherence'.
And this is where the problem lies...
No doubt your first reaction to putting it in this way (which I have been waiting a long time to do) is that physicality isn't philosophy.
Well, I ask you, 'Then what is it?'
Is law philosophical or physical? You can't have the latter without the former. The universe is made of law. Without it, the whole thing would come apart. The only thing that coheres two entities is law. And none of them are physical. We see their effects on the physical, but we cannot see them. We can measure them, and thereby see their logical and mathematical structure relative to other entities and laws. But the are not material.
One thing they are, is logical. The law of non-contradiction appears to be (emperically) a universal language of being itself.
It depends upon some things not changing. Like the physical laws.
And at the quantum level, matter itself disintigrates into nothing but energy and laws that are so incredible, that we cannot be sure of much of anything other than relying upon logic.
But what is energy?
“ There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law ” it is exact so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same. ”
(”The Feynman Lectures on Physics)
So we fall back on our desperate dependance upon scientific (logical)assumptions taht originate in a worldview that there actually is order to be observed. That it is ultimately orderly and logical. If we didn't, we couldn't know anything as fact.
Fortunately some things do not change. If they did, we would without a reference point, be entirely lost and none of our reasoning would ammount to anything but a puff of air.
So what is it that holds the physical universe together?
Logic / logos / the Word.
God spoke it into existence with the language of logic.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by mark24, posted 08-21-2007 11:41 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by mark24, posted 08-23-2007 3:20 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 129 of 297 (417561)
08-21-2007 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by mike the wiz
08-21-2007 2:12 PM


Re: For the love of reason, slow down mark...
mike the wiz:
Nice one.
I didn't invent it. I just changed the terms into modern secular usage. Not that they care.
But Percy did ask me in another thread do it that way. The Biblical language is so passe' you know?
You know to whom the credit belongs my British brother. But thanks...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by mike the wiz, posted 08-21-2007 2:12 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 130 of 297 (417579)
08-23-2007 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by jar
08-21-2007 10:54 AM


Re: You just misrepresnting things again Rob.
jar:
The quote is saying nothing about life being incredible, it says that Special Creation is incredible, using the definition of incredible to be unsupportable, incorrect, false, wrong.
As is evolution...
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything.
(Richard Lewontin “Testing the Theory of Natural Selection” Nature March 24, 1972 p.181)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 08-21-2007 10:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 08-23-2007 10:44 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 134 of 297 (417699)
08-23-2007 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by sidelined
08-23-2007 7:42 PM


Re: Chain of reasoning
Sidelined:
This is a critical difference because in testing the phenomena we learn to understand what can be said about them rather that saying something about them and not checking upon the validity of the statement made.
Can you provide an example of an evolutionary fact, that falls into this catagory of testable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by sidelined, posted 08-23-2007 7:42 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Omnivorous, posted 08-23-2007 9:34 PM Rob has replied
 Message 169 by sidelined, posted 08-25-2007 12:08 PM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 136 of 297 (417706)
08-23-2007 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by jar
08-23-2007 10:44 AM


Re: Yet more misrepresentation.
jar:
I'm not sure where you get your information, likely from Biblical Creationist sites
Richard Lewontin fully supports the TOE and you can find one of his responses to the many attempts by the Biblical Christians to misrepresent his position
I know that he does jar... and that is why it is so effective for those able to comprehend logic. At least he is honest.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
(Richard Lewontin "Billions and Billions of Demons")
jar:
The topic is "God caused or uncaused?"
Evolution is totally irrelevant to that question.
Why don't you just let the subject develop? I will get to how this relates to reality being caused or uncaused soon enough... You're going to love it...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 08-23-2007 10:44 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by jar, posted 08-23-2007 9:49 PM Rob has replied
 Message 139 by Omnivorous, posted 08-23-2007 9:53 PM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 138 of 297 (417712)
08-23-2007 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Omnivorous
08-23-2007 9:34 PM


Re: Chain of reasoning
Omnivorous:
How about the inheritance of characteristics?
Or the occurrence of mutations?
Adaptation to a dying environment and ecosystem? That proves devolution, not evolution.
How do you explain the DNA they must have to do these things in the first place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Omnivorous, posted 08-23-2007 9:34 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Omnivorous, posted 08-23-2007 9:55 PM Rob has replied
 Message 142 by Omnivorous, posted 08-23-2007 10:02 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 141 of 297 (417716)
08-23-2007 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by jar
08-23-2007 9:49 PM


Re: And still more misrepresentation.
jar:
Don't you ever get tired of misrepresentation and slight of hand games?
Logical fallacy: Complex question.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by jar, posted 08-23-2007 9:49 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 08-23-2007 10:12 PM Rob 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