Just a question...

quote:

---

I couldn't predict what the next logical event should be, but when each new event occurred, the sense of it became clear in relation to previous ones in the sequence. There was a kind of elegance about it that was marvelous.

---

That's a classic post-hoc fallacy, plue selective thinking; source

Putting quotation marks around a word does not change the word's meaning. Stop lying. You used the words "empirical" and "evidence" incorrectly. You have seen multiple agreeing definitions in this thread.And again, if you don't want your beliefs or evidence questioned, don't post them on a freaking debate forum. We tend to take it pretty seriously around here when someone misuses a rather important term. When "theory" means "I have this idea..." instead of the actual scientific definition of the term, we take exception. When someone claims to have "empirical evidence" proving the existence of a deity, we tend to question it. Especially when someone says they have "empirical evidence" that would not convince anyone else. That's a contradiction, itrownot. Stop the idiotic persecution bullshit. We're only posting to you because you keep replying with nonsense like your own personal definition of the words "empirical" and "evidence." If you don't want to discuss anything, then stop posting.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

If you're only trying to convince yourself, it isn't empiricism, it's faith. Evidence has to be communicable. It has to be convincing to somebody else, like a jury.If you failed to communicate what you meant - which is what we've all been trying to tell you - you weren't "clear" except possibly in your own mind.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The only such game is played by creationist rhetorics. They claim that there are two mutually exclusive models: the "creation model" and the "evolution model". So, according to them, every one involved in the issue is either a creationist (described as believing in their young-earth literalist doctrines) or an "evolutionist" (described as atheistic and anti-God). For them to call someone an "evolutionist", one only needs to accept the idea of evolution. However, since most "evolutionists" are also Christians and believe in the Christian God and in divine creation, we encounter the apparent paradox of a very large number of people who are both creationists and "evolutionists". Apparent, because there is no paradox, but rather it is the result of the false and deceptive rhetorics of "creation science". Yet another of their claims that proves to be contrary-to-fact.Now, if you really do have empirical evidence and proof of God and of divine creation, then you need to publish it. You'd make a mint! Creationists have been looking for such evidence and proof for several decades and so far have absolutely nothing to show for it except a mountain of false and deceptive rhetorics. Oh, they'll lie to you all day about having evidence and proof, but the moment you ask to see it they become evasive and when you press them for it they start to snap and snarl and hurl insults at everyone. Exactly like you have been doing.Of course, if you in fact do not have empirical evidence or proof, then you need to face up to it. If you misused the terms, then simply own up to it and explain what you really meant. Unintentionally misusing terminology is not a crime and can be rectified easily. Insisting against all evidence that you used those terms correctly is not the way. And snapping and snarling and hurling insults at those who seek clarification from you is also not the way.And when all you do is snap and snarl and hurl insults at everyone, then please have at least a tiny bit of common courtesy to not act surprise when we don't receive such behavior with smiling approval. Even though the Golden Rule is a Pharisee teaching, that is no excuse for you to ignore it.

nator, my statement may SUGGEST "a classic post-hoc fallacy plus selective thinking" to you, but if you mean to DECLARE it so (as it well appears to me), then I'd say you're committing a common fallacy of your own called jumping to a conclusion, plus a little selective thinking of your own. For example, if my series of events were, let's say, a series of paint strokes, and each stroke appeared at random, but together they finally culminated in a flawlessly executed portrait of a woman, let's say the Mona Lisa, then we would be discussing the mysterious creation of a marvelous piece of art, not a classic logical fallacy. Similarly, you cannot possibly diagnose my experience accurately using such scant information as I have provided. In effect, you have not witnessed the painting. This is the problem: you are trying to explain away a phenomenon that you cannot even describe adequately (because many pertinent details are missing), thus you are committing a serious error in thinking.

quote:

---

For example, if my series of events were, let's say, a series of paint strokes, and each stroke appeared at random, but together they finally culminated in a flawlessly executed portrait of a woman, let's say the Mona Lisa, then we would be discussing the mysterious creation of a marvelous piece of art, not a classic logical fallacy.

---

You wrote:

quote:

---

I couldn't predict what the next logical event should be, but when each new event occurred, the sense of it became clear in relation to previous ones in the sequence. There was a kind of elegance about it that was marvelous.

---

You clearly say here that the "sense" of each unpredictable event became clear to you only after looking back at the previous sequence of events.Such a scenario is pretty much guaranteed to be rife with bias, since the further along you get, the less likely you are to notice when things don't make sense.We humans are hard wired to see patterns, connections, and meaning in and between events and concepts; so much so that we are very, very prone to seeing them when they aren't really there. Numerology comes to mind here.Most of us can quite easily look back at our long or short term lives and make connections between unpredictable events that, in retrospect or even as they happen, seem amazing.But, even if a long series of amazing events happened to you, so seamless as to be described as elegant, why on Earth does that indicate the existence of God?Doesn't that seem rather self-centered?

My "evidence" IS communicable, and my "evidence" IS empirical (again, not scientifically, but descriptively). My "evidence" is not scientific, however, nor would it be admissible in court, I surmise.Perhaps our failure to communication is like this: I've tried to communicate WITH you, you see, whereas you insist that I communicate TO you, you see. Now, if I failed to communicate TO you what I tried to communicate WITH you, well, then that's entirely my fault, of course. Do you see what I mean? No, of course not. Well, then, that would be my fault, too. Please post your next reply accordingly.

So....you like contradictions, and you don't like using words as they're defined. Gotcha.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

It isn't "our" failure to communicate, it's yours. The rest of us on this thread seem to be communicating with each other pretty well. The secret to that, I think, is that we don't each make up our own secret vocabularies. You've tried to "communicate" at me. If you were trying to communicate "with" me, or "with" anybody else on this thread, you'd listen when people tell you where you're failing. Instead, you go into your sackcloth-and-ashes long-goodbye routine.If you have something to communicate, then try harder.If you're going to go, then stop whining and go.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

nator,
Suppose, just prior to the paint strokes occurring (as described in the previous example), you had been prompted (say, by a "still, small voice") to answer the question, "What is your favorite portrait?" and you had answered unequivocally, "the Mona Lisa...THAT is my favorite portrait!" and then, suddenly, the Mona Lisa portrait mysteriously appeared only hours later, what would you say? Would you describe THAT as self-centered? Edited by itrownot, : No reason given.

rahvin,
the contradiction is only apparent. You and ringo are insisting that I conform to your closely guarded glossary of terms, not for the sake of good communication, as you claim, but rather to pretend that others are unable to communicate, and perhaps are bit addle-brained in our thinking as well. You've over-restricted the broader meanings one normally associates with certain words and you demand that all others must abide by your rules, and that's it, take it or leave it. You and your like-minded associates out-number me, by my count so far, by at least 10 to 1 on this thread, so of course you'll insist that I'm not using words as they're defined, and of course your like-minded associates will heartily agree. Gotcha.Edited by itrownot, : edited for clarityEdited by itrownot, : typo

well, ringo, if we're not done yet, we must be closing fast on it. You're sounding a bit snippier now...that's good, I must have finally worn out my unwelcomed appearance with you. Please read my reply to your associate rahvin for my comments regarding the quality of "communications" on this thread.Oh, PS: You said: "The rest of us on this thread seem to be communicating with each other pretty well. The secret to that, I think, is that we don't each make up our own secret vocabularies." Well, I think the secret to that, rather, is that you have a running pack and the running pack mentality that goes with it. Edited by itrownot, : PS added

The question remains, "Is there a Creationist model that explains what is seen better than the current models?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

omg, it's jar, right on cue. "Rosencrans & Gildenstern are dead, right, jar? lol

Don't confuse consensus with a "running pack mentality". I expect the members of the "pack" to be far harder on me than the "opposition" ever is.You'll get further by addressing the issues than by sneering down from your cross.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC