|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Questions for Atheists | |||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
If Jack the ripper had no reason to kill his victims, he wouldn't have killed them. This means that it is possible to get no physical cause and effect, without a motivational cause. I'm sorry, but what the hell is "reason" and "motivation"? (assuming for the latter that the noun naturally follows from your adjective - difficult to tell as I have no idea what it is)
The attempt to drag me into the semantics you're wallowing in semantics - no one needs to drag you there...
If NO X then no cause Y and effect Z. This is logically correct because physical causes and effects can't NECESSARILY happen without a motivation. What?
Instead of stating that I am incorrect, first understand what I am saying. Try for coherence rather than word-salad, and we might have a chance...
It is clear that I am correct. Yep, clearly Please give up the layman philosophy - it really hurts the eyes... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Any claim about the origins of everything that is will be pretty big don't you think? Besides, "just a chance consequent"? Who claimed that? It merely follows, as there would be a lack of intention. Ofcourse, chance has to be assumed to operate outside of this universe, which is not a guaranteed assumption. As for purpose, refer to my post to rhrain, we do not need to use the term, as I am referring to Aristotle's use of a motivational cause.
Who said motive was an important consideration? Why do we need to consider motive in something like planetary formation? Once again, you are adding unnecessary entities to the explanation. Think deeply about the following; Why do we need to consider socks becoming clean in a washing machine? It's just a coincidence because they are in an environment of watery soap where they are violently thrown around, ofcourse there is no purpose in this physical process, other than that of cause and effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Your post had no content, try again.
If you can't understand me - why do you leap to the conclusion that I am incoherent. I have spoken plainly - if you don't understand me, then perhaps you should just not respond. Jack the ripper killed for a motivational reason. If he wsn't nuts, or high on violence or whatever, he wouldn't have followed with the physical causes that followed. The physical causes are obvious, he took a knife, ripped, strangled, etc. The physical cause was the thrusting of the knife, the motivational cause was the reason he done it. What else is there to not understand without me using hand-puppets?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I am finished with the futility of trying to explain my thoughts.
I am well aware that people are capable or reading what I say and understanding it. I do not go along witpeople being deliberately obtse. Refer to messgae 90 in this thread, fro kindergarten explanation of obviously correct observations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Yes, nice A-level psychology examination of jack the Ripper. Great. Now what the hell does this have to do with the creation (or not) of the Universe? Words like reason and motivation are very simple to use around humans as they help explain impossibly complex neural interactions that most have no hope of understanding. How can you be possibly be so naive to think that they naturally apply elsewhere? How much anger, embaressment, empathy, and love is there in F=ma, for example?
You know, a few years ago, I'm fairly sure your posts made some sort of sense. Now it looks like one to many 'shrooms in the tea. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Message 90.
I shown a process that was without motivational cause. That was thunder and lightning. I only have to prove one motivational cause exists within the physical universe, rather than JUST natural processes. If our parents merely had sex, there was only physical causes. If there was a decision to have us, then without that decision we would not exist. You are clever enough to understand this!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
You know, a few years ago, I'm fairly sure your posts made some sort of sense. Now it looks like one to many 'shrooms in the tea. Ha. It would explain a lot. If it helps I am happy to admitt that I could be talking a load of bollocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
mike the wiz writes: Granny writes: "just a chance consequent"? Who claimed that? It merely follows, as there would be a lack of intention. It does not follow. Effect may require cause, but it does not require motivation and any use of such terminology is obfuscatory. The point I am trying to get across here is that an explanation which is a combination of chance and immutable physical forces is very far from the picture paint of "just chance" being the materialist's explanation. It's not true.
Ofcourse, chance has to be assumed to operate outside of this universe, which is not a guaranteed assumption. Er, why? What is outside our universe cannot be usefully speculated upon. Dragging such imponderables into an argument is a very clear cut case of a lack of parsimony. You are doing a bang up job of confirming Dawkins' claims about the unparsimonious nature of arguments for God.
As for purpose, refer to my post to rhrain, we do not need to use the term, as I am referring to Aristotle's use of a motivational cause. You introduced talk of purpose mike and unless you can explain how "motivational cause" applies to evolution and not lightning, or how talk of "motivational cause" (I think you mean "final cause") adds anything tangible to our understanding of an event like planetary formation, it remains an extraneous entity, just waiting for the swoop of Occam's Razor, Aristotle or no Aristotle.
Think deeply about the following; Why do we need to consider socks becoming clean in a washing machine? It's just a coincidence because they are in an environment of watery soap where they are violently thrown around, ofcourse there is no purpose in this physical process, other than that of cause and effect. I'm sorry, but it is not possible to think deeply about that. It's just too shallow. It's a terrible metaphor. You pick something that we all know is human-designed and human-made for a human purpose. The only purpose it has is the purpose put into it by a human mind. You then compare it to a range of non-human phenomena, where no mind or conciousness can be observed in the process. It's a completely false comparison. Humans have minds. Minds create motivations. Rocks floating through space don't have minds, yet they seem to be perfectly able to form into planets, without any kind of motivation, in much the same way that a pebble will fall to the ground without any kind of motivation. Why should a planet forming under gravity require concious intent, but (presumably) not a falling pebble? What is it that allows thunder to happen without motivation, yet requires a motivation for evolution? Unless you can actually point to some evidence of a conciousness at work, by some method other than the completely circular ones you have employed so far, any talk of "motivation" is meaningless. Perhaps you should be posting on Syamsu's thread, with his evil toothbrushes and optimistic egg-cups... "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Purpose of motive has been proven to exist in the physical universe. I refer to a "extra cause" being present within an event. If Jack the ripper had no reason to kill his victims, he wouldn't have killed them. This means that it is possible to get no physical cause and effect, without a motivational cause. Conscious sentient beings do indeed have motivations. Including J the R. Nobody is disputing that. However it then takes a massive and unjustified leap of faith to conclude that physical processes that do not involve sentient beings also have such "motivations". Unless you are claiming all physical proceses from tidal waves to leaves falling to radioactive decay are the result of such motivations it would seem that we have numerous examples of non-sentient physical proceses that lack motivation and no examples at all of any that do. Are you claiming all physical processes are the result of motivation?
This is logically correct because physical causes and effects can't NECESSARILY happen without a motivation. This doesn't prove the universe has motivational cause but for all we know, the universe might not be able to happen without motivational cause. Do you have any examples of physical processes that do not involve living organisms that definitely are the result of motivation in your view?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
It's a terrible metaphor. You pick something that we all know is human-designed and human-made for a human purpose. The only purpose it has is the purpose put into it by a human mind. You then compare it to a range of non-human phenomena, where no mind or conciousness can be observed in the process. It's a completely false comparison. Thanks for explaining my analogy. Now the creator of the analogy will explain it properly. It is ofcourse known that washing machines are created by humans. The point is that if we are only presented with the physical causes, then it is not possible to say; "It's a completely false comparison". You infact can't conclude that it is false without assuming there is no motivational cause involved. You can only argue there isn't one, when to many it is painfully obvious that the brilliant lifeforms show there is one, and the order in the universe. That this isn't convincing to you is irrelevant to the plain facts. Logically you can't technically assume a motivational cause or a lack of one. So that leaves Dawkins talking bullshit, however much you dislike the fact. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Unless you are claiming all physical proceses from tidal waves to leaves falling to radioactive decay are the result of such motivations it would seem that we have numerous examples of non-sentient physical proceses that lack motivation and no examples at all of any that do. Of which I never said contrary. Time to go back and read properly. I require one proof of a motivational cause in order to prove that one is possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Unless you are claiming all physical proceses from tidal waves to leaves falling to radioactive decay are the result of such motivations it would seem that we have numerous examples of non-sentient physical proceses that lack motivation and no examples at all of any that do. Of which I never said contrary. Time to go back and read properly. I require one proof of a motivational cause in order to prove that one is possible. So we have an almost infinite number of examples of physical processes that are not the product of motivation. And no examples of processes that are a result of motivation in the absence of sentient living organisms. Yet you conclude that we have no reason to doubt that physical processes that occur in the absence of sentient living organisms are the product of motivation at all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
It is ofcourse known that washing machines are created by humans. The point is that if we are only presented with the physical causes, then it is not possible to say; "It's a completely false comparison". It is, simply because we can both accept, through observation that washing machines have been built for a purpose. We cannot know and, vitally, do not agree that, planets or biological organisms have a purpose. We are not privy to their conception, design and utility in the way that we verifiably are in the case of your washing machine. That's what makes the analogy so poor. Further, washing machines, even if we had never seen one before, have a clear purpose; washing things. The same cannot be said of planets, rocks or creatures. What is the purpose of a lump of sandstone? A bush baby? A tsetse fly? What is it for?
You infact can't conclude that it is false without assuming there is no motivational cause involved. No, for much the same reason as above. In one case, we absolutely know that motivations were involved. In the case of natural phenomena, this is not known, can only be speculated about, is completely without corroborative evidence and, fatally, adds nothing to our knowledge of the phenomenon under consideration, rendering it redundant.
You can only argue there isn't one, I chose rather to argue that there is no reason to believe that there is no "motivational cause" and, in the absence of evidence, it is most logical to (tentatively) believe that there is none.
when to many it is painfully obvious that the brilliant lifeforms show there is one, and the order in the universe. Yeah, and it's painfully obvious to David Icke that the Earth is ruled by alien shape-changing lizards. What is obvious to you is irrelevant to any discussion of what is actually real, as is the popularity of your chosen delusion.
That this isn't convincing to you is irrelevant to the plain facts. Then why, if you understand the fallacy involved in this line of reasoning, do you, as shown above, indulge in it yourself? I never had the cheek to claim that you were wrong because it was just obvious.
Logically you can't technically assume a motivational cause or a lack of one. What?! You said, in Message 90;
mike the wiz writes: An example of physical causes alone would be thunder and lightning. These two statements are directly contradictory. You are lecturing others on logic whilst showing a complete inability to maintain a coherent argument.
So that leaves Dawkins talking bullshit, however much you dislike the fact. What I dislike is a circular argument based upon unfounded assumptions. What I like is Occam's Razor. You should try it some time, it works wonders. Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
mike the wiz responds to me:
quote: But that's just it: You have never defined it. You have tried to give examples, but every one you have has been demolished.
quote: What is this "purpose" of which you speak? Be specific.
quote: Then why do you keep bringing it up?
quote: And yet, the Casimir Effect proves this to be wrong. You can get something from nothing.
quote: You're confusing psychology with physics. What do you mean by "motivation"?
quote: Perhaps, but it is not my burden to show that it doesn't. You're the one claiming that it has one, therefore it is your burden to show that it does. If it can be shown that it is not necessary, then your burden becomes that much harder. This requires you to define "motivation."
quote: That requires you to define your terms. What do you mean by "motivation"? It appears that all you've done is shift one undefined word, "purpose," into another one, "motivation." What do you mean by these terms?
quote: So you're nobody? "Purpose of motive has been proven to exist in the physical universe." That's what you said. Now you're saying that it isn't required. So which is it? It would help if you would define what you mean by "purpose" and "motivation." And perhaps you'll be the first to answer my question: Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
mike the wiz writes:
quote: You do realize that Aristotle has long since been refuted, yes?
quote: Because we can see it happen right in front of our eyes.
quote: Huh? It isn't coincidence. It's physics. It happens all on its own, though. Or are you saying there is nothing that happens on its own? Please be the first to answer the question: Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
quote: What do you mean by "purpose"? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024