Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 2:42 AM
23 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Pressie, Theodoric (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,109 Year: 9,145/19,786 Month: 1,567/2,119 Week: 327/576 Day: 2/128 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Methodological Naturalism is fallacious
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 31 of 50 (517814)
08-02-2009 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Straggler
08-02-2009 5:24 PM


Re: NOT Designed
How can I give an example of something in nature which is not designer if I believe in a creator of everything? I would expect, however, designs on a level less than human design, given there is not thought behind design, when we assume mutation and selection.

It seems my questions cannot be answered even though I am but one man.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 5:24 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 5:29 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1808 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 32 of 50 (517815)
08-02-2009 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by mike the wiz
08-02-2009 5:12 PM


The designs in organisms, no matter what anyone says, are excellent

What are you now, Mikey the all-seeing Prophet? No Mikey, the functions and form of organisms are wondrous, amazing, staggering, but they are not excellent. And they are only wondrous, amazing, staggering in the context of them arising naturally over millions of years. In the context of a supposed designer, they are piss-poor; they are only just good-enough, and speak very poorly of a designer. Given the time we've had, our computer and automtive industries put your designer to shame.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 08-02-2009 5:12 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 08-02-2009 5:38 PM cavediver has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 33 of 50 (517816)
08-02-2009 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by mike the wiz
08-02-2009 5:27 PM


Re: NOT Designed
It seems my questions cannot be answered even though I am but one man.

So everything in nature is an example of design then?

Well little wonder you conclude a designer is necessary if that is your starting assumption....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mike the wiz, posted 08-02-2009 5:27 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 34 of 50 (517819)
08-02-2009 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Coyote
08-02-2009 5:19 PM


Re: Fallacious
I have spoken to you before about "all the evidence"

I have a red-ball theory, that only red balls are in a bag, and I have so far picked out one million redballs, and no other colours.

hey - guess what> I have just picked out ONE green ball. END OF THEORY. Search "fallacy of exclusivity". nevertheless, I repeat these things to you do I not?

I do not agree that all the evidence fits the conclusion in any way whatsoever. I believe there is evidence for creation and evolution. How can I believe this?

YOU answer me! You think it through - they are not mutually exclusive?.............but why?.....................is it there yet?.............it's because evidence is only something which makes a theory "viable". The term, "confirm" doesn't mean "prove" BECAUSE of the power of the modus tollens. It simply means that if theory X is true, then evidence Y will follow.

The evolutionary evidence is vague, and selective. (assumption of transitionals for example).

You need to think it through more objectively. Remember - I have been evolutionist so I am not our for falsehood, I am out for truth, and will hunt it without mercy. (which meant personal depression for me, and suffering).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2009 5:19 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 35 of 50 (517820)
08-02-2009 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by cavediver
08-02-2009 5:29 PM


LOL.

Was the hover fly example piss-poor. This amazes me about you guys - define "piss-poor" in a fallen world, baring in mind that this "old system of things" is due to pass away?

You have to look to the systems themselves. Dawkins dissected the croc, and shown the extra aorta, and the brilliance of the stomache, but it was handwaved away.

Friend, I don't have the time to give you my book's worth of posts on just how special organisms are.

As for an all-seeing prophet, no, I am ignorant in many areas, obtuse in more areas, confused most of the time, but I have one thing you do not have because the bible says that you are not allowed it because He won't give it to those who do not believe in Him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by cavediver, posted 08-02-2009 5:29 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 08-02-2009 6:17 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15042
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 36 of 50 (517821)
08-02-2009 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mike the wiz
08-02-2009 5:19 PM


quote:

No - the burden of proof is not upon me when design is a truism even evolutionary scientists know of!! The burden is to prove that a designer does not follow.

That has already been shown. By finding a better explanation Darwin showed that a designer did NOT follow.

quote:

Can't you see that the fallacious goes underneathe, and comes out on top. You can't hide it from wisdom. It is there - the conclusion of a none-designer based on naturalist-bias.

Evolution did not win because of bias - it won because it explained the data better than creationism. That it was a natural explanation maybe helped its success within science but it would have been rejected quickly if it did not work.

quote:

Sorry i provoked you - but you say things like, "you clearly haven't thought it htrough", and it annoys me. Why do you feel the need to provoke me to anger, when I know I have thought it through, and that YOU know that I am thoughtful?

Because I don't know any such thing. What I see is that your initial post was based on a serious misunderstanding of what Methodological Naturalism is. What I see is that you responded to correction by declaring it to be "fallacious" for no reason at all. Those aren't signs of thoughtfulness on your part.

I am not trying to anger, you Mike. If I were I would express my opinions with far less restraint.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 08-02-2009 5:19 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by mike the wiz, posted 08-02-2009 5:50 PM PaulK has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6271
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 37 of 50 (517822)
08-02-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by mike the wiz
08-02-2009 5:12 PM


therefore i have no evidence, i have something far greater!

Ok no evidence. Hmm I guess that would make it tough to convince anyone of your argument.

Something greater????

ooo, ooo, I know, I know. Pick Me.

Faith???

What a crock. This is a science forum. Take your evangelism to the faith forums. If you have no evidence you have nothing.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 08-02-2009 5:12 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 38 of 50 (517823)
08-02-2009 5:43 PM


FRIENDS CALM DOWN
CALM down now guys, I am but a man, even though I am irrefutable..

Haha, I know, I know, I am rare, but you cannot expect me to have an answer for everything, afterall, am I omniscient?

This really is my final post, I re-assert message 15. I must stop because the speed of my typing renders my posts incoherent. I have an answer for everything, even though it is a disagreeable one, so I am frustrated that I am limited.

Thanks for the interest,

I am sure you wil, as per usual, enjoy that juicy last word.

Sorry if I got a bit snappy, but people say things on a personal level and I really must stress that I am only out for the exchange of rational information.


  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6271
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 39 of 50 (517824)
08-02-2009 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mike the wiz
08-02-2009 5:25 PM


So you have no evidence. No science, no anything.

As this is a Science forum it is incumbent on you to provide evidence. This is not a place to invoke the old godidit canard.

If that is all you have then start another thread in one fo the faith forums.

There is a biblical explanation known as the "curse" or the "fall".

Not science.

No more feeding the troll for me, unless of course he says something even more glaringly stupid.

Edited by Theodoric, : final line


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 08-02-2009 5:25 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 40 of 50 (517825)
08-02-2009 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by PaulK
08-02-2009 5:38 PM


Darwin infact shown the reduction of information and was humble to do so, I do not believe he would have believed in neo-Darwinism, if he had the knowledge that mutations do not show new designs in part or in full.

Paul, I understand MN, and I enjoy your posts, because on a logical level they are challenging and intelligent, this is why your personal comments are not understandable to me.

You are right - evolution "won", but what is the truth? Do you really believe that animated matter can come about by itself?

Your answer is that incredulity is logically irrelevant. This is true, BUT I know that you know that design is a truism. Exactly why would this not favour a designer? I urge you to re-think it again.

Evolution has won, because sin has won. Even as this world grows worse and worse, because people choose to reject God, when the whole creation clearly shows Him. If it were not so, I would not have told you, but as much as I can know - I do know.

You can trust me because I was the one who was willing to reject God for truth, but I have been shown that mutation, chance, selection, it's all so very weak!

Even NS that Darwin found, reduces and SPECIALIZEs, but what is the difference between "new" and "unique"?

I KNOW you are smart enough to se the difference!

Forgive my evangelism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 08-02-2009 5:38 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 08-02-2009 6:05 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 271 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 41 of 50 (517827)
08-02-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mike the wiz
08-02-2009 5:25 PM


Myths within myths
There is a biblical explanation known as the "curse" or the "fall".

It is as mythical as the flood.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 08-02-2009 5:25 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15042
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 42 of 50 (517828)
08-02-2009 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by mike the wiz
08-02-2009 5:50 PM


quote:

Darwin infact shown the reduction of information and was humble to do so, I do not believe he would have believed in neo-Darwinism, if he had the knowledge that mutations do not show new designs in part or in full.

This simply makes no sense.

quote:

Paul, I understand MN, and I enjoy your posts, because on a logical level they are challenging and intelligent, this is why your personal comments are not understandable to me.

The fact is that you DID misunderstand MN in your initial post. The fact is that you DID dismiss my correction on grounds that didn't even make sense. How can correctly pointing out what MN is be fallacious ?

quote:

You are right - evolution "won", but what is the truth? Do you really believe that animated matter can come about by itself?

Evolution doesn't even cover the origin of life.

quote:

Your answer is that incredulity is logically irrelevant. This is true, BUT I know that you know that design is a truism. Exactly why would this not favour a designer? I urge you to re-think it again.

That life IS designed is jumping to conclusions. I have to ask why, if life is designed, evolution should be so successful at explaining what we see.

quote:

Evolution has won, because sin has won. Even as this world grows worse and worse, because people choose to reject God, when the whole creation clearly shows Him. If it were not so, I would not have told you, but as much as I can know - I do know.

You can trust me because I was the one who was willing to reject God for truth, but I have been shown that mutation, chance, selection, it's all so very weak!


But I can't trust you because I know that much of what you say is false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by mike the wiz, posted 08-02-2009 5:50 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1808 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 43 of 50 (517829)
08-02-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by mike the wiz
08-02-2009 5:38 PM


Just remember Mike, I was a fully paid-up evangelical, sometimes charismatic, 100% born-again Christian for over two decades... I have *seen* with the best of them

The fall doesn't cut it. Why doesn't the albatross have the hovering grace of your hoverfly? Why does it risk its neck every time it tries a landing? Why is this designer so obsessed with designing on the basis of a morphological tree? Does his left hand not know what his right hand is doing? Why is he so piss-boring with his large scale body plans? Why are there no large hexapods? What the fuck is wrong with dragons and pegasi? Our own imagination is a billion times better than his designs...

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 08-02-2009 5:38 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 44 of 50 (517830)
08-02-2009 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
08-02-2009 4:48 PM


WHY, given how brilliant organisms are, should I assume the very great assumption of methodological naturalism?

The reason to assume metaphysical naturalism is so that you can go onto explore possible epistemologies that extend from doing that. From there, a methodology might come about to gather knowledge which would be methodological naturalism. We can then consider the merits of this methodology, its limits, and any flaws with it.

That's why.

You don't have to believe something, to start with an assumption and seeing if doing so can actually answers any questions about reality in a reliable fashion.

The fallacy is that if God's existence cannot be ascertained, you cannot logically conclude that a special creator is OUT.

You don't have to conclude that a special creator is OUT in order to conclude that life can come about through natural processes and that the evidence strongly suggests that this is how life came about on earth.

If I write a theory that I think explains how winemakers make wine, I don't have to logically conclude that Jesus didn't do it with divine intervention.

the difference is that smaller theories do not affect God's existence or lack thereof

Might I call upon your imagination for a moment, sir?

The Germ Theory of Disease. Before then, there were several theories of disease - divine retribution being amongst them.

These theories do not affect God's existence or lack thereof - they instead diminish the necessity for a supernatural agent to be responsible for various phenomenon. So your vision of God is one that is responsible for creating life, so you think this theory directly contradicts your vision of God.

But your understanding of God may be flawed.

Clearly, those that believed epidemics were wrathful expressions of justice from their God - have their God affected by the Germ Theory.

And indeed - the possible God who is responsible for gravity is diminished by relativity, the God that put the earth in the centre of the cosmos is impacted by heliocentrism.

Every theory could impinge on a deity. Evolution and its cousins, are no different - you focus on evolution because it is YOUR God it affects, YOUR God whose biggest/defining miracle is being 'explained away'. A philosophically consistent response is outrage at all scientific theories, or none.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 08-02-2009 4:48 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by mike the wiz, posted 08-03-2009 5:58 AM Modulous has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2355 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 45 of 50 (517839)
08-02-2009 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mike the wiz
08-02-2009 5:25 PM


There is a biblical explanation known as the "curse" or the "fall". You ahve NOT thought about the logical difference between internal consistency and exterior effects.

Pure mythology, told by bronze aged men who knew nothing of the universe, the solar system, the earth or life. Why should your mythology be any better than than that of the Greeks, Romans, Mayans, Norse, Chinese, Hindu or any of the other 1000 or so mythologies.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 08-02-2009 5:25 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019