|
Author
|
Topic: Peanut Gallery
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
(1)
| |
| |
| |
CS writes: I thought that was RAZD's point, to not make a claim about gods, and that Subbie agreed that he would support the position that they don't exist.
Support the position that what doesn't exist? Whatever he had in mind when he claimed that he could support that it doesn't exist.
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
CS writes: Whatever he had in mind when he claimed that he could support that it doesn't exist. So things like the god of Young Earth Creationist biblical literalism then?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
So things like the god of Young Earth Creationist biblical literalism then? From Message 359 quote:
RAZD has proposed a topic that appears to address the question of the existence of gods. His position seems to be that neither the existence nor nonexistence can be supported by evidence, so the only logical position is that of agnosticism. Petrophysics1 has apparently indicated an interest in participating to defend the position that at least one god exists. I would be interested in participating to challenge both positions and in support of the proposition that gods do not exist.
Sounds general to me.
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Ignostic Deism
CS writes: Sounds general to me. What does? Can you provide a definition of this "general" god that Subbie is supposed to have volunteered to refute? Because RAZ couldn't. Which is why that thread stopped and why RAZ's own deistic position is so hilariously incoherent.
Link writes: ignostic (plural ignostics) 1. one who holds to ignosticism. 2. one who requires a definition of the term God or Gods as without sensible definition they find theism incoherent and thus non-cognitive. ignostic - Wiktionary Are those who proclaim themselves to be deists with regard to something which cannot be defined exhibiting "incoherent and thus non-cognitive" beliefs? I would say they are. What do you think?
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
quote:
What did Bluegenes measure and where is his data? What, exactly, would he publish?
According to message 11 the foundation for his initial hypothesis was based on fantasy fiction and mutually exclusive myths. What is required for a good scientific theory? Bluegenes gave two opinions: Message 28Are those valid opinions? He also provided more on the development of his hypothesis: Message 30 Has he not followed the steps necessary to formulate a theory? Message 40
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Ignostic Deism
What does? The way he's using the word "gods".
Can you provide a definition of this "general" god that Subbie is supposed to have volunteered to refute? I just tried, but was unable to read his mind, sorry.
Because RAZ couldn't. Which is why that thread stopped and why RAZ's own deistic position is so hilariously incoherent. Subbie said he would support he position that gods don't exist. He did not do it.
Are those who proclaim themselves to be deists with regard to something which cannot be defined exhibiting "incoherent and thus non-cognitive" beliefs? I would say they are. What do you think? Don't know, don't care.
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Ignostic Deism
CS writes: The way he's using the word "gods". Which was how exactly?
CS writes: Subbie said he would support he position that gods don't exist. He did not do it. If you want Subbie to define the term "god" and then refute his own definition then I have little doubt he is able to do this. But this will have as little objective validity as RAZ defining his own colourful tables, scales and flowcharts and then insisting that his arguments are logically and evidentially sound because they meet the criteria defined by those self defined colourful tables, scales and flowcharts. Self referential circularity gone mad.....
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Ignostic Deism
CS writes: The way he's using the word "gods".
Which was how exactly? You can find the direct quote with a link to the context in Message 1083.
CS writes: Subbie said he would support he position that gods don't exist. He did not do it. If you want Subbie to define the term "god" and then refute his own definition then I have little doubt he is able to do this. But this will have as little objective validity as RAZ... He didn't support the position that gods don't exist like he said he would. That is all.
Moose said to put that capitalism thread straight into the Coffee House. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
xongsmith
Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: 01-01-2009 Member Rating: 6.4
|
Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
purpledawn writes: quote:
What did Bluegenes measure and where is his data? What, exactly, would he publish?
According to message 11 the foundation for his initial hypothesis was based on fantasy fiction and mutually exclusive myths. ....[deletia].... Has he not followed the steps necessary to formulate a theory? Message 40 Not exactly.
- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
What do you think is missing? Can you be specific (and avoid long winded stories about boxes) in your answer.
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Ignostic Deism
Ultimately Subbie was being challeneged to refute a concept that doesn't conceptually exist. This is patently absurd.
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
To bad you didn't elaborate on what was missing. In message 39 of that thread RAZD presented:
RAZD writes: ... The scientific method has four steps 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). Now I'm a beginner, so I look at Dr. Adequate's thread on The Scientific Method For Beginners. Over the past 40 years I have seen hundreds of rodents and I've seen them in every state east of the Mississippi. In all that time, I have not encountered a rodent who speaks a human language outside of human constructs: stories, books, movies, theme parks, advertisements, etc. I've even created a couple myself. I have talked to many living rodents through the years and have received no verbal response. Scientists have used countless rodents for experiments and so far nothing has been mentioned about any of those rodents speaking a human language. Maybe they're shy. So how many living rodents must be questioned to be able to say that talking rodents are a product of the human imagination? What takes it from a hypothesis to a theory?
|
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: 02-04-2008
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 1093 of 1725 (607623)
03-05-2011 10:28 AM
|
|
|
Kaichos Man and Aaron: a Comparison of Creationist
On Animals with bad design., I seem to have stumbled across something kind of amazing. Kaichos Man subscribes to a front-loading/theistic evolution form of Intelligent Design, while Aaron subscribes to a more "special creation" form. Arguably, Kaichos Man's position is more rational than Aaron's (i.e. it's closer to the empirically verifiable reality). However, curiously enough, Aaron's arguments are a lot more rational than Kaichos Man's. This makes me dizzy just thinking about it.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
xongsmith
Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: 01-01-2009 Member Rating: 6.4
|
Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
Straggler writes: What do you think is missing? Not sure. It's *something* . . . like the wind ripping through a tree, alone, facing the ocean's roar in a hurricane. I can just feel the bark peeling....
Can you be specific (and avoid long winded stories about boxes) in your answer? That would be a "No".....
- xongsmith, 5.7d
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1096 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2011 5:30 AM | | xongsmith has seen this message but not replied |
|
xongsmith
Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: 01-01-2009 Member Rating: 6.4
|
Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
purpledawn writes: To bad you didn't elaborate on what was missing. I know...caught up in a whirlwind....
I have talked to many living rodents through the years and have received no verbal response. Scientists have used countless rodents for experiments and so far nothing has been mentioned about any of those rodents speaking a human language. Maybe they're shy. Other than the known litany of sci-fi stories regarding rodents, maybe there is some method of communication that happens so fast in the twitch of a whisker that you didn't see it? Why would they use english?
So how many living rodents must be questioned to be able to say that talking rodents are a product of the human imagination?
What takes it from a hypothesis to a theory? All of them. Or, to put it more succinctly, "What do you mean by this 'talking'? Speaking the King's English? Ah, you heathen natives are so obviously STuPiDissimo...." OKAY. let's get out of the movies.... Hypothesis -> Theory: peer-reviewed confirmation by scientific experiment around the world. See cold fusion's failure.
- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
™ Version 4.2
