If you're going to stay then this thread *does* have a topic. I believe you were arguing that there are matters beyond what science can fathom that can still be shown true, and that you were going to try to do this concerning intelligent design.
Concerning the other stuff like your military service and threatening to settle things physically, Coffee House would be a better venue for that. Threads can be opened over at Coffee House without having to propose them first in Proposed New Topics.
Just to clarify. I reviewed my remarks and am pretty sure I never said anything like "settle things physically".
Really? You said:
taiji2 in Message 589 writes:
In the army I was in, being called a candy ass, especially if called that by some REMF (Rear Echelon Mother Fucker) usually led to further discussion. We can go there if you wish. Come visit me in my town.
Concluding evil from simple disagreement is to give in to the inner prejudices that are part of the human condition. We disagree with you, nothing more. The consensus here seems to be that you're unable to muster any effective arguments for your position, and the eagerness and alacrity with which you avoid the topic by latching onto any digression, no matter how minor, endorses that view.
Whenever you're ready to discuss your views on showing true that which is outside the purview of science and has no evidence to examine, we're still here.
You can't be serious. There's your digression into your military service, for one big one. No one can seem to haul you back out of the digressions. In almost every one of my most recent messages I've asked you to return to discussion of the topic, to no avail so far.
When you say "we disagree with you", I can read that as a statement that you speak for all others on the forum. Is that what you are saying?
I'm saying that the other participants in this thread disagree with you concerning the topic, and that's all there is to it. You misinterpreted disagreement as hostility and then proceeded on to be as disagreeable as possible.
I have spoken to the obstacles I have found in presenting arguments on this forum. In a forum of honest debate, I might or might not be able to do so. In a dishonest debate there is no chance at all. There has been no opportunity to find out one way or the other whether my arguments might be valid.
I don't think there's much to gain from casting accusations like this. You've chosen all on your own to refrain from arguing your position over the past few days. Supposedly that's what you're here for, so that's what I suggest you do.
This is a response to Taiji2's Message 18 over at the taiji2's complaint thread. I'm responding here because it wasn't really on-topic there.
You keep coming back to this thing called evidence. You say I have no evidence. I say evidence is all around me.
It wasn't me who said you have no evidence, it was you. I've explained this several times before. You claim there are things that can be proven that are outside science's ability to detect. Since science can detect anything apparent in some way to our senses (either directly or through instrumentation or through its indirect effects), there's nothing left for you to detect that science can't detect. Anything that is part of reality but that can't be detected by our senses is forever outside our ability to know anything about, including whether it even exists.
Who gets to define evidence? You? If that is your answer, I deny you that right.
Taiji2, you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty understanding the nature of discussion. You gave your arguments and evidence, so I responded with what I view as their weaknesses. You're supposed to respond with what you view as the weaknesses in my response, and then I respond to you, and so forth. Your incessant macho challenges like, "Who gets to define evidence? You?" are the biggest obstacle to constructive discussion in this thread.
As has been mentioned before, the definition of the word why is not limited to the one you give it. And if we make the restriction you are insisting on, then all questions are how questions.
I'm mostly just trying to follow along in this discussion you're having with RAZD, but I thought I'd add my two cents. The way I see it, most words have more than one meaning and more than one sense in which they can be used. Sometimes someone asks "why" and wants to know the reason or purpose, e.g., "Why did you hit me?" Other times they want to understand the causes or mechanisms, e.g., "Why did the plane crash?" If I've been reading you right then I think we agree that one can't assign a single approach to interpreting "why" questions.
I don't see any way to approach RAZD's responses as saying anything other than that "why did the plane crash" is not an appropriate question if the answer you are looking for is something like engine failure or pilot error.
That's what I thought RAZD was saying. Makes no sense. Words have multiple meanings. "Why did the plane crash?", "What caused the plane to crash?", "How come the plane crashed?", they're all the same question.
As you suggest, 'why', 'what for', 'how come', 'by what cause or agency', 'by whose say so', 'for what reason', 'explain the incident in terms of God's plan for man' are all questions that we might intend when we ask 'Why?. But those questions are not synonyms, and in some cases one or more of those alternatives are not even in play.
As best we know, true accidents do occur, non-deterministic processes do exist, humans have free will, hurricanes obey natural laws, and bears do defecate in the woods without getting a hall pass. Not everything can be tied to volition or plan. When such is the case, the why obviously refers to something else, and it is no lack or limitation when one method or another does not answer an inappropriate question.
Yes, that about covers it.
I can also agree with RAZD that "why questions should have why answers just as how answers are for how questions," with the stipulations that why questions can be stated without the word "why," and how questions can be stated without the word "how."
'Fraid you've lost me. The only thing I can contribute to this discussion is that words have no fixed meaning. I may not know what someone means, but if they're saying that a word always means the same thing then I'm pretty sure they're wrong.
I still feel I'm not getting you, you may be slicing the onion too thin for me, but what you say reminds me how difficult it can sometimes be to be unambiguous, especially with someone with radically different views.
And that his insistence that the "why" questions must be ones of ultimate purpose is just Begging the Question.
Am I not correct?
I don't know if you're correct relative to RAZD because I don't understand his position. Is he perhaps dividing questions into two types, why and how? And is he saying that regardless how a question is worded, that it is one or the other? If so, that would mean that "How come he had to die?" would usually be a why question, while "Why did the plane crash?" would usually be a how question.
But I don't really know. I was having trouble following the discussion. NoNukes brought me part of the way up to speed, but he has nuances I don't get.
That helps, so I guess I can say this about my own stance. When talking to those who divide existence into the mundane and the intangible, I would tend to assume that questions about the mundane are how questions, while those about the intangible are why questions. It won't always be clear from context whether a question is mundane or intangible.
When talking to those who prefer to view reality as a continuum from the well known to the completely unknown, I would tend to assume that they see all questions as how questions, it's just that some questions invite more speculation than others.
An aside: this isn't something I've ever given much thought to, so I invented terminology on the spot (e.g., mundane and intangible, etc.). Suggestions welcome.