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.
I found that any topic relevant bit of logic I presented was ignored unless it could be twisted and thrown back with derisive comments.
Your arguments were of low quality. It was easy to expose that what you considered to be logic was nothing of the sort just by asking you a few questions. I asked you repeatedly to discuss the evidence or to provide examples of others who had reached your conclusions using logic and you could not do it.
The dictionary based argument about vegetarians was just plain pathetic.
I conclude that you are just blowing smoke, and that you've now switched topics to preserve some pride. But nothing looks more pathetic than old geezers threatening each other over the internet.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
I found myself in single debate with a raft of hostile responders who issue insults, veiled or open, at almost every turn.
I think I mentioned that I've been in single debate with a raft of these same posters. I think I advised you to just keep shooting. I have never been accused of running away. If anything, I have been accused of always wanting to have the last word. There's always a last word.
I don't think I've been hostile with you nor have I issued insults either veiled or otherwise. You might try to redeem yourself by responding to my posts as I've responded to you.
It is hard to paint without using too large a brush. You have always been civil and I appreciate that. There are others as well, specifically RAZD who proceded in discussion without structuring his comments as if he presumed a fool.
To you and all others I might have forgotten to mention that treated me with civility here, I apologize if my comments seemed to include you. That was not my intent.
And yes, I will not relinquish my right to the last word until all future reference to me or the things I have said has ceased.
The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
I place no value on your opinion of my arguments. Your comments continue to be inflammatory. I choose not to respond further to your brand of incivility.
Edited by taiji2, : changed word provocative to inflammatory.
The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
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 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.
The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
Percy, I have raised the question of dishonest debate in this thread.
Considering this pertinent to whether debate can proceed at all, I think it is relevant.
I agree, however, that it is off-topic to the title of this thread.
If the forum members wish to start a thread, perhaps with a title such as "How should honest debate be pursued", I will follow that thread with interest.
Depending on the result of that debate, should it ever occur, I might find this forum an interesting place to frequent.
The purpose of debate IS to manifest truth.
The purpose of debate is NOT to change someone's mind.
The purpose of debate is NOT to tear down a person or make them look bad.
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.
taiji2 writes:
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.
Your classification of questions into how and why is nonsense. I suspect that all answers to why questions can be recast as mere hows to a different question.
Or the same question with 'how' instead of 'why' -- you should try it and see if it clears up your argument a little. For instance take this answer:
Why is the sky blue?
Here is a why answer for you.
The sky on planets through ought the universe is of various color, but the particular molecules within our atmosphere refract light and produce a blue color. And you could only evolve on a planet with a similar atmosphere. So your sky is blue. Alien X's sky is purple.
Or another answer. The sky is not blue. In fact all of the major gasses in our atmosphere are transparent to light. What you see and call blue is scattered light, and is just an optical illusion.
and apply it to the question: How is the sky blue?
The sky on planets through ought the universe is of various color, but the particular molecules within our atmosphere refract light and produce a blue color. And you could only evolve on a planet with a similar atmosphere. So your sky is blue. Alien X's sky is purple.
Or another answer. The sky is not blue. In fact all of the major gasses in our atmosphere are transparent to light. What you see and call blue is scattered light, and is just an optical illusion.
Same answer. Now ask yourself which word - 'how' or 'why' - best describes the question that is answered?
To rephrase the sky question: why is (life, the universe etc arranged so that) the sky is (or appears to be) blue? why isn't (life, the universe etc arranged so that) the sky is (or appears to be) green?
because it was designed that way because the universe just happened to self-arrange that way I don't know some other answer may be possible at a later date
Do any of these answers provide testable predictions?
Or why does atom #12323433 in a sample of U-238 decay at time t? There is no reason why it does that.
Agreed. And we can ask how does atom #12323433 in a sample of U-238 decay ... and we can provide an answer to that question.
Would you agree that how atom #12323433 decays is testable while why atom #12323433 decays is not?
Do any of these answers provide testable predictions?
You are cherry picking the answers. There may be answers to the question that do provide testable inquiries.
Also, I don't know is the same thing as we may know more later with regard to scientific inquiries.
e) It's random and there are many universes, but only the ones with blue skies produce life in the form RAZD occupies.
But more importantly, any answer we come up with might still be considered a how question relative to some other inquiry. If you can come up with a why question that has no answer that is not just a how question, then you'll have addressed one of my criticisms. If you can show that you have asked such a question already and I claimed you did not, then you can demonstrate that I was wrong. I submit that you cannot do either.
The other criticism is that you are shifting the goal posts just as does a child asking an endless stream of why questions. The original question was indeed answered, the fact that the child has a new question does not change that.
ABE
Would you agree that how atom #12323433 decays is testable while why atom #12323433 decays is not?
Of course not. There are scientific reasons to accept that there is no answer, and those things can, and have been investigated. If the supposition were wrong, then something in the structure of an atom might tell us why.
Let's assume there is no answer and that there is nothing to investigate. I agree that science cannot find a reason that does not exist.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
Even if Picasso said he painted the face blue because he felt like it, that does not answer the question, because now you would have to ask why did he feel like it ... especially when he has used other colors on other occasions presumably because he felt like it: feeling like it has no predictive, and thus no testable, aspect, which means it cannot be investigated by science.
Picasso created art. As a creator, he performed this action in one of two ways--either he was an automaton, merely acting out the sum of his antecedents, or he was, in a free-will sense, a creator.
In the former case, the only obstacle to understanding why he painted the face blue is some necessary sum of data and calculating power. As a thought experiment, I can envision compiling all that can be known about Picasso and using quantum computer-level power not only to explain why he felt like it, but to predict what he felt like next; even what he would have felt like had some inputs differed--or if he had not died; we might even calculate the Picasso canvases-that-never-were. If that calculation entails spooling back to the Big Bang, that is just a larger calculation, not a qualitatively different one.
In the latter case, Picasso as an authentically free creator, your teleological why is instantly satisfied; he felt like it becomes the only possible solution: what series of hows and whys could take you any further? As a being capable of authentic creation, he embodied the why you seek. We could frog-march how all the way back to God and get no better answer.
Let me be clear, that "because he felt like it" is an answer to the why question, but the issue is whether or not you can investigate "why did he paint the face blue" scientifically.
The answer "because he felt like it" has no predictive or testable aspect to it, and thus it is not scientific.
... As a thought experiment, I can envision compiling all that can be known about Picasso and using quantum computer-level power not only to explain why he felt like it, but to predict what he felt like next; even what he would have felt like had some inputs differed--or if he had not died; we might even calculate the Picasso canvases-that-never-were. If that calculation entails spooling back to the Big Bang, that is just a larger calculation, not a qualitatively different one.
This is following the rabbit-hole of how it happened that he felt like it.
You say that science cannot answer the question; I don't see why science, reason, or logic should pose it.
... If you can come up with a why question that has no answer that is not just a how question, ...
Why is the sky blue?
You are confusing your providing an answer to the question "How is the sky blue" with the question I asked being a why question "that is not just a how question."
It isn't a how question.
You are cherry picking the answers. There may be answers to the question that do provide testable inquiries.
because it was designed that way because the universe just happened to self-arrange that way I don't know some other answer may be possible at a later date
Do any of these answers provide testable predictions?
Presumably you know of one now that provides testable predictions ... seeing as you complained about my list.
When you find one let me know.
e) It's random and there are many universes, but only the ones with blue skies produce life in the form RAZD occupies.
Curiously I can only speak for the universe I occupy, and that in a limited way. I see no way to test predictions about the color of skies in alternate universes, perhaps you can help me with that?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
