Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 226 of 301 (283497)
02-02-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by robinrohan
02-02-2006 5:14 PM


Re: robinrohan once again makes unsupported assertions.
The ToE dismisses the argument that species must have been created. However that only rebuts an argument for a God, it does not constitute a direct case against the existence of a God.
However, as I have stated,with regard to death and suffering, at most it projects the curent situation into the past and in fact even when the ToE was proposed by Darwin and Wallace there was strong supporting evidence for that idea.
Simply recognising that (some) fossils represented the remains of pre-human life and that some of them were predators is adequate to make a strong case that death and suffering preceded human existence. Thus that portion of the argument was already established, before Darwin and Wallace formulated their theories. And according to you that already made belief in God untenable - to people who knew nothing of evolution.
t

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by robinrohan, posted 02-02-2006 5:14 PM robinrohan has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 227 of 301 (283498)
02-02-2006 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by robinrohan
02-02-2006 5:23 PM


Re: nihilism and evolution
If your definitio of nihilism was not crafted to support this sort of argument, why did you praise it for suitability for that task and seem so uninterested in whether it accurately captures the usage of the word ?f

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by robinrohan, posted 02-02-2006 5:23 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by robinrohan, posted 02-02-2006 6:04 PM PaulK has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 301 (283505)
02-02-2006 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by PaulK
02-02-2006 5:35 PM


Re: nihilism and evolution
If your definitio of nihilism was not crafted to support this sort of argument, why did you praise it for suitability for that task and seem so uninterested in whether it accurately captures the usage of the word
I wasn't praising it for suitability to a task: I just thought it was neat and clear. I think one possible definition of "nihilism" is that life has no meaning, no purpose, that morals are arbitrary, etc. I think my definition fits within the range of that broad definition.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-02-2006 05:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2006 5:35 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2006 6:13 PM robinrohan has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 229 of 301 (283508)
02-02-2006 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by robinrohan
02-02-2006 6:04 PM


Re: nihilism and evolution
No, your definition is much more limited. For a start it only refers to the species, although individuals can be "made" for a purpose. It says nothing about morality or even meaning. So your definition is really very narrow, and avoids the major features of nihilism.
(I, for one, regard morality as culturally shaped intersubjective values built on a biological basis - and although some aspects may be arbitrary, much of morality is not. Thus in that respect I cannot be a nihilist even though I do not beleive that humanity as a species has a formal purpse).n

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by robinrohan, posted 02-02-2006 6:04 PM robinrohan has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 230 of 301 (283522)
02-02-2006 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by macaroniandcheese
02-02-2006 10:28 AM


Re: on Belief
what proof have you that your belief does not come from within? i would argue that that in itself is a matter of faith. but please. prove me wrong.
Before I listen to your argument could you prove to me there is an 'I' to argue in the first place. You know you exist, but you can't prove it to me. My 'proof' sits in the same category as knowing I exist - I know it simply because I know it. Proving it to someone else - though at first flush, desirable, is not all that vital to me. But if I am wrong then I cannot know I exist either. As Crash says elsewhere "you gotta get out of bed sometime" and presuming I exist, and that there is an objective reality around me, is that place.
My knowing God exists sits above any empirical possibility of proving it just as my knowing I exist sits beyond any empirical possibility of proving it.
All I can say is go find out for yourself. If you come to know it then you can attempt to decide for yourself what it is. But the last place you will look in aiding you to decide is empirical proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-02-2006 10:28 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-02-2006 9:56 PM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 231 of 301 (283524)
02-02-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by jar
02-02-2006 11:07 AM


Re: on Belief
jar writes:
Regardless of whether it is a matter of deduction or what you call revelation, it is still all internal.
We begin with an assertion
While you very likely believe that there was a revelation from God, you cannot know that.
We continue with an assertion...
You can believe it, believe it very strongly, but there can be no evidence of that external impartation.
If God exists, could he impart the evidence to a person that he exists in such a way a person knows that he exists? Patently he can. is there a requirement that such impartation by God must be measurable empirically. Patently not.
There is no such thing as belief from without unless you can provide some way that it can be tested and independently verified.
That is a philosopical statement. Who has verified this, empirically. We know that God says that he will come and take up residence in certain people. He didn't say that this would be empirically verifiable. Well he did "by their fruits ye shall know them" But he didn't say how you could separate the sheep from the goats to empirically measure them

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by jar, posted 02-02-2006 11:07 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by jar, posted 02-02-2006 7:18 PM iano has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 232 of 301 (283527)
02-02-2006 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by iano
02-02-2006 7:03 PM


Re: on Belief
But he didn't say how you could separate the sheep from the goats to empirically measure them
Oh, but he did, we've been over that. LOL
Belief has nothing to do with Sheep or Goats as you well know. In fact, the Bible says that the Goats will be the believers.
jar writes:
There is no such thing as belief from without unless you can provide some way that it can be tested and independently verified.
to which iano replied:
That is a philosopical statement.
Not really. It's a statement of fact. Until you can provide some evidence that impartation exists there is simply no reason to assume its existence.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by iano, posted 02-02-2006 7:03 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by iano, posted 02-02-2006 7:48 PM jar has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 233 of 301 (283534)
02-02-2006 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by jar
02-02-2006 7:18 PM


Re: on Belief
Oh, but he did, we've been over that. LOL
Maybe we should include Matt 25 alongside Nazism as subjects that are sure to be referred to if a web conversation goes on long enough.
That is a philosopical statement.
Not really. It's a statement of fact. Until you can provide some evidence that impartation exists there is simply no reason to assume its existence.
Your simply repeating the same point.
There is no such thing as belief from without unless you can provide some way that it can be tested and independently verified.
so I ask again. Were is the verification that empiricism is the only way to determine if things exist or not? Clearly empiricism cannot verify empiricism. That would be circular reasoning
{abe} Lets leave it Jar. We're hauling off topic and there aren't many posts left. Reply if you like and I'll read and not respond...here
This message has been edited by iano, 03-Feb-2006 12:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by jar, posted 02-02-2006 7:18 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by jar, posted 02-02-2006 7:54 PM iano has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 234 of 301 (283536)
02-02-2006 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by iano
02-02-2006 7:48 PM


Re: on Belief
Were is the verification that empiricism is the only way to determine if things exist or not?
That is not at all what I said. What I said is that it is the only way we can know something, verify it. If it cannot be verified, it is but personal belief, nothing more.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by iano, posted 02-02-2006 7:48 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by robinrohan, posted 02-04-2006 10:37 AM jar has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3918 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 235 of 301 (283552)
02-02-2006 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by iano
02-02-2006 6:53 PM


Re: on Belief
that's not true. i'm sure you could easily demonstrate that the thoughts you have follow the 'response to stimuli' pattern rather than the 'making shit up' pattern. but we'd really have to ask schraf's hubby.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by iano, posted 02-02-2006 6:53 PM iano has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 301 (283856)
02-04-2006 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by jar
02-02-2006 7:54 PM


Re: on Belief
That is not at all what I said. What I said is that it is the only way we can know something, verify it. If it cannot be verified, it is but personal belief, nothing more.
I think what Iano is saying is that the process of verification itself is ungrounded, which is true. We just have to assume that induction is valid.
Our logic becomes especially questionable if our world is completely physical. That would mean our thoughts are physically caused. Evolution tells us that our world is completely physical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by jar, posted 02-02-2006 7:54 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 10:53 AM robinrohan has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 237 of 301 (283860)
02-04-2006 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by robinrohan
02-04-2006 10:37 AM


Re: on Belief
I think what Iano is saying is that the process of verification itself is ungrounded, which is true.
The type of verification used within a science is well grounded by the methods of that science.
We just have to assume that induction is valid.
Induction is not valid. Fortunately, science does not require any such assumption.
Our logic becomes especially questionable if our world is completely physical. That would mean our thoughts are physically caused.
What is questionable about that? We are near the end of the second thread on this topic, and you still haven't explained it.
Many people think it important that our thoughts are caused -- by us. The opposite to our thoughts being caused by us would be that our thoughts are completely random and arbitrary.
Evolution tells us that our world is completely physical.
No, it does not say anything of the kind. It merely accounts for the physical processes that result in the diverse biology we see. Evolution says nothing at all about the non-physical. As far as evolution is concerned, there could be a complex non-physical world about which evolution says nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by robinrohan, posted 02-04-2006 10:37 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 1:25 PM nwr has replied
 Message 241 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2006 1:38 PM nwr has replied
 Message 249 by robinrohan, posted 02-04-2006 5:21 PM nwr has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 238 of 301 (283903)
02-04-2006 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by nwr
02-04-2006 10:53 AM


Re: on Belief
We just have to assume that induction is valid.
quote:
Induction is not valid. Fortunately, science does not require any such assumption.
Maybe I missed something here, but can someone explain what this means, that "induction is not valid?" You mean it's not valid AT ALL, or in this particular context, or what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 10:53 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Omnivorous, posted 02-04-2006 1:28 PM Faith has replied
 Message 242 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 2:03 PM Faith has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3973
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 239 of 301 (283904)
02-04-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
02-04-2006 1:25 PM


Re: on Belief
The turkey welcomes the farmer who comes to feed him every day for 364 days. Then, one day in November...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 1:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 02-04-2006 1:30 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 240 of 301 (283905)
02-04-2006 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Omnivorous
02-04-2006 1:28 PM


Re: on Belief
Well, yes, conclusions from inductive reasoning are always tentative until you apply other tests, but can you explain what is meant on this particular subject?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Omnivorous, posted 02-04-2006 1:28 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024