|
Author
|
Topic: Why This Belief?
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
Message 18 of 111 (213283)
06-01-2005 9:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by GDR
06-01-2005 5:41 PM
|
|
The human mind has in my view made incredible leaps in understanding the natural world but in my view the human mind hasn't made little if any progress in understanding the world that is outside of the natural in 2000 years Doesn't it ever occur to you that the reason this is the case is because there's nothing there to understand - that the natural is all that there is?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by GDR, posted 06-01-2005 5:41 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 19 by GDR, posted 06-01-2005 9:49 PM | | crashfrog has replied | | | Message 21 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 06-01-2005 10:38 PM | | crashfrog has replied | | | Message 24 by Phat, posted 06-02-2005 3:30 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 20 of 111 (213297)
06-01-2005 9:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by GDR
06-01-2005 9:49 PM
|
|
We understand how to examine and experiment with the physical to gain physical evidence whereas there is no equivalent method of examining the or experimenting with the metaphysical. Doesn't really answer my question. Why is it more likely that what you say is true, as opposed to there being nothing metaphysical at all? Maybe the reason we have no methods for examining the metaphysical is because it isn't there to examine? Certainly seems more likely to me.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by GDR, posted 06-01-2005 9:49 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by GDR, posted 06-02-2005 2:19 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 22 of 111 (213326)
06-01-2005 11:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by daaaaaBEAR
06-01-2005 10:38 PM
|
|
If the natural is all that's there then you don't have a soul. If you don't have a soul then there is no eternal significance after your natural life. Ok. ... Oh, I'm sorry. Was that supposed to mean something to me? If you'll excuse me, I have to get back to doing what I can before I die. Thanks.
As a born again Christian I am bound for heaven Oh, I'm sure you think so. That's so cute! Careful! This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 06-02-2005 01:31 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 06-01-2005 10:38 PM | | daaaaaBEAR has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 26 of 111 (213697)
06-02-2005 11:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by GDR
06-02-2005 2:19 AM
|
|
I came to the conclusion that the evidence that all of this was designed or invented by an intelligence outside of our physical existence far exceeded the likelihood that this all came about by some cosmic accident. What evidence was that? Oh, and in regards to likelyhood - what was the exact likelyhood you came to? Be sure to show your work, please.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by GDR, posted 06-02-2005 2:19 AM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 30 by GDR, posted 06-02-2005 11:38 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 28 of 111 (213702)
06-02-2005 11:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by daaaaaBEAR
06-02-2005 11:18 PM
|
|
Are you simply uncomfortable with speaking of eternity and its ramifications? Does is it occur to you that there COULD be a spiritual realm? Oh, it's occured to me. If there is a spiritual realm its completely beyond the borders of the universe - unable to affect events in ours in any way. So what's the point? I might as well propose purple dragons beyond the universe for all the good it does. I mean I like a good game of pretend as much as anyone, but I don't mistake pretend for truths about reality. And I don't have such a high opinion of myself that I think that things come to be just because I wished for it hard enough. But yeah it'd be pretty cool if there were a spiritual realm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 06-02-2005 11:18 PM | | daaaaaBEAR has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
take a look at demon worshippers Sorry, all you religions are just the same to me. After all the Satanists tell me you worship the bad guy. The other day, I read an article that talked about how some young girls with anorexia had actually reified their illness into a goddess that they did rituals for - Ana. I mean, that says it all for me. That's how religions get started - we don't always understand why we do the things we do, we have compulsions that don't feel like choices to us, and so we deify them in order to have something to try to talk to, reason with, exert influence over. It's about trying to sway the unswayable.
tell me they're JUST crazy. None of you are crazy. Just a little confused.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 06-02-2005 11:34 PM | | daaaaaBEAR has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 32 of 111 (213783)
06-03-2005 7:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by GDR
06-02-2005 11:38 PM
|
|
I still maintain that the intricate nature of the natural world is far more likely to be designed than to have happened by random chance. How much more likely? Show your work. Do you understand what I'm asking? You're comparing probabilities and telling me one is larger than the other; I want to see your numbers so I can judge for myself.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by GDR, posted 06-02-2005 11:38 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by GDR, posted 06-03-2005 10:20 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 40 of 111 (214109)
06-04-2005 7:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by GDR
06-03-2005 10:20 AM
|
|
I have already told you that I have no numbers. The question is philosophical not scientific. Comparing likelyhoods? The question is mathematical, not philosophical. So show your work.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by GDR, posted 06-03-2005 10:20 AM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 43 by GDR, posted 06-04-2005 11:14 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 44 of 111 (214166)
06-04-2005 11:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by GDR
06-04-2005 11:14 AM
|
|
There is no mention of how a probability or likelihood is arrived at, and no mention of mathematical proof. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
quote:
Main Entry: probability
Pronunciation: "pr-b&-'bi-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties a (1) : the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes (2) : the chance that a given event will occur b : a branch of mathematics concerned with the study of probabilities
You say that you compared ratios. Well, I want to see the ratios you compared. You say you compared chances; well, I want to see the chances you figured for the first outcome vs. the second. Otherwise I'd like you to admit that what you did was not an analysis of likelyhoods, but simply an argument from incredulity. You found what you wished to find, not what was accurate. You don't want to believe that ID is false; therefore, you do not. Which is your perogative but don't disguise it as any kind of objective search for truth by clouding the issue with the mathematical language of probability and likelyhood. We deserve your honesty, not your lies.
I asked before that seeing as how you contend that you are dealing with fact and I am only dealing with probabilities how about you show me your mathematical proof, or your numbers as you put it, that ID is impossible. I never said it was impossible. I think it's quite likely, in fact, that intelligence will come to be able to design and create life. But, according to the most accurate scientific models, that's not how the living things currently on Earth came to be.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by GDR, posted 06-04-2005 11:14 AM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 49 by GDR, posted 06-04-2005 12:26 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 52 of 111 (214182)
06-04-2005 1:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by GDR
06-04-2005 12:26 PM
|
|
One of those uses involve mathematics and two don't. I have never at any time, have suggested that my conclusion was in any way mathematical. Oh? You didn't give the impression that you compared the likelyhood of one vs the other? What were you comparing, if not numbers? C'mon. There's no need to be ridiculous about this. You didn't compare anything, because you had nothing to compare. You simply decided that it was distasteful to you to believe in anything but ID; thus, you rejected the alternatives. So why all the dishonesty?
Neither you nor I are totally objective in our search for truth. Oh, I know that you aren't; not everybody is like you, GDR. Many of us are much better at evaluating evidence than you are.
We can both accuse the other of finding what we wanted to find and we could both be right. I came to evolution against what I wanted to believe; thus, you would not be right to accuse me of that.
As you are dealing with certainties where is your proof that I am wrong. Where have I dealt with certainties?
Name calling doesn't enhance your argument. Which is why I didn't employ any. See what I mean about the lying?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by GDR, posted 06-04-2005 12:26 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 56 by GDR, posted 06-04-2005 1:23 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 58 of 111 (214191)
06-04-2005 1:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by GDR
06-04-2005 1:23 PM
|
|
I merely contend that it can't be proven scientifically whether or not the hand of God was involved or not. That's not ID, then. ID is the position that it can be determined scientifically, and has been. Neither is evolution the position that the hand of God was definately not involved; it is simply the position that all life on Earth can best be explained by the interaction of natural laws.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by GDR, posted 06-04-2005 1:23 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 59 by Phat, posted 06-04-2005 1:36 PM | | crashfrog has not replied | | | Message 68 by GDR, posted 06-04-2005 5:02 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2