Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 7 of 277 (497272)
02-03-2009 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-01-2009 7:15 PM


Hi Straggler.
Ultimately I am trying to determine whether those advocating the more extreme Christian position think that it is possible for anyone who does not, and never will have, a personal and subjective relationship with God to draw the same conclusions that they have from the empirical evidence alone? Or is a degree of irrational belief essential?
I do not think irrational belief is essential.
I do not see that the assumption that the belief is irrational, is based on logic, but infact based on opinion.
Belief is essentially rational. There can be no position more rational than concluding that a designer produced DNA. there can be no position more rational that concluding that the facts only show natural selection continiously killing off information, rather than asuming transitionals.
Spontaneous generation not only requires a lot of imagination, but infact it is completely belief-based, as there is no evidence whatsoever of the impossible task of abiogenesis. It requires a LOT of faith in natural processes!
So there is no dichotomy. Certainly those of strong belief are generally rational, although I admitt that many make mistakes in their thinking, when it comes to prayer, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc invokations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 02-01-2009 7:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 02-03-2009 9:35 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 13 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2009 1:06 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 126 of 277 (503590)
03-20-2009 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Straggler
02-03-2009 9:35 AM


Re: What Are You Saying?
Are you saying that God's presence can be deduced from empirical evidence alone?
I think DNA shows an intelligent mind at work much more than it shows abiogenesis.
Think about that objectively for a moment. We see the ARRANGEMENT of matter producing organisms - not anything which is in the matter. Therefore if matter existed then became an organism, we are assuming that the arrangement of matter is irrelevant, and that there is something in the substance that answers for life. But there is nothing in the substance. It is only the arrangement that matters.
Think a second. First you have to assume other universes, to answer for this one - and then you have to assume chance is prevailent outside this universe - then you have to believe that chance can ARRANGE designs from matter.
Well, what is the point in assuming the impossible, by just giving things time?
If I throw up a ten pence coin ten times and get heads ten times, given enough time - that might be impressive. But if I throw it up ten time, continously, for millions of years - it will never land with a third side.
You see, the problem is that when you look at DNA, it makes sense to infer an intelligence atleast.
It is rational because designs are an arrangement that only come from design. Look at a car - it is not the substance that makes the car - but the arrangement of the substance.
If I make a stick toy figure of a little girl, it is the arrangement of the sticks that make the little girl, and it's only minds that recognise that it is a little girl.
Substance itself has no desire to live for it is death. There are no reasons why substance would arrange itself unless there was a mind to recognise it's meaning. THINK about it a bit, without just skirting over my words. Think about information, matter, arrangement. PLEASE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 02-03-2009 9:35 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Phage0070, posted 03-20-2009 11:40 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 128 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 12:11 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 129 of 277 (503692)
03-21-2009 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Phage0070
03-20-2009 11:40 AM


Re: What Are You Saying?
Your knowledge will not be able to trump my wisdom. That does not follow.
It does not follow that life came from chemical processes "because I don't know what I'm talking about". In the same manner it does not prove that God doesn't exist because a person has never heard of the bible. Nothing you said directly refuted what I said.
How certain reactions occur according to physics will not remove the fact that you have not proven that these reactions lead to an organism. Please show the experiment which proves such a thing.
Furthermore - you haven't thought enough about the penny example. Matter MUST become a third party.
Even with matter reacting to other matter, it has no innate reason to become another "thing".
There is no reason to invent some mystical property to apply to matter forming a living creature, it simply works because of what it is.
100% data says otherwise. There is no proof of abiogenesis. Using time alone is an EXCUSE for it together with the ToE. Without the ToE, the assumption of billions of years, it doesn't work. WITH those things assumed, it still does not make sense. Even what you say isn't enough to explain why reactions between matter would result in something more, - a whole system.
What would happen if you sent me a lot of motorcycle parts? Now some of those parts might react well with eachother. Perhaps the rubber throttle will come together with the metal bar. Perhaps you will have whole structures - but you now need the DNA to arrange the motorbike. I AM that DNA. I put it together.
I do not assume the miraculous friend, nor reason it. I SEE IT. It is fact. I stay with fact - not theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Phage0070, posted 03-20-2009 11:40 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Phage0070, posted 03-21-2009 11:56 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 130 of 277 (503696)
03-21-2009 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Straggler
03-20-2009 12:11 PM


Re: What Are You Saying?
And it's a good question and invokes thought. Thankyou Sir.
If you would continue to believe even if it could be definitley demonstrated that life/DNA/whatever could form in the absence of God then why is any of this relevant to belief?
If this could be definitely demonstrated, I think it would certainly put my belief in God under the death rattles.
The thing is - believers also have problems intellectually. I don't think God wants us to dive into the intellectual abyss.
I have to admitt that I cannot prove that DNA can come about on it's own. I do however, genuinely admitt that there would have to be some strange property to life, that leads people to see design and cleverness in everything I observe. I would be tricked by the nature of existence. I WISH we did know, so I could avoid the painful incessant thoughts that plague me continually.
Apologies for being so intermittent. I hope I can get some proper web access sorted in the future. TTFN

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 12:11 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Straggler, posted 03-21-2009 8:43 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 133 of 277 (503749)
03-21-2009 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Straggler
03-21-2009 8:43 AM


Re: What Are You Saying?
I think what matters is that if something is designed, and another thing perhaps isn't, then what matters is the thing that is.
Evolutionists say;"appearance of design". But that is infact a fact. DNA is a fact. The difference between a hand and a leg is in the DNA arrangement code, if you like. That's fact. Now people try to argue away the fact with theory, like abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Straggler, posted 03-21-2009 8:43 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Straggler, posted 03-21-2009 8:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 134 of 277 (503750)
03-21-2009 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Phage0070
03-21-2009 11:56 AM


Re: What Are You Saying?
Of course it can. It always will if my knowledge is based on hard evidence and your wisdom is based on subjective experiences and hearsay
Your first response to me was an argument from authority. My knowledge of biology is not relevant to the truth-value of a claim. That is basic logic.
There is plenty of research that explains how the chemical reactions that occur in organisms drive their function. Just because we have not made them from scratch or explained every last chemical process does mean that your concept of a magical component is required.
I put it to you differently. There is ZERO data that shows life can come from matter arranging itself and an inteligence solves this problem.
In the case of life we have plenty of precedent to believe that life works the way that it does simply due to the sum of its physical parts, and we don't have any evidence that it was intentionally created
We have something stronger than evidence. I define evidence as something which is weak, which makes a theory viable. i.e. the consequent of your modus ponen. If theory X then Y should follow.
DNA is fact not evidence. It is a code gets designs, and information only matters to intelligence. It's why you recognise that these shapes on the screen are words, because of their arrangement.
Now you must argue against the fact of information.
I believe the facts around me - that the universe is miraculous is self-evident from the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Phage0070, posted 03-21-2009 11:56 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Phage0070, posted 03-21-2009 11:38 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 137 by Straggler, posted 03-22-2009 6:07 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 138 of 277 (503888)
03-23-2009 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Phage0070
03-21-2009 11:38 PM


Re: What Are You Saying?
Instead you say that you are using the consequent of the modus ponen as your evidence. This is a formal fallacy called "affirming the consequent". You are trying to do this:
If X, then Y.
Y.
Therefore, X.
This does not logically work.
I know it does not work. I am not claiming the affirmation. In science an evidence is tentative, which means there is no affirmation as such - only an induction build-up.
So if I have a theory that somebody wears socks for most of their lives, then I should expect them to wear socks. If I find them wearing them, the theory is "viable". This means that you can CONTINUE your theory UNTIL it is falsified.
That is why I did not claim that if X=Y then Y=X, because I know how science works. Hence the term, "viable". Do you understand the term?
I was politely assuming that your flawed concepts of biology stemmed from lack of knowledge and not design.
That's quite allright, thankyou Sir. Infacxt I do not have a flawed concept of biology, as my claims aren't anything to do with any knowledge I don't have.
I am not a biologist, but my only BIOLOGICAL claim is that there is DNA, and that it gives rise to the different organisms. My actual claims themselves are philosophical because they pertain to God-concepts.
This is why you get into dangerous territory, if you think that you know what I know. I have not revealed what I know, nor do you know me at all. I do not NEED to mke statements about you or your knowledge. I am sure you know many things I do not know, and I will accept correction. However, 100% of all data shows lifeforms come from lifeforms.
Logic will show any readers that this claim is not biological - but that it come from observation of facts.
Thankyou for your time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Phage0070, posted 03-21-2009 11:38 PM Phage0070 has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 139 of 277 (503890)
03-23-2009 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Straggler
03-22-2009 6:07 AM


Re: What Are You Saying?
I am tired with debating things about ME.
As far as I am aware, I am more capable than most people are of understanding concepts.
If you think I don't understand biology, I will admitt I am not a biologist but then neither are you.
These boards are always the same. The claims are always drowned with several fallacies. Poisoning the well, appeals to authority etc..
Gentlemen we are discussing God. I cannot prove God objectively, but if I am to state anything at all, I first need words.
I am tired now, thankyou. TTFN.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Straggler, posted 03-22-2009 6:07 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Straggler, posted 03-23-2009 9:48 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 141 of 277 (504246)
03-25-2009 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Straggler
03-23-2009 9:48 AM


Re: What Are You Saying?
My post 138 shown that affirming the antecedant is sound. (Two ways, ponen and tollens).
That was a use of objective logic from logical notation.
So that rebutts your that says;
You claim little knowledge yet great wisdom and yet can demonstrate neither in any objective terms.
Claimed great wisdom? Huh?
Wisdom does not follow if you have knowledge. Knowledge is more the retaining of information, and wisdom is putting it together.
I would always claim little knowledge, no matter how much I knew.
I can give an example of the evidence definition if you like.
If I have a theory that there are only red balls in a bag, and I can't see them until I pick them up, then it should follow that when I pick one out it will be red. If I pick one out, the antecedant is confirmed and I can CONTINUE red-ball theory UNTIL I pick one that is not red.
Your problem isn't my knowledge. Your problem is that you have a problem with me because there is nothing wrong with what I said because it doesn't even favour Theism.
And this is the amusing thing about your type. You will point blank disagree, NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT I SAY, but because of what I believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Straggler, posted 03-23-2009 9:48 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 03-25-2009 4:07 PM mike the wiz 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