Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 09-10-2002, 07:43 PM

DD, if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle.

So what.

Starboy

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

Albion · 09-10-2002, 10:09 PM

I'm still not sure how we'd know that it wasn't something like the Vorlons, which manipulated less advanced races by literally playing God (whether they imitated God or actually created the God stories themselves is another matter). However, even if God did manifest and perform some creative act, as long as that act was an override of the laws of nature, I don't see how it could be extrapolated. There's nothing to say that God acted the same way in the past or that this is the only God and last time it was Zeus or the Vorlons or the reptilians from planet X. The only reason we can extrapolate from observed events in the present to the past or future is by making the assumption that the laws of nature are consistent throughout time (which is why the creationists go to such lengths to try and invalidate that assumption). With God, that isn't a given.

Jack the Bodiless · 09-11-2002, 12:50 AM

Quote:

-- You fail to refute or address my insistence that a philosophy underlies Darwinism. It is the philosophy that is problematic.

And, yet again, you utterly fail to accept that the only philosophy that "underlies Darwinism" is the same one that underlines all of science.

After five pages, we are no closer to getting you to explain what you meant by "able to withstand critique from non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy". You have utterly failed to demonstrate how such a critique can be applied to ANY scientific theory, nor given any indication that Darwinian evolution might fail this hypothetical critique while other sciences might pass.

Time to admit that you were blowing out smoke.

Stephen T-B · 09-11-2002, 03:54 AM

Vander has provoked an excellent discussion, and by refusing to be brow-beaten and by persevering in his quest to persuade the rationalists to consider that there is a phenomenon at work which empiricism cannot account for, he has ensured its growth and continuation.
But this is the sad truth: the discussion will not be resolved because its participants do not come from the same starting point and are moving along parallel tracks. They use the same language, but use it differently.
So, in the right corner we have Vanderzyden for whom the existence of the Judeo-Christian God is not up for discussion, nor is the Biblical account of this god�s activities. His god is the source of all creation; it is the great big Why?
In the left corner we have the rationalists (mostly scientists, as it happens), for whom the existence of this Judeo--Christian god is an irrelevance for the very reason that they can find no evidence of its involvement in the workings and physical attributes of the universe.
Vander believes he would change this if only he could persuade them that the sort of evidence they look for is not the only evidence they should look for, hence his appeal for reference to be made to philosophy and theology.
And as we have seen, the rationalists cannot do this � not because they won�t but because to do so stands their world on its head.
Their obtuseness comes from the fact that they deal exclusively with the natural. Any supernatural force that were detectable in it - according to their criteria for what is detectable - would cease to be supernatural. Vander�s task, therefore, is to change that criteria, and at this point I have a suggestion which might bring a convergence.
I know that I have been disrespectful towards Vanderzyden from time to time and that he does not wish to engage with me, but for the sake of intellectual exploration, I hope he might be persuaded (here or in another thread, possibly in MRD) to suggest the consequences were his crusade to be victorious. Suppose the scientists of the world DID take into account non-empirically verifiable evidence, how would that impact upon the human community?
What is your vision for the future, Vanderzyden? Will you share that with us?

Starboy · 09-11-2002, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen T-B:
Suppose the scientists of the world DID take into account non-empirically verifiable evidence, how would that impact upon the human community?

Stephen T-B, what kind of evidence is that?

Stephen T-B · 09-11-2002, 08:06 AM

Starboy, are you suggesting I�ve posted a contradiction in terms?
OK. I did.
I�m struggling to find a description of what it is that Vander wants scientists to take into account that is not empirically verifiable evidence. Perhaps I�ve totally misunderstood everything he�s said here, but I�m under the impression that he thinks there�s more to the story than that which scientists admit to it.

Starboy · 09-11-2002, 08:09 AM

Vanderzyden walks into a kitchen and presents a 2x4 to the chef.

V) I want you to cook a meal for me with this.
C) What do I look like a carpenter?

Vanderzyden walks into a laboratory and presents the principle of ID to the scientist.

V) I want you to make a scientific theory out of this.
S) What do I look like, a theologian?

Poor Vanderzyden just doesn�t get it.

Starboy

Oolon Colluphid · 09-11-2002, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

My argument is not that "God did it" or "it is designed" are wholly satisfying answers for the HOW questions, but it is for many WHY questions.

I�m pleased you think so. Perhaps you could give us a clue as to WHY there are
<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000801" target="_blank">so many examples of lousy, stupid and pointless design in nature</a> then...

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Oolon

seanie · 09-11-2002, 08:21 AM

Or alternatively just tell us why exactly God did do it.

If it's such a satisfying explanation I'd love to hear it.

Vanderzyden · 09-11-2002, 10:59 AM

Skeptical,

It would seem that you and I have come to a milestone in our discussion. I appreciate the oppurtunity to discuss this with you. You made a very good point in the "chromosome challenge" (although the are several other separate issues remaining).

Surely, we will engage on other topics soon. I'll look forward to it. But now, I will attempt to address some of the others on this thread.

Cheers,

Vanderzyden

09-10-2002, 07:43 PM	#121
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	DD, if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle. So what. Starboy [ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-10-2002, 10:09 PM	#122
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	I'm still not sure how we'd know that it wasn't something like the Vorlons, which manipulated less advanced races by literally playing God (whether they imitated God or actually created the God stories themselves is another matter). However, even if God did manifest and perform some creative act, as long as that act was an override of the laws of nature, I don't see how it could be extrapolated. There's nothing to say that God acted the same way in the past or that this is the only God and last time it was Zeus or the Vorlons or the reptilians from planet X. The only reason we can extrapolate from observed events in the present to the past or future is by making the assumption that the laws of nature are consistent throughout time (which is why the creationists go to such lengths to try and invalidate that assumption). With God, that isn't a given.

09-11-2002, 03:54 AM	#124
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	Vander has provoked an excellent discussion, and by refusing to be brow-beaten and by persevering in his quest to persuade the rationalists to consider that there is a phenomenon at work which empiricism cannot account for, he has ensured its growth and continuation. But this is the sad truth: the discussion will not be resolved because its participants do not come from the same starting point and are moving along parallel tracks. They use the same language, but use it differently. So, in the right corner we have Vanderzyden for whom the existence of the Judeo-Christian God is not up for discussion, nor is the Biblical account of this god�s activities. His god is the source of all creation; it is the great big Why? In the left corner we have the rationalists (mostly scientists, as it happens), for whom the existence of this Judeo--Christian god is an irrelevance for the very reason that they can find no evidence of its involvement in the workings and physical attributes of the universe. Vander believes he would change this if only he could persuade them that the sort of evidence they look for is not the only evidence they should look for, hence his appeal for reference to be made to philosophy and theology. And as we have seen, the rationalists cannot do this � not because they won�t but because to do so stands their world on its head. Their obtuseness comes from the fact that they deal exclusively with the natural. Any supernatural force that were detectable in it - according to their criteria for what is detectable - would cease to be supernatural. Vander�s task, therefore, is to change that criteria, and at this point I have a suggestion which might bring a convergence. I know that I have been disrespectful towards Vanderzyden from time to time and that he does not wish to engage with me, but for the sake of intellectual exploration, I hope he might be persuaded (here or in another thread, possibly in MRD) to suggest the consequences were his crusade to be victorious. Suppose the scientists of the world DID take into account non-empirically verifiable evidence, how would that impact upon the human community? What is your vision for the future, Vanderzyden? Will you share that with us?

09-11-2002, 08:06 AM	#126
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	Starboy, are you suggesting I�ve posted a contradiction in terms? OK. I did. I�m struggling to find a description of what it is that Vander wants scientists to take into account that is not empirically verifiable evidence. Perhaps I�ve totally misunderstood everything he�s said here, but I�m under the impression that he thinks there�s more to the story than that which scientists admit to it.

09-11-2002, 08:09 AM	#127
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Vanderzyden walks into a kitchen and presents a 2x4 to the chef. V) I want you to cook a meal for me with this. C) What do I look like a carpenter? Vanderzyden walks into a laboratory and presents the principle of ID to the scientist. V) I want you to make a scientific theory out of this. S) What do I look like, a theologian? Poor Vanderzyden just doesn�t get it. Starboy

09-11-2002, 08:21 AM	#129
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	Or alternatively just tell us why exactly God did do it. If it's such a satisfying explanation I'd love to hear it.

09-11-2002, 10:59 AM	#130
Vanderzyden Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: California Posts: 694	Skeptical, It would seem that you and I have come to a milestone in our discussion. I appreciate the oppurtunity to discuss this with you. You made a very good point in the "chromosome challenge" (although the are several other separate issues remaining). Surely, we will engage on other topics soon. I'll look forward to it. But now, I will attempt to address some of the others on this thread. Cheers, Vanderzyden

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.