Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cross Examiner · 04-13-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kais

1a) We have indirect evidence for natural causes which would provide some basis for a belief in P'.
1b) All possible evidence for explanations for the origin of life on earth involving intelligent guidance/intervention where the agent is the product of natural causes provides justification for a belief in P'.
1c) No evidence can make explanations for the origin of life on earth which require supernatural agency more likely.

P' is the proposition that natural causes are sufficient to explain the origin of life on Earth. The conclusion that supposedly follows from the premises above is that it is reasonable to accept P'. Evidence has been defined as those "findings which affirm that some part of a pathway which could possibly lead to the development of life on Earth is possible." Other definitions and information useful to translation may be found throughout this thread. I hypothesize that this argument is simply unintelligible. This is where you come in: attempt to translate the argument. Any rendering in simple prose will do. We've already had one attempt so far. It is pending kais' response though it will probably fail in my estimation. Each failed translation supports my hypothesis. My hypothesis is falsified if and when kais agrees that a given translation is sufficiently faithful to his argument such that he's willing to argue and defend said translation. So, can any offer a translation of the argument above? Let me know.

mirage · 04-13-2006, 09:49 AM

I'll translate your argument instead:

1. We don't know everything.
2. Therefore belief in some possible natural explanation for anything is irrational.

Cross Examiner · 04-13-2006, 09:54 AM

You no doubt have quotes to back up your contention that that is 'my argument'. Oh, wait. No, you've got nothing of the sort. Do see to it in the foregoing that you try to stick to the matter at hand, if possible.

mirage · 04-13-2006, 10:06 AM

Yawn!

kais · 04-13-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cross Examiner #1

We've already had one attempt so far. It is pending kais' response though it will probably fail in my estimation.

Poison the well much?

RGD · 04-13-2006, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kais

Poison the well much?

Now, now. Everyone should play to his strengths. :grin:

seebs · 04-13-2006, 11:57 AM

*** mod hat on ***

Snide remarks are not philosophical. If you want to try again, without the snide remarks, go right ahead.

FatherMithras · 04-13-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cross Examiner

You no doubt have quotes to back up your contention that that is 'my argument'. Oh, wait. No, you've got nothing of the sort. Do see to it in the foregoing that you try to stick to the matter at hand, if possible.

please go back and read 80 percent of your responses to your previous threads.

Dr.GH · 04-13-2006, 01:08 PM

This should hold you. The biblio is a bit out of date, but it only becomes clearer that the OOL was the consequence of good old "chance and necessity." http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...75#post2737175

PS: I only respond to the E/C threads. I don't intend to look back here at all.

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

04-13-2006, 09:49 AM	#2
mirage Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: UK Posts: 8,524	I'll translate your argument instead: 1. We don't know everything. 2. Therefore belief in some possible natural explanation for anything is irrational.

04-13-2006, 09:54 AM	#3
Cross Examiner Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Carlsbad, CA Posts: 1,881	You no doubt have quotes to back up your contention that that is 'my argument'. Oh, wait. No, you've got nothing of the sort. Do see to it in the foregoing that you try to stick to the matter at hand, if possible.

04-13-2006, 10:06 AM	#4
mirage Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: UK Posts: 8,524	Yawn!

04-13-2006, 11:57 AM	#7
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	* mod hat on * Snide remarks are not philosophical. If you want to try again, without the snide remarks, go right ahead.

04-13-2006, 01:08 PM	#9
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	This should hold you. The biblio is a bit out of date, but it only becomes clearer that the OOL was the consequence of good old "chance and necessity." http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...75#post2737175 PS: I only respond to the E/C threads. I don't intend to look back here at all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.