Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jobar · 09-18-2003, 10:25 AM

Wayne, though all your points are correct, and theophilus is clearly the instigator of this nonsense, it's not on topic. Any more quibbling over formatting errors is verbotten. Let's see if theo can answer some of the *real* questions in this thread, such as Dr. Rick's, and plenty of others.

Not that I'm holding my breath...

Thomas Ash · 09-18-2003, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wayne Delia
Second, I do not make the claim that I am smarter than you (note the correct spelling of the word "smarter"), but based on your previously-demonstrated dishonesty, I can count on you making that into a strawman argument, as if I actually made the claim. In that case, here's the evidence that I have to support it. What might you have?

Sheesh, what a bloody long test you tempted my to take. I've always resisted doing IQ tests for some reason (hey, I know what the reason was: you normally have to pay), but at least this one gave me a pleasing result, telling me I was a "Visionary Philosopher."

I hear that a lot, but it's always nice to be told

.

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash

__________
Check out my website for all

infidels, Atheist Ground - and my broader website on politics, philosophy, science and history - Big Issue Ground!

Wayne Delia · 09-18-2003, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
Wayne, though all your points are correct, and theophilus is clearly the instigator of this nonsense, it's not on topic. Any more quibbling over formatting errors is verbotten. Let's see if theo can answer some of the *real* questions in this thread, such as Dr. Rick's, and plenty of others.

Not that I'm holding my breath...

Sorry, my bad... consider me ceased and desisted. I didn't read far enough ahead to see that the thread was close to being closed down.. mea culpa.

WMD

Thomas Ash · 09-18-2003, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spurious Quirk
I seriously doubt that many scientists go around saying "I don't want to rely on god, so let's assume that the universe just runs itself in an orderly fashion". I mean, maybe some scientists do say (or think) stuff like that; but speaking for myself, I just look at the order in the universe and say "Wow, from everyday experience it looks like the universe is orderly. So I will assume that it is orderly at a fundamental level until I have a reason to believe otherwise." God just never enters the picture.

Cheers

I'm sorry, but it's not that simple, though ultimately I think I (tentatively) agree with you. What about the problem of induction? In other words, how can you prove past experience is a reliable guide without relying on past experience, which might for all you know stop being a good guide from 3:15 pm tommorrow? (I predict it will

)

theophilus · 09-18-2003, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
Needlessly copy/pasting portions of your post because they don't appear when I hit 'reply'...You misunderstand. If you scroll down on the "Reply to Topic" screen (not just within the "Your Reply" window), you'll find that the more recent posts are displayed.[/B]

I did misunderstand and I will try that.

This entire thing has gotten out of hand. Certainly more of a problem that simply rearrranging the disputed section - I wasn't asking for an edit.

theophilus · 09-18-2003, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spenser
This is simply saying:

I am not arguing for causation, I am arguing for causation!!!

Unless you think we are stupid (and you probably do) you ARE arguing for your world view, which YOU claim supports causation. If your world view supports causation then you are in fact arguing for causation. Though you tend to state it in a way where causation is supposed to be assumed, not supported. Since you are the only one who assumes causation, we all would love to see your argument for it (+ evidence would be nice).

Well, I certainly don't think that all of you are stupid - ignorant, perhaps but that is different from being stupid.

Okay, tell me exactly what part of this you don't understand and I'll try to explain it:

"If you had the least inkling of my arguments, which you should by now, or you should go back to the home, you'd know that causation is not a problem for me because I DO NOT BASE MY POSITION ON CAUSATION.

Pay attention now, I am not a naturalist/materialist, I am a Christian theist. My position is based on God's continual government of his creation which insures that it operates in an orderly, intelligible manner."

Keep in mind that this (above) was in response to the following from Dr. Rick - context, you know is everything.

Quote:

You're using inductive reasoning to make your claim; and, as you've argued elsewhere, the testing of the hypothesis would have to be based on a logical fallacy and the presumption of causation which cannot be demonstrated. You've asserted that merely dismissing this because it gets in the way of proving what you already know to be true isn't acceptable. Causation cannot be demonstrated and so your claim is a fraud.

Now, if you can show me where I am arguing "for" causation as an explanatory idea of my worldview, I'll be glad to correct myself. Surely you can see there is a difference between a worldview that "assumes" natural causation as a foundation of its knowledge and a worldview which explains causation by the government of an immaterial being.

I am not a Thomist; I do not argue God as the "cause" in any naturalistic sense. He is the creator and everything that exists or happens exists or happens "IN" him, BY him, and FOR him.

Spenser · 09-18-2003, 06:05 PM

Quote:

He is the creator and everything that exists or happens exists or happens "IN" him, BY him, and FOR him.

So IN him would make things eternal while BY and FOR him would make him the CAUSE. That's how I read this.

To keep these shorter I'll try and ask only one or two questions at a time.

1. Do you think God created the universe?

2. Do you think anything created God?

Dr Rick · 09-18-2003, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Well, I certainly don't think that all of you are stupid - ignorant, perhaps but that is different from being stupid.

Ahhh, how flattering; gosh, this kind of proclamation is almost really close to a lovefest, or something.

Quote:

Okay, tell me exactly what part of this you don't understand and I'll try to explain it:

Wow; he is so decent.

Quote:

If you had the least inkling of my arguments, which you should by now, or you should go back to the home, you'd know that causation is not a problem for me because I DO NOT BASE MY POSITION ON CAUSATION.

Goddammitt! If you can't see the reasoning behind his argument without him even stating his argument; then, what the hell is the point in actually making an argument!!!

Look; it's clear he DOES NOT BASE HIS POSITION ON CAUSATION, because if he did, it wouldn't be in capital lettering. IT'S CAPTIALIZED; WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT?!!!!

Quote:

Pay attention now, I am not a naturalist/materialist, I am a Christian theist. My position is based on God's continual government of his creation which insures that it operates in an orderly, intelligible manner.

Please allow me to explain:

"Pay attention now, he is not a naturalist/materialist, he is a Christian theist. His position is based on God's continual government of his creation which insures that it operates in an orderly, intelligible manner."

Quote:

Keep in mind that this (above) was in response to the following from Dr. Rick - context, you know is everything.

Except that it's not, because the absolutist position based upon revelation posited by theo must be noncontextual, but how dare you question this, anyways?

Quote:

Now, if you can show me where I am arguing "for" causation as an explanatory idea of my worldview, I'll be glad to correct myself.

That is so obvious; it's not like he's wedded to a particular faith, afterall.

Quote:

Surely you can see there is a difference between a worldview that "assumes" natural causation as a foundation of its knowledge and a worldview which explains causation by the government of an immaterial being.

And if you can't see the difference, then what's the point of posting a coherent argument?

Quote:

I am not a Thomist; I do not argue God as the "cause" in any naturalistic sense. He is the creator and everything that exists or happens exists or happens "IN" him, BY him, and FOR him.

Good god, man: get it through your head:

"He is not a Thomist; He does not argue God as the "cause" in any naturalistic sense. He is the creator and everything that exists or happens exists or happens "IN" him, BY him, and FOR him.

Spurious Quirk · 09-18-2003, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
I'm sorry, but it's not that simple, though ultimately I think I (tentatively) agree with you. What about the problem of induction? In other words, how can you prove past experience is a reliable guide without relying on past experience, which might for all you know stop being a good guide from 3:15 pm tommorrow? (I predict it will )

Proof is a matter for deduction; induction can only accumulate evidence. So no, I cannot 'prove' that past experience is a reliable guide; I can only say that so far it has been reliable. If tomorrow at 3:15 pm it stops being reliable, then I will have to revise that judgement (assuming that in an unreliable universe I will continue to exist in a form capable of such revision).

By the way, are you willing to stake large cash sums on that prediction of yours?
I am.....

Cheers

Weltall · 09-18-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
[B]Well, I certainly don't think that all of you are stupid - ignorant, perhaps but that is different from being stupid.

Wow, feel the love.

Quote:

My position is based on God's continual government of his creation which insures that it operates in an orderly, intelligible manner."

And the thought has never once crossed your mind that either A) the universe isn't as ordered as you would like to think, or B) There's no need to postulate a deity to account for said order?

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

09-18-2003, 10:25 AM	#101
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Wayne, though all your points are correct, and theophilus is clearly the instigator of this nonsense, it's not on topic. Any more quibbling over formatting errors is verbotten. Let's see if theo can answer some of the real questions in this thread, such as Dr. Rick's, and plenty of others. Not that I'm holding my breath...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.