Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kosh · 09-01-2003, 06:52 AM

Darth -

I'm afraid we're going to have to disqualify all your arguments. We simply cannot listen to the reasoning of someone who can't spell "susceptible"...

Calzaer · 09-01-2003, 07:16 AM

I haven't caught up to where this thread is, but I have a quick question about something said a little earlier...

Quote:

There is no religion, Eastern or Western, whose god matches the "Universe" The word "god" has a completely different definition from the word "universe".

Umm.. wouldn't Taoism fit that discription? Depending on how much you want to westernize the concept of Tao, anyway...

Kevin Dorner · 09-01-2003, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gamer4Fire
... 2+2!=6, in fact 2+2 will never equal 6 regardless of how large the value of 2 is!

(Exact... no rounding.)

Magus55 · 09-01-2003, 02:44 PM

Quote:

(E) Cause 960 hours of rain, and cover the earth's land completely in that time (to a height of 2 cubits above Mt. Everest... which comes out to more than 100 inches of rain per hour, which sort of precludes breathing)

Faulty assumption. Don't assume Everest was the highest mountain of the day. Ararat was the first to be uncovered by water, so it was likely that highest.

Darth Dane · 09-01-2003, 02:48 PM

If the premise itself is "x can't be proven" or "we don't know x" and you then use x anyway, then yes, you have committed this fallacy.

Ok, what if I can't prove X objectively, ie.e to you, but I have had the xperience none the less?

How do go about that one?

Yes, because you are inferring without evidence.

I have had a subjective experience that is a proof to me. Since I can transfer my experience of X to you, and words won't do it, how will you believe if I am telling the truth then?

Just like: "I had a dream" It is a subjective experience that cannot be verified by any objective means.

No one seem to answer those questions on dreams.

Kosh: :notworthy

Glad you have a sense of humour

DD - Love & Laughter

Mullibok · 09-01-2003, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Faulty assumption. Don't assume Everest was the highest mountain of the day. Ararat was the first to be uncovered by water, so it was likely that highest.

Right, so we're talking tectonic activity on a massive scale that must be true because Genesis says nothing about East Asia? And honestly, do you think multiplying those figures by .58 would suddenly make it so easy to breathe etc.?

Mullibok · 09-01-2003, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darth Dane
I have had a subjective experience that is a proof to me. Since I can transfer my experience of X to you, and words won't do it, how will you believe if I am telling the truth then?

Just like: "I had a dream" It is a subjective experience that cannot be verified by any objective means.

When you say you have a dream, your claim is about something that happened exclusively in your own head. Since loads of testimony and people's own experiences lead them to believe that dreams happen, it's concluded that there is nothing extraordinary about your claim, and it can be easily verified that you do indeed have a brain, so it can be taken on face value. When you make a claim about a subjective experience that was caused by something OUTSIDE your brain for which there is no evidence, that's when things get questionable.

Calzaer · 09-01-2003, 04:04 PM

Wow. Out of all that, a nitpick (catastrophist theory? Oh for crying out loud... that's another 20-point list altogether!) on one point.

Ok, so let's do the calculations required to cover Mt. Ararat and two cubits beyond.

The summit of Mr. Ararat is at 16,946ft. (5165m)

The surface area of the earth is 10^15 � 0.510 m^2 (510,000,000,000,000m^2).

A cubit is 42.75cm. 2 cubits is 0.9411m.

5165 (Mt. Ararat Summit) + 0.9411 (2 cubits) = 5165.9411

5165.9411m (total depth of water) x 510,000,000,000,000m^2 (surface area to be covered) = 2,634,629,961,000,000,000m^3

2,634,629,961,000,000,000m^3 (total volume of water) / 960 (hours of rainfall) = 2,744,406,209,375,000m^3/hour

Yeah, you try breathing in that. Or does the catastrophist theory say that the flood somehow made the earth much bigger than it was before? That'd be an even BIGGER miracle.

[note: That number seems MUCH bigger than the one I remember coming up with when I first did these calculations.. any math people around who can tell me what I did wrong?]

Abacus · 09-01-2003, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Faulty assumption. Don't assume Everest was the highest mountain of the day. Ararat was the first to be uncovered by water, so it was likely that highest.

Can you please provide some geological evidence that Mt Ararat was higher than Mt Everest as little as 5,000 or so years ago?

The_Unknown_Banana · 09-01-2003, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
If a scientist found from his calculations that a bee cannot fly then he would find by testing this against reality that his calculations were in error.

This actually illustrates my point, imo. If a scientist didn't have the bee to study (As you cannot study God), and somebody presented the hypothesis that such a bee could fly, the scientist would have to say it was impossible, using his pre-observed knowledge of aerodynamics. That seems to me to be what you are doing here.. You are saying God cannot intervene with nature, without being able to study God, or a miracle.

Personally, I believe what you're saying is true; I don't think it is reasonable to believe that miracles ever really occured (or that God exists) in the first place - just as a scientist would have no reason to believe such a bee exists without proof. My point is just that science is probably not the most convincing argument for someone who already believes God exists. (Except perhaps for debunking miracle claims that we can actually study today)

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

09-01-2003, 06:52 AM	#261
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	Darth - I'm afraid we're going to have to disqualify all your arguments. We simply cannot listen to the reasoning of someone who can't spell "susceptible"...

09-01-2003, 02:48 PM	#265
Darth Dane Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Required Posts: 2,349	If the premise itself is "x can't be proven" or "we don't know x" and you then use x anyway, then yes, you have committed this fallacy. Ok, what if I can't prove X objectively, ie.e to you, but I have had the xperience none the less? How do go about that one? Yes, because you are inferring without evidence. I have had a subjective experience that is a proof to me. Since I can transfer my experience of X to you, and words won't do it, how will you believe if I am telling the truth then? Just like: "I had a dream" It is a subjective experience that cannot be verified by any objective means. No one seem to answer those questions on dreams. Kosh: :notworthy Glad you have a sense of humour DD - Love & Laughter

09-01-2003, 04:04 PM	#268
Calzaer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,762	Wow. Out of all that, a nitpick (catastrophist theory? Oh for crying out loud... that's another 20-point list altogether!) on one point. Ok, so let's do the calculations required to cover Mt. Ararat and two cubits beyond. The summit of Mr. Ararat is at 16,946ft. (5165m) The surface area of the earth is 10^15 � 0.510 m^2 (510,000,000,000,000m^2). A cubit is 42.75cm. 2 cubits is 0.9411m. 5165 (Mt. Ararat Summit) + 0.9411 (2 cubits) = 5165.9411 5165.9411m (total depth of water) x 510,000,000,000,000m^2 (surface area to be covered) = 2,634,629,961,000,000,000m^3 2,634,629,961,000,000,000m^3 (total volume of water) / 960 (hours of rainfall) = 2,744,406,209,375,000m^3/hour Yeah, you try breathing in that. Or does the catastrophist theory say that the flood somehow made the earth much bigger than it was before? That'd be an even BIGGER miracle. [note: That number seems MUCH bigger than the one I remember coming up with when I first did these calculations.. any math people around who can tell me what I did wrong?]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.