Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Charles Darwin · 08-10-2003, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
CD: I am getting very disappointed in you. You seem not to note what people tell you and you keep on saying the same thing about atheists, the weather, and so on, even when people tell you that atheists don't believe XYZ or that saying it won't rain is not the same as saying one knows what the weather is going to be.

Actually, DMB, I'm getting a little disappointed with you because I never said that. Read carefully. For instance, I wrote:

CD quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier I used the analogy of the weather. If you say you believe it won't rain today, then you are making claims about the weather today. You are saying some other type of weather will transpire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note carefully that I said nothing about one knowing "what the weather is going to be." Nor did I make any claim that if evolution if false then the Bible is true.

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
Likewise, I would strongly suggest that you set out your evidence against evolution in the E/C forum, which is the proper place for such discussions.

Again, read carefully, I'm not foisting this evidence on you -- I was *asked* the question. And I very much abbreviated my answer.

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
Perhaps in this forum you might like to enlarge on what you mean by "the spirit realm". You appear to be suggesting that "love" belongs to this realm. I'm not sure that I understand what you mean.

Again, read carefully. I did not suggest that love belongs in the spirit realm. I used it as an example of something that *might* at least partially be of the spirit realm, *if* such a realm exists. Again, I was responding to a question.

enfant terrible · 08-10-2003, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
The evidence (not proof) is in things like consciousness (try explaining that without hand-waving), theh DNA code, hemoglobin, the cardiovascular system, our solar sytem, and a million other complexities which do not evidence naturalistic origin.

What do you mean by "do not evidence naturalistic origin"? They are made up of the same stuff as the rest of nature, that alone is far more evidence of "naturalistic" origin than you can possibly find for "God".

Doctor X · 08-10-2003, 05:34 PM

Hmmm . . . just because a poster cannot explain such things does not mean they do not have an explanation that does not involve the supernatural.

--J.D.

Philosoft · 08-10-2003, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Yes, except for the first part where a ridiculous theory is posited to begin with.

What was so "ridiculous" about it? That it was wrong?

Quote:

I don't take poison just because my body is capable of dealing with it.

A bizarre analogy, to say the least.

reprise · 08-10-2003, 05:34 PM

I notice that no-one ever tries to argue that Satan created the universe - I wonder why that is.

Doctor X · 08-10-2003, 05:38 PM

Well . . . the gnostics argued that a demiurge was responsible for this place. Not quite the whole universe.

--J.D.

Charles Darwin · 08-10-2003, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by enfant terrible

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Because God is capable of it and I am not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ET writes: Why should I believe this? Your argument is completely circular.

******
CD writes: Sorry, you asked why you should believe that God, rather than I, created the universe. You know that I could not have done it. Oh yes, you said you weren't sure that I could not have done it. So you can reject God because, who knows, maybe CD did it.

CD quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Boy Scouts, you say the same decision should have been passed down if the scouts were atheistic and exclusionary on that basis. So your saying atheism is a religion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ET writes: Not at all. In case you don't notice how silly your claim is, let me ask you: is boyscoutism a religion?

The essence of the San Diego case is religious discrimination. Public funds should not be provided to organizations that exclude people on religious grounds.

If you form a chess club that does not accept Jews as members, you wouldn't expect to get a room in the City Hall for weekly meetings, would you? But does that mean chess is a religion?

*******
CD writes: :banghead: Arrrg. No, it doesn't mean chess is a religion, but it does mean the chess club is a "religion" (ie, an organization that makes religious discrimination and therefore comes under the establishment clause). It would be a religion by virtue of the fact that Judaism is a religion. Likewise, since you believe the same ruling should have been passed down if the BSA was exclusionary based on atheism, then you must believe that the BSA is an organization that makes religious discrimination.

CD quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About phenomena that potentially could be outside of science's grasp (eg, love), you say you cannot understand how that could be if we can sense the phenomenon. You seem to be assuming a radical separation between the spirit and material realms. You seem unable to grasp the possibility that there may be interfaces between these two realms, such that we may be abke to sense things which we otherwise cannot describe very well with science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ET writes: You couldn't be more wrong in your interpretation. Not only do I not assume a "radical separation between the spirit and material realms", I don't even believe there is any separation. And all I have said to your proposition is that I have no idea what you are talking about. Moreover, I am unlikely to get a clue unless you provide an example of a phenomenon that "cannot be described by science" and explain why it is so.

*******
CD writes: :banghead: Arrrg. You said you could not conceive of a phenomena that we could detect, that nonetheless is not open to scientific analysis. You apparently cannot conceive of a paradigm other than your own. No wonder you are an atheist. I have explained how it could work. You don't believe in my explanation. OK, fine. But if you cannot even conceive of my explanation, then we've got a problem. The explanation is that science is limited to the material realm, and that there *could* be a spirit realm, and that there could be interfaces between the two.

Charles Darwin · 08-10-2003, 05:58 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles Darwin
If you are looking for fallacies you ought to look closer to home -- you just floated a classic. Did you know that it is possible for a wind to part the waters; and did you further know that it is possible for this to happen right when a lion is bearing down on me; and did you further know that it is possible for the wind to let up right after I've safely passed? Oh but, of course, this was just another possibility (in fact it is probably a far more likely event than the evolution of the DNA code or echolocation). Maybe I should have entitled this thread: "Does atheism entail absurdity?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally posted by enfant terrible
So where is my fallacy? How do you expect to argue successfully by talking nonsense unrelated to the argument?

Let's call it the "equiprobable outcome fallacy." While it may be true that each *state* of a system is of equal probability, this does not imply that every *outcome* is equally probability. Relatively speaking, there are only a few system states of the wind and river that enable me to escape the tiger; compared to astronomically more (orders of orders of magnitude, I reckon) states that lead to the river not being parted. This is all because the mapping from state space to outcome space is highly degenerate, for most applications (especially avoiding the tiger).

Charles Darwin · 08-10-2003, 06:03 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Yes, except for the first part where a ridiculous theory is posited to begin with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft

What was so "ridiculous" about it? That it was wrong? [/B]

It just didn't pass basic sanity tests. For starters, an approaching heavenly body cannot enter into a near-circular orbit without thrusters to slow it down, or some sort of complicated explosion or impact event which serves to slow the incoming object in just the right way. I'm not saying the theory was literally *impossible*, but then again, science is no place for unlikely ideas that are merely "not impossible."

Charles Darwin · 08-10-2003, 06:10 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles Darwin
The evidence (not proof) is in things like consciousness (try explaining that without hand-waving), theh DNA code, hemoglobin, the cardiovascular system, our solar sytem, and a million other complexities which do not evidence naturalistic origin.

Quote:

Originally posted by enfant terrible
What do you mean by "do not evidence naturalistic origin"? They are made up of the same stuff as the rest of nature, that alone is far more evidence of "naturalistic" origin than you can possibly find for "God".

I'm speaking from a scientific point of view. From what science tells us, these things do not appear to have natural origin. Regarding your claim that these things are made of the same stuff as the rest of nature, that in itself is quite an assumption (and a metaphysical one at that) when it comes to consciousness. You'll have a hard time defending that claim.

By any half-way objective account, the evidence for the Bible is >>> than the evidence for naturalistic origin of the cardiovascular system, the DNA code, etc. [No, DMB, I'm not saying it is either / or].

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

08-10-2003, 05:34 PM	#223
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Hmmm . . . just because a poster cannot explain such things does not mean they do not have an explanation that does not involve the supernatural. --J.D.

08-10-2003, 05:34 PM	#225
reprise Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Sydney Posts: 3,997	I notice that no-one ever tries to argue that Satan created the universe - I wonder why that is.

08-10-2003, 05:38 PM	#226
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Well . . . the gnostics argued that a demiurge was responsible for this place. Not quite the whole universe. --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.