Romans and Jews

Post Reply New Topic

Really? Campbell/Reece "Biology," the standard undergraduate biology text, rejects abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation went out with Lamarck. Even Darwin, crude as many of his scientific ideas were, endorsed strict biogenesis- all existing life is descended from earlier life. Again, stop arguing against early 19th-century ideas.

Your second paragraph is a strawman because you choose to misinterpret the meaning of the universe's age. It doesn't count from the creation of matter (physicists assume that the quantity of mass/energy is constant) but rather from the Big Bang, which did not create mass so much as redistribute it across a larger area. Really, even if your scientific reasoning were sound (which it isn't) you would still only be employing a "God of the gaps" argument, which I personally find rather unconvincing.

These two quotes merit being juxtaposed against each other.

I believe in God by whatever name because I have experienced He/She/It, most particularly during long periods of prayer. I've had answers to prayers and coincidences that just blow me away. I don't pretend to understand the nature of God, or to be able to explain things. Its experiential, it's subjective, and I know there's a God.

The term knowledge is a strong word. You do not know there is a God, you believe there is a God. The difference in the terms should be strictly kept.

Yes, people have also experienced aliens, demons, Lord Shiva, and a host of other fictitious beings. Their experience has very little clout. You are also employing ad-hoc reasoning, a common logic fallacy.

Meh, knowledge is socially constructed, especially this sentence. Frankly, all claims to epistemic certitude are dependent upon the assumptions of the person in question, as after all, at what point can we claim to know something?

Post modernist.

Okay, but if we want to go that route, I'll give you a rebuttal, because this is the best argument I've seen so far. While it is easy to question to validity of knowledge, what we can know and not know, the nature of reality, and other metal constructs, we have to define how much we can truly know. I mean knowledge in so far as knowing that you are here typing this response to me, beyond that knowledge is impossible to truly define. So yes, knowledge does transcend into the realm of belief (in a sense), but belief is knowledge with no evidence. Knowledge is knowing as so far as you know you are typing on your keyboard, or breathing.

As much as you "know" the chair your sitting on isn't going to vanish in the next second, that is how much you can know something.

These types of debates make me want to club baby seals.

You see to really love the Romans, even more so than the Ehudim. Any particular reason?

I tend to like them. The universe is an uncertain place, but that is no reason to just put faith into spiritual mumbo jumbo. Completely disregarding the ability to be empirical about reality, in so far as we "know" we are in reality, is a pass into the realm of madness. You're stuck in this reality, in this "uncertainty", and you may as well probe it for its nature, in so far as humans can figure it out.

I'm way ahead of you.

Yes, but at a certain point in any such debate someone will pull some crap about how you can't "know" anything and make the entire discussion rather pointless. If you can't know anything, why the hell spend so much time on philosophical debate?!

Because humans need beliefs, and even if they consciously think they can see through their beliefs, unconsciously they need them to be fleshed out and complicated and rich.

Perhaps better not beliefs. Just ideas.

True, true. But they just have to realize that science is about exploring this reality, in so far as much as we can. Questions about the nature of "just how much you can know" should really be answered by exploring the limits of our "reality", instead of just gazing at the floor mumbling "How do I know I'm really here?" We can call it a belief , but it is a belief with tons of evidence (You feel, you see, you hear), unlike the god hypothesis. If you want to deny that evidence, I don't know what to say; it is the best you are going to get, and you might as well "go with the flow".

Well, somewhat so, not exactly. I mostly just dislike claims of certitude which I sometimes feel the desire to poke.

Ok, so we both agree! Knowledge does not exist!!


And *that* is the response I was specifically looking for! Curse those baby seals!!


Well, nothing really constitutes a reason to do anything. You may as well probe it, you may as well not probe it. Makes no real difference, some objective difference perhaps, but mostly a subjective one because we all know that tons of people die of stupidity already anyway.

Oh, I agree with you somewhat, I just mostly pull this out in debates where certitude seems over-emphasized to me. I mean, on some level, I can sort of agree that from Claradoon's perspective, he/she/it cannot deny that this is happening so he/she/it must say it is true that X is occurring, but to the rest of us this means nothing. So, on some level, Claradoon "knows", but the rest of us don't and both opinions are valid for being the way that they are. If Claradoon were being particularly obnoxious about his/her/it's "knowledge" like many are, I would start trying to undermine him/her/it. Frankly though, I did maintain a bit of levity with that first sentence, "All knowledge is socially constructed, especially this sentence".


Science is certainly about exploring reality and the nature there of. Now, I would deny the existence of a "should" claim, for the simple reason that such a claim would go beyond the commonly accepted beliefs between the parties involved here. Should is a cousin of ought, and ought is the foundation of ethics, and ethics are beyond the reality that we all can agree upon. How do I know that I am really here, really depends on what element we seek to argue, self-existence is tautological, and the existence of the world is merely the simplest hypothesis to deal with the data received. To Claradoon though, the god hypothesis may have fit into that same category, as it seems that Claradoon believes to have experienced God to a significant extent, and although this may be a flaw in his/her/its cognitive faculties, such a flaw goes back to identity and as a rule, creatures cannot be expected to deny their identity for the sake of any other cause as that would almost be like telling a brick to be an urn to their minds.

I don't know if I have ever seen a thread so thoroughly derailed in such a short time. Parakeet-man, sorry for the collective hijacking of your thread, but the topic left out too many possibilities anyways, as well as being too slanted to your own brand of fundamentalism.

That still does not mean there is a God. Using the commonly held tool of scientists, the scientific method, as a basis for "If we really know or not" is the standard that I put forth to draw the dichotomy between knowledge and belief. You're right, maybe I shouldn't put a should there, as who is to say what we should or should not do. However, simply putting God as an explanation is ludicrous. Mankind has to put forth standards to really "know", as the opposite would be an invitation to madness. According to the standard held by scientists, he does not know there is a god. You can call it arbitrary, and I would say its the best tool we have, as its arbitrary to even believe you are typing this on your keyboard right now. Empiricism tries to probe reality, while post modernism simply gazes at the floor saying "I'm not sure, but you're not sure either!" . There is a level of "belief" that transcends belief into the realm of "knowing".

His god hypothesis does not have any evidence to back it up, while the nature of reality does. As arbitrary as it might be, your social construct gives you computers, television, radio, and a host of other technological advances. Your denial of these gives you... the dark ages.

I believe you are pulling your arguments from Being and Nothingness, "identity".

Last edited by Kalister1 on 09 May 2008, 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.