Page 6 of 13 [ 201 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 13  Next

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

27 Mar 2015, 5:03 am

Lintar wrote:

It's not a question of finding something that is better, but recognising that there are complimentary alternatives. Why is that so hard for so many to understand these days?


It depends on what you mean by complimentary alternatives. Are you suggesting that there are other methods of "knowing" that are verifiable without observation and experiment, are you suggesting that there are other methods to accurately predict future events, or to predict what should exist and where to find it? If you are then please elaborate.

If you are referring to anecdotal evidence, then if used in conjunction with what we know to be plausible, then I agree that we can get an idea from this kind of evidence. However if someone or a group say they experienced an event that appears to contravene the known laws of nature, do I think this should be taken at face value with no corroborating evidence? No I don't. to do so would be to ignore all that we know of hallucination, group hysteria, etc.

A good example of appropriate use of anecdotal evidence is in the field of herbal medicine. Whilst there are many concoctions that are nothing but snake oil, there are other remedies that although there have not been rigorous double blind studies, it can be reasonably stated that they work, Chamomile for sleep and pain for example. But this anecdotal evidence does have some observational corroborating evidence.

Every time studies have been done on supernatural claims, eg clairvoyance. They (the claims) have never been verified.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

27 Mar 2015, 8:08 am

Lintar wrote:
Greetings :)

There is at this time another discussion taking place in the 'Politics, Philosophy and Religion' group about the existence/non-existence of God that is getting a bit bogged down, with people not really taking into consideration what is actually being said by those they disagree with (or maybe that's just my perception of the situation).


I'd say it's a measure of both. From my perspective, the discussion is bogged down by circular reasoning and unsubstantiated claims - but I can accept the possibility that comprehension failures are a factor too.

Quote:
In any case, one of the reasons for this impasse, in my not-so-humble view, is due to the stubborn presumption of the truth of the materialistic paradigm that seems to infest the sciences these days, and which atheists generally accept without question.


Let me stop you there. We've entered the realm of knowledge vs belief, which is something of a red herring. Characterising atheists as materialists is wrong in the first instance. Do you wish to argue against materialism or for the existence of a god or gods?

Quote:
Going by many names, among them 'naturalism', the philosophical position that is adhered to by so many that we should accept as the default postition the belief that nature is all there is because of an apparent 'lack of evidence' for anything that could be called supernatural, is one that is not even logically coherent.


That depends entirely on the branch of naturalism these alleged naturalists subscribe to. If you're arguing against baseline naturalism, all you need to demonstrate is that supernatural forces can affect the natural world. If you're arguing against hardline naturalism, you need to demonstrate that supernatural forces exist in the first place.

Quote:
It is not logically coherent because it
a) refuses to acknowledge the philosophical basis of the claim itself, instead treating it as something that has been scientifically demonstrated to be true


Well no. It hasn't been scientifically demonstrated to be untrue - which is not even remotely the same thing.

Quote:
b) proclaims the non-existence of something simply because the tool it uses (i.e. the scientific method) is inadequate as a method in this respect


How have you arrived at this conclusion? The scientific method is perfectly adequate as a means of measuring whether supernatural forces can operate in the natural world.

Quote:
c) fails to acknowledge the fact that evidence can, and does, take many forms


Please elaborate on this.

Quote:
d) the scientistic assertion that 'all true knowledge can only come to be via the practice of the scientific method' is itself a claim that has not, because it cannot, be scientifically tested.


What is a scientistic assertion? Who made this assertion? The test of the scientific method is in its results and in the self-correction of science. Knowledge and understanding are found in the refinement of ideas, not the dismissal of findings that you find ideologically incompatible with your philosophical worldview.

Quote:
It is an example of a self-defeating assertion, like the claims made by many Post-Modernists that 'reality isn't real' or that 'there are no absolute truths'.


You haven't really demonstrated that this is the case.

Quote:
Now perhaps the terminology I use here (ex. scientism, naturalism, materialism) will be, because it can be, criticised for being imprecise, but apart from this rather minor objection to the central claims I make here, is there anyone who can seriously suggest that all we know of via other means of knowing about the world we experience (ex. subjective personal experience, the study of history, philosophy, art et cetera), has no value precisely because it came about by means other than the ones that scientistic scientists are themselves willing to accept as being reliable? Stephen Hawking seems to believe that 'philosophy is dead' (The Grand Design), but that claim itself is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Science itself rests upon philosophical beliefs - for example, the belief that objective reality exists, the past is real, and that the tests we perform to uncover how nature works reveals to us what phenomenologists refer to as noumena (i.e. things as they actually are), and not just phenomena (i.e. things as they merely appear to us).


What useful discoveries have been made starting with the idea that "nothing is objectively real"?

Quote:
Atheists always ask for 'proof of this', 'proof of that', but can they even prove to me, here and now, that they even exist in the first place? No. All I see here is text that, for all I know, could have been produced by some elaborate computer programme, and not a real person. Proof, outside of mathematics and logic, is irrelevant because it is non-existent. There is no such thing as 'scientific proof', so they should all stop asking theists for it.


So your position is effectively "You cannot prove that you are not a construct of a solipsist fantasy therefore God exists"? And you're arguing that the scientific method, rather than philosophy, is the wrong tool for the job?

Quote:
God may or may not actually exist


If you stop there, you and I can simply agree and move on. The degree of plausibility is irrelevant if neither of us is making a positive claim.

Quote:
but there is one thing I certainly do know


You don't "know" anything. Solipsist construct, remember?

Quote:
and that is that this question will never be settled by studying nature with the intent of showing from the very beginning that belief in God is irrational.


Now we've arrived at the heart of the matter. One does not study apples to disprove the existence of oranges. Rather, one examines the specifics of the positive claim that is made. It would be irrational to begin with "God may or may not exist" and then go on to claim that a specific god, with specific characteristics, positively exists.

Quote:
There are many philosophical arguments that can be made that lend credence to the notion of God (ex. the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument) but there are NO atheistic arguments that work that I currently know of.


Define what you mean by "atheistic arguments that work". Explain why you believe the LCA is credible. You're not really making a case to be argued against here.

Quote:
'God does not exist', YouTube athiests like to say, whilst at the same time asserting that 'one cannot demonstrate that something does'nt exist' and that because of this the burden of evidence lies with the theist! I mean - really now. :roll: Talk about being inconsistent and incoherent. Need I state the obvious here? Do I really need to spell it out?


God exists, YouTube theists like to proclaim, whilst at the same time asserting that all other gods are fictional and that the true path to enlightenment and truth can only be found if you follow their specific deity.

Seriously, you're suggesting that Youtubers are somehow representative of atheists? Why should we care about the claims of vloggers? Are these vloggers making a genuine positive claim, or are they simplifying their position for effect? Are they making a genuine argument or is "God does not exist" shorthand for "I have yet to be convinced of the existence of any specific deity"? Are they making a philosophical statement on the nature of existence? What does any of this have to do with materialism or naturalism?

Oldavid wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Oldavid wrote:

However, a good logical case can be made which requires that the First Cause is also necessarily sentient.


Please elucidate
No. Let's deal with the matters in hand and first.


A sentient First Cause is central to the argument put forward, as it's an essential component of the LCA. Perhaps you've failed to understand the "matters in hand"?

It's time to either piss or get off the pot.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 85
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Mar 2015, 9:01 am

Science succeeds. Philosophy fails....



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,027

27 Mar 2015, 10:47 am

ruveyn wrote:
Science succeeds. Philosophy fails....


'Science succeeds. Philosophy fails....'

And truly, if a person is a human being, per humanity and a full emotional life, science FAILS AT ACCURATELY MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE OF HUMAN BEING, AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN HEART/SOUL, IS THE IRREFUTABLE WINNER, IN FACT,
EVIDENCED AS SUCH BY ME.

AND TRULY WHEN THE DUST HITS THE ROAD AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE IS EITHER 'SOUL/HEART' OR NOT, or 'sum' approximation of IT.

AND YOU MY FRIEND, HAVE BEEN 'COLD HEARTED/SOULED' ENOUGH

TO STATE THAT IT IS YOUR OFFSPRING'S PROBLEM IF THEY AREN'T STRONG ENOUGH TO PULL THEIR BOOT-STRAPS UP IN potential future, TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES. To be clear you suggested that in words to that effect and LACK OF 'affect'.

And truly that IS A MEASURE OF 'SOUL/HEART', IN WHAT IT EVEN FRIGGING MEANS, IN HUMAN METAPHOR.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, there is NO WAY YOU CAN POSSIBLY more fully UNDERSTAND WHAT I JUST ASSERTED, AS IT MAKES little to NO SENSE WITHOUT A 'SOUL', OR A tiny one like the Grinch before he grows one 10 TIMES BIGGER THAN THE AVERAGE GRINCH, like me...;)

AND that MEANS unconditional LOVE, where empathy and love is the prize for all, whether OTHERS are strong or not, OR CANNOT PULL THEIR FRIGGING BOOT-STRAPS UP WHEN THEY ARE WEAK, and or experiencing tough times, for economic or health reasons.

And frigging HELL YES, IT EXISTS, FOR FOLKS WHO CAN SIMPLY AND COMPLEXLY FEEL THE NUANCES OF IT, per fully experiencing WHAT HUMANITY CAN BE; SOUL/HEART THAT IS. YES, 'HUMANITY METAPHORS' INCLUDE HEART, AND THE EXPRESSION OF HEART AND/OR SOUL IN HUMAN SPIRIT.

AND FRIGGING HELL NO, SCIENCE HAS NO TOOL TO ACCURATELY MEASURE A SOUL, HEART, OR EVEN SPIRIT;

The Human Soul, Heart, and spirit, is a non-repeatable 'experiment', and an experience that varies AT LEAST AS MUCH, AS frigging snowflakes between each human being, OR FRIGGING FINGER PRINTS, as it is NEVER EVER IDENTICAL.

BUT SURE SCIENCE CAN MEASURE A FINGER PRINT, AS IT IS OBSERVABLE, WHEREAS EMOTIONS ARE EXPERIENCED INTERNALLY, AND WHEN NOT EXPRESSED THROUGH SOME MEANS OF COMMUNICATION, VERBALLY OR NON-VERBALLY, ARE FOR PRACTICAL INTENTS AND PURPOSES FRIGGING INVISIBLE,

OR THAT METAPHOR NAMED 'SUPER-NATURAL'; I mean DUH, common sense friend, with or without-out that ONE COULD ONLY 'HOPE' I GUESS,

AND only IF THEY EXPERIENCE THE EMOTION OF HOPE.

NAH, THIS AIN'T THE STUFF FOR THE WIMPY SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO FIGURE OUT.

IN FACT, NO 'ROBOT' WILL EVER BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING 'INVISIBLE' LIKE HUMAN EMOTIONS, EXPERIENCED INTERNALLY THAT ACTUALLY, can be measured partially by the actions HUMAN internal EMOTION EMOTES;

OTHERWISE KNOWN AS HUMAN COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE EMPATHY EXPERIENCED INTERNALLY AND EXPRESSED FULLER FOR ALL OTHERS; again the HUMAN metaphors of heart and soul, expressed as SPIRIT.

BUT words and cognitive empathy EXPRESSED do give an 'indication' for those of us, WITH A SOUL/HEART, TO DISCERN IF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING HAS A HEART/SOUL FULLER EXPERIENCED AND EXPRESSED, IN THE METAPHOR OF HUMAN SPIRIT.

AND WITH A REALLY BIG HEART/SOUL, A FIFTY THREE YEAR OLD FIVE-YEAR SHUT-IN MAN CAN PROGRESS TO what folks in his local METRO area call a LEGEND OF DANCE, AND PRESS 930 LBS, 14 TIMES SLOWLY, WITH HIS LEGS, over a period of 87 seconds, LIKE A 'NINJA' WITH his hands raised over his head, AT AGE 54.

AND YES, the only person in the entire world now, in the land of Google, who can DO 930LBS THIS WAY; THAT YOU CAN FIND THE EVIDENCE FOR WITH A SIMPLE google SEARCH ON THE TERM, '930 LBS'. NO ONE CAN DO HEAVY LEG PRESSES LIKE THIS, evidenced as such, in the BIG GOOGLE 'WORLD RECORD BOOK', WITH THEIR HANDS RAISED IN THE AIR, as most people use their arms for leverage, to do 'amazing' feats of foot like this....

And in case you haven't perused THAT EVIDENCE, I WILL PROVIDE THAT EVIDENCE AGAIN HERE. I do not want to trouble you with a search..;)

THAT MY FRIEND IS GENERATED BY HEART/SOUL, NOT A FRIGGING WIMPY SCIENCE TEXTBOOK...... OR A BONY SCIENTIFIC METHOD..;)

YES, THIS IS AN EXPRESSION IN SPIRIT OF HOW BIG MY SOUL/HEART IS; ENJOY, IF you can or will...;)



CASE CLOSED..

for now..;)

And as, I have stated once before with you; you once asked Alex here how he got connected to gorgeous gals in photos here.

I'll show ya how it's done friend, with some pointers, and over 200 photos of gorgeous gals for photographic evidence, in case you have not perused or pursued that evidence.

http://katiemiafrederick.com/2014/12/09/gods-muse-of-dance/

Yes, human heart and soul, FULLY EXPRESSED LIKE I DO IT, IN THE HUMAN SPIRIT OF DANCE IN NON-VERBAL DANCE, HAS ITS BENEFITS, LIKE A FRIGGING TITANIUM CREDIT CARD THAT NEVER RUNS OUT IN ATTRACTING the opposite SEX.

I mean seriously, if you knew you could grow a soul/heart, like this when you are 54, AND FULLY EXPRESS IT IN NON-VERBAL SPIRIT, AND ACCOMPLISH WHAT I DID AND DO IN THOSE OVER 200 PHOTOS WITH GORGEOUS GALS, what would you have done TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN, AS I KNOW THIS SPEAKS YOUR LANGUAGE, OF 'HUMAN JOY'..;)

HUMAN HEART, SOUL, AND SPIRIT, IS REAL BABY, AND FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE IT, WE MAKE REAL MIRACLES HAPPEN, WITH EASE, LIKE A FEATHER FLOATING IN THE HEAVEN OF NOW.

AND THAT'S INCREDIBLE, TO STATE IT IN RIPLEY'S TERMS OF 'BELIEVE IT OR NOT'.

REAL HUMAN STRENGTH IS IN THE EMOTING POWERS OF THE HUMANS EMOTIONS OF RELATIVE HUMAN FREE WILL, FAITH, HOPE, AND BELIEF, expressed through the real human emoting powers of imagination and creativity

through human PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE IN ALL INNATE INSTINCT AND INTUITION, AND WHO KNOWS IF YOU STILL HAD THESE HIGHER HUMAN POTENTIALS EXPRESSED MORE FULLY,

IN YOUR 70'S LIKE I HAVE IN MY 50'S, YOU MIGHT STILL BE DOING WHAT I CAN AND JUST DO NOW, or even more, as I for one, certainly do NOT HOLD 'ALL THE MARBLES' OF FULLER HUMAN POTENTIAL IN HEART AND SOUL, EXPERIENCED AND EXPRESSED AS SPIRIT.

WHY NOT; 20-SOMETHING YEAR OLD DUDES CANNOT COME CLOSE TO WHAT I CAN ACCOMPLISH WITH A MEGA GRINCH HEART, AT 54...;)

AND THE FABULOUS Jack LaLanne, DID MANY MORE amazing physical achievements with human heart, and soul, more fully in tow, and expressed in toes of feet in human feats, in the potential of human spirit, more fully experienced and expressed in physical way, than I do now, in his 60's....

AND HELL NO, THE bony SCIENTIFIC METHOD, WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PROVE HOW I DO IT BABY.

AND WITH THAT SAID, HERE'S A LITTLE SONG; THAT kinda expresses what I do with heart, soul, and spirit, FULLER in HUMAN POTENTIAL tow, with 'magic toes', of feats of foot EXPRESSED IN HUMAN PHYSICAL SPIRIT.

Except, I'm drug free baby, with the higher power of GOD aka known as those emoting human emotions behind me like a frigging Hurricane of SPIRIT FLOW! OR TSUNAMI; TAKE YOUR PICK..;)



Remember; wink..;)

AND THANKS FOR THE 'dark inspiration', "RUVE' BABY"..;)

LET'S FACE FACTS AND METAPHOR.

THERE ARE TWO WORLDS, THE WORLD(S) OF SCIENCE IN SYSTEMIZING MIND, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS AUTISTIC WITH A U, TO THE EXTREME,

AND THE WORLD(S) OF ART IN ARTISTIC MIND WITH A R MORE FULLY EXPERIENCED IN HUMAN POTENTIAL LIKE

ME.

THE TWO CAN WORK TOGETHER FOR 'GENIUS' LIKE ME, LIKE A HUMAN ROCKET IN FLOATING FEATHER POWER, FIRMLY PLANTED ON TERRESTRIAL EARTH, IN 'REAL HUMAN GENIUS', PER FULLER HUMAN POTENTIAL OR


THE TWO MAY NEVER MEET TO CREATE 'REAL HUMAN GENIUS' IN FULLER HUMAN POTENTIAL, SO FAR BEYOND STANDARD IQ THAT STANDARD IQ BECOMES CHILD PLAY, FOR CHILDREN WITH NO IMAGINATION OR CREATIVITY, MORE FULLY SOUGHT, FOUND, EMPLOYED, DEVELOPED, UTILIZED AND PRACTICED IN REAL PLAYTIME, NOW, BABY...;)

LIKE THIS RUVE' BABY....;)

AND THE CASE REMAINS...
OPEN..

WITH NO PERIODS.............

FOR ME, AT LEAST..............


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,027

27 Mar 2015, 11:22 am

*Edit, 88 seconds not 87 seconds, to be pedantic..;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

27 Mar 2015, 2:54 pm

Oldavid wrote:



In philosophy, however, if you start with a certain, sure, (as in "Established beyond doubt or question; definitely known" (dictionary definition)) premise(s) and you make no errors of logic the result is also certain and can be another premise for another investigation..............................................

The chain of conclusions/premises must come from, and never contradict some very basic premise(s) that we will call "self-evident". A basic self-evident truth is one where a proposition has only one alternative which is its contrary and that contrary is self-contradictory and thus absurd. The first, and most basic, prime example of which is "I exist".



And here we have the reason for your adamant assertion in the face of all experiments and intricate observations, along with the verifying math, that the world of science has got it wrong. You start with the self evident truth that God exists, then move onto the "fact" that everything moves to higher entropy and therefore in your flawless logic, Evolution cannot have occurred and the only explanation therefore is the world and everything in it was created by God.

Trouble is David there are few if any truly self evident truths. And most certainly God is not one of them ie It may exist but its existence is NOT self evident, in fact the probability of its existence is very low, so your logic fails immediately due to a false premise. Secondly you vastly underestimate the intricacies of the second law of thermodynamics (you still have not responded to my frequent requests to falsify the maths I provided you).

As an aside, I generally think that "I exist" is self evident, but as your new BFF will rightly ask you, Prove it.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

27 Mar 2015, 4:18 pm

adifferentname wrote:
A sentient First Cause is central to the argument put forward, as it's an essential component of the LCA. Perhaps you've failed to understand the "matters in hand"?

It's time to either piss or get off the pot.
Whether a First Cause is sentient or not is not relevant to whether Naturalism is philosophically unsound or not.

Your tsunami of largely irrelevant accusations and glib assertions doesn't "prove" anything we don't already know; that is that you and your mates insist that everything that the media buffs sell as "science" is science simply because it suits some ideological prejudices we will call Naturalism for the purpose of this thread.

I am contending that Naturalism is philosophically unsound but, unfortunately, it is impossible to argue with turkeys who predictably respond to any stimulus with gobble gobble gobbledegook. How can you and your mates argue about a philosophical credibility of anything if you don't know what philosophy (science) is. You are simply demonstrating that you can't.

Your infantile credulity that insists that popularised media nonscience is all that is known about everything is something that is being indirectly challenged in this thread.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

27 Mar 2015, 4:44 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
In philosophy, however, if you start with a certain, sure, (as in "Established beyond doubt or question; definitely known" (dictionary definition)) premise(s) and you make no errors of logic the result is also certain and can be another premise for another investigation..............................................

The chain of conclusions/premises must come from, and never contradict some very basic premise(s) that we will call "self-evident". A basic self-evident truth is one where a proposition has only one alternative which is its contrary and that contrary is self-contradictory and thus absurd. The first, and most basic, prime example of which is "I exist".


And here we have the reason for your adamant assertion in the face of all experiments and intricate observations, along with the verifying math, that the world of science has got it wrong. You start with the self evident truth that God exists, then move onto the "fact" that everything moves to higher entropy and therefore in your flawless logic, Evolution cannot have occurred and the only explanation therefore is the world and everything in it was created by God.

Trouble is David there are few if any truly self evident truths. And most certainly God is not one of them ie It may exist but its existence is NOT self evident, in fact the probability of its existence is very low, so your logic fails immediately due to a false premise. Secondly you vastly underestimate the intricacies of the second law of thermodynamics (you still have not responded to my frequent requests to falsify the maths I provided you).

As an aside, I generally think that "I exist" is self evident, but as your new BFF will rightly ask you, Prove it.
I invited readers to think about it. You obviously didn't even recognise what you were invited to think about quite apart from your apparent inability and/or unwillingness to do so.

A self-evident truth is where a proposition has no alternative but its contrary which is self-contradictory and thus absurd. I did not claim that the existence of God is self-evident.

"I exist"... alternative; "I do not exist". Absurd because you can't think you don't exist if you don't exist. A certain logical proof.

I'm wasting my time. There is no interesting and stimulating conversation to be had around here.

The only example of a Klein Bottle is a stupid Materialist with his head in his own arse.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

27 Mar 2015, 4:51 pm

Oldavid wrote:
I did not claim that the existence of God is self-evident


Not in this thread, but you have in others.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,609
Location: Reading, England

27 Mar 2015, 6:17 pm

Lintar wrote:
Where has 'The Walrus' gone? Maybe he is busy, but he DID say that the cosmological arguments were useless and wrong, easily refuted and a joke.

Yes, I am usually busy at 3am.


Quote:
1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause [A version of PSR - that's the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason'].
2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3) The universe exists.
4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4).

This is from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/leibnizs ... nd-the-psr

Ok, I'll start off to help you along. Premise two is presumptuous, or at least it appears that way. Why must the explanation be God?


Ding ding ding...
Quote:
Well, that is due to how the concept of God is actually defined in the first place.

This is but one definition of "God".
Quote:
That is, it (not 'He' - silly anthropomorphism) has certain... 'characteristics', let's call them, that simply must apply if we are to consider the idea at all seriously, and if the concept is to have any value at all to us. For instance, it must contain within itself the reason for why it is; that is, it must be a necessary entity that is as essential to us as mathematical truths like, 'All triangles have three sides'... <snip>

Why?

Quote:
'God' must also, in order to qualify for the 'job description', be transcendent. The laws of nature cannot confine it, for the laws themselves were created by 'God'. God does not exist within the universe, for the same reasons why a painter will not be found on the canvas, a novelist will not be a character within the novel.

I'll accept that any "god" must be transcendent (though I'd like to point out this means most theists are wrong about their conception of god). I'd like to see some evidence that "god" actually created the laws of physics. I'd also point out that there are many works of art in which the creator participates, but that's a red herring.

Quote:
'An actual infinity of moments cannot be traversed' - J. P. Moreland. Yes, he is a Christian theist, but he is still right about this.

Does Moreland have any proof for his claim?
Quote:
There must be something, and it doesn't matter if we call it 'God', that really is timeless and immaterial

Evidence?
Quote:
Saying that 'oh, it just popped into being from nothing', or 'we believe reality to be inexplicable'... well, both of these answers are just plain stupid, and I need not take them at all seriously.

Reasoning?
Quote:
So... God is the timeless and immaterial substrate that supports physical reality, without which there really would exist nothing, that is the ultimate explanation for all we know (because it short-circuits the infinite regress problem), and which cannot not exist, for it is necessary and therefore has no causal agent.

You might be starting to spot a theme here...
1) That isn't a widely accepted definition of "god".
2) You can't say something "must exist" without evidence for it

Come back when you can demonstrate that the universe requires a Prime Mover.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

27 Mar 2015, 8:41 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
I did not claim that the existence of God is self-evident


Not in this thread, but you have in others.
Never ever. It's just another of your spurious assertions.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

27 Mar 2015, 8:47 pm

Oldavid wrote:
Whether a First Cause is sentient or not is not relevant to whether Naturalism is philosophically unsound or not.


In case you missed it, I'm addressing a positive claim of absolute knowledge contained in the original post. The LCA argument was cited as a defence of this positive claim. If you're going to argue that the original post in the thread is off-topic, there's really no point in acknowledging your presence here.

Quote:
Your tsunami of largely irrelevant accusations and glib assertions doesn't "prove" anything we don't already know


Indeed. It is your artless non-answers which demonstrate the gaps in your knowledge.

Quote:
that is that you and your mates insist that everything that the media buffs sell as "science" is science simply because it suits some ideological prejudices we will call Naturalism for the purpose of this thread.


Which "mates" would those be? If you were interested in facts rather than some half-baked narrative you've constructed out of whole cloth, you would be aware that I'm ideologically opposed to most of the atheists on WP on a variety of issues. How about you man up and address the subject matter instead of concocting ad hominem bedtime stories?

Quote:
I am contending that Naturalism is philosophically unsound but, unfortunately, it is impossible to argue with turkeys who predictably respond to any stimulus with gobble gobble gobbledegook. How can you and your mates argue about a philosophical credibility of anything if you don't know what philosophy (science) is. You are simply demonstrating that you can't.


We haven't even established which branch of naturalism is being discussed, let alone heard a philosophical argument to support your contention. Let's examine your contribution to the thread so far.

Post #1 Ad hominem attack, bow out due to time constraints.
Post #2 An appeal that we redefine terms to suit your unsupported assertion
Post #3 An attempt to redefine "philosophy" (general) as meaning "natural philosophy" (specific).
Post #4 An ad hominem attack, an assertion that "materialism is a religion" and a second assertion that "theology has nothing to do with philosophy".
Post #5 Pithy strawman followed by some anecdotal discussion concerning your ability to express emotions or lack thereof.
Post #6 Ad hominem attack followed by an appeal to stay on topic.
Post #7 Personal attack with a second appeal to stay on topic.
Post #8 Second appeal to redefine terms, this time without any mention of which terms need to be defined and how they should be defined.
Post #9 Substance free sophistry with an attempt to narrowly define "science" - a term which I can think of at least 7 definitions for off the top of my head, none of which are compatible with the entirely unrelated derogatory term "scientism".
Post #10 Ad hominem attack followed by unqualified assertion that there is a "good logical case" for a sentient First Cause.
Post #11 Assertion of "leaping to conclusions" without qualification.
Post #12 Refusal to provide qualifier for #10
Post #13 Some entry-level philosophical musings.

Which brings us up to date.

I find it interesting that someone who has attempted to present himself as an authority on philosophy relies so much on logical fallacies.

Quote:
Your infantile credulity that insists that popularised media nonscience is all that is known about everything is something that is being indirectly challenged in this thread.


Do I need to point out the self-evident fallacies in this asinine statement? Should I deign to provide my opinion on "media nonscience", you can be assured that I will not employ you as my spokesperson.

You've been on that pot for quite some time. Are you going to produce anything of note?



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

28 Mar 2015, 1:27 am

adifferentname wrote:
You've been on that pot for quite some time. Are you going to produce anything of note?
Been there, done that.

I have not the slightest intention of warming your leg by pissing in your pocket.

The "LCA argument" is refuted or falsified? Tell us about it. No glib assertions will be accepted as "evidence" of course.
Odd wrote:
I am contending that Naturalism is philosophically unsound but, unfortunately, it is impossible to argue with turkeys who predictably respond to any stimulus with gobble gobble gobbledegook. How can you and your mates argue about a philosophical credibility of anything if you don't know what philosophy (science) is. You are simply demonstrating that you can't.

Quote:
We haven't even established which branch of naturalism is being discussed, let alone heard a philosophical argument to support your contention. Let's examine your contribution to the thread so far.

Post #1 Ad hominem attack, bow out due to time constraints.
Post #2 An appeal that we redefine terms to suit your unsupported assertion
Post #3 An attempt to redefine "philosophy" (general) as meaning "natural philosophy" (specific).
Post #4 An ad hominem attack, an assertion that "materialism is a religion" and a second assertion that "theology has nothing to do with philosophy".
Post #5 Pithy strawman followed by some anecdotal discussion concerning your ability to express emotions or lack thereof.
Post #6 Ad hominem attack followed by an appeal to stay on topic.
Post #7 Personal attack with a second appeal to stay on topic.
Post #8 Second appeal to redefine terms, this time without any mention of which terms need to be defined and how they should be defined.
Post #9 Substance free sophistry with an attempt to narrowly define "science" - a term which I can think of at least 7 definitions for off the top of my head, none of which are compatible with the entirely unrelated derogatory term "scientism".
Post #10 Ad hominem attack followed by unqualified assertion that there is a "good logical case" for a sentient First Cause.
Post #11 Assertion of "leaping to conclusions" without qualification.
Post #12 Refusal to provide qualifier for #10
Post #13 Some entry-level philosophical musings.

Which brings us up to date.

I find it interesting that someone who has attempted to present himself as an authority on philosophy relies so much on logical fallacies.
Righto. "Prove", or at least demonstrate alleged "logical fallacies" worst first so I can respond.

I've had lots of experience arguing with idiots. The "ad hominem" accusation is usually the last "defence" that means "stop showing me up to be an idiot" or I'll denounce you to the anti-discrimination whatsis for not giving "equal rights" to perversity and error.

You still have shown no attempt to "prove" that Naturalism is not "philosophically unsound".



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

28 Mar 2015, 2:22 am

Wow!! !! David are you seriously complaining about Ad Hominem behaviour? What hypocrisy.

I see you still have not responded in an honest way to my post concerning your rationale for refuting evolution.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

28 Mar 2015, 6:02 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Wow!! ! ! David are you seriously complaining about Ad Hominem behaviour? What hypocrisy.
Ho hum. I'm not, never have, complained about any such thing.
Dud wrote:
I see you still have not responded in an honest way to my post concerning your rationale for refuting evolution.
Oh dear! Remind me! I've refuted the "evolution" hoax everywhere and every time.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

28 Mar 2015, 1:08 pm

Oldavid wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
You've been on that pot for quite some time. Are you going to produce anything of note?
Been there, done that.

I have not the slightest intention of warming your leg by pissing in your pocket.


Well it's admirable of you to admit you're not ready for potty training. Let us know when your diaper starts to itch.

Quote:
The "LCA argument" is refuted or falsified? Tell us about it. No glib assertions will be accepted as "evidence" of course.


Which version of the LCA argument? Again, you've provided nothing of substance. Make an assertion and back it up, otherwise your position can be dismissed out of hand as "lacks the courage of his convictions".

Quote:
Righto. "Prove", or at least demonstrate alleged "logical fallacies" worst first so I can respond.


I'll provide you with one example, your first post in this thread. Anyone with an ounce of reason will understand why I haven't already quoted every single fallacy you've committed in this discussion, and why I refrain from doing so now.

Oldavid wrote:
I see the hecklers are already busy...


Your opening statement in the thread is a clear shotgun ad hominem which leads directly into an unsubstantiated and vague strawman representation of any potential detractor as a "materialist" (which you commonly conflate with "Atheist"):

Oldavid wrote:
trying to head off any suggestion that there might be some metaphysical things or "stuffs" like truth, virtue, intellect, reason, logic, art, life, knowledge, understanding, will... etc. that are worthy of examination or contemplation (more metaphysical stuffs).


I doubt any reasonable person would accuse me of making a leap of faith were I to assert that the targets of this claim are those aforementioned Atheists - but that's not even relevant except as context for a larger picture, extant beyond the bounds of this thread. It is not necessary to identify the specific targets in order to call the foul in this instance.

Quote:
I've had lots of experience arguing with idiots.


This explains your piss poor debating skills. If you need some pointers, you need only ask.

Quote:
The "ad hominem" accusation is usually the last "defence" that means "stop showing me up to be an idiot" or I'll denounce you to the anti-discrimination whatsis for not giving "equal rights" to perversity and error.


When someone slips the occasional ad hominem into an otherwise logically sound and well reasoned argument, it can be overlooked. When someone posts virtually no positive assertions, refuses to back up contentions and resorts to ad hominem almost by default, it is a perfectly acceptable criticism of both the argument and the arguer to point it out.

You fall deep into the bowels of the second category.

Quote:
You still have shown no attempt to "prove" that Naturalism is not "philosophically unsound".


We still haven't established which particular form of Naturalism is up for debate. As Lintar is the original poster, I suggest that it's up to Lintar to clarify this for us.