Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[Blake]

You still got it wrong. Paley is talking about intelligent design.



Not the same thing as the clockmaker theory:



The reason I've been calling you out for your diction is that it's leading to you getting confused in almost every post. That's a big deal in a philosophical discussion. We're talking about two different concepts here, one we both agree is a false analogy and one on which we disagree. It does nothing for the discussion for you to constantly concatenate the two.

Franklin was also talking about intelligent design and complexity:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KOhKqgMD10cC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=ben+Franklin+clockmaker+analogy&source=bl&ots=EJgSLFovaN&sig=PcXVfNW3EFd0iUbXBJ2SQPd5Zco&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IXPpU9bhHKm57AbJqICoDQ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAw

Clock or watch; it's the same idea.

It sounds now like you're saying you simply believe in an indifferent designer and leaving it at that.

That's fine, but you should be more precise instead of throwing out terms you admit you don't know the origins of. Especially if you're going to take a sidebar to call me out on my own precision.

[pgardn]

Don't keep going for the same fish every time when you know they aren't going to bite when they see your leader. Switch to fluorocarbon, something from Seagar, 100lb class. I'd do a Bimini twist just in case you get a smoker.

Just tied up some leaders. 25 lb fluoro leader with 10 - 12 lb test line. Flats for redfish. Damn things head straight for the oysters requiring me to exit my kayak. I love the flats. Improved clinch for me.

[DMC]

Just tied up some leaders. 25 lb fluoro leader with 10 - 12 lb test line. Flats for redfish. Damn things head straight for the oysters requiring me to exit my kayak. I love the flats. Improved clinch for me.

Good knots but I'd use 20lb powerpro with the same leader and some superglue to make it stick.

[pgardn]

Franklin was also talking about intelligent design and complexity:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KOhKqgMD10cC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=ben+Franklin+clockmaker+analogy&source=bl&ots=EJgSLFovaN&sig=PcXVfNW3EFd0iUbXBJ2SQPd5Zco&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IXPpU9bhHKm57AbJqICoDQ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAw

Clock or watch; it's the same idea.

It sounds now like you're saying you simply believe in a benign designer and leaving it at that.

That's fine, but you should be more precise instead of throwing out terms you admit you don't know the origins of. Especially if you're going to take a sidebar to call me out on my own precision.

The watchmaker was definitely about perfection in design. Richard Dawkins wrote The Blind Watchmaker to crush the perfection.
Dawkins is not my type though. He takes pleasure in abusing people verbally. He is as bad as some of these preachers that make jokes of the monkey to ape thing.
The Selfish Gene was a great idea at the time. Gould is one who did (RIP) do a great job in dismissing the perfection notion,

[DMC]

The watchmaker was definitely about perfection in design. Richard Dawkins wrote The Blind Watchmaker to crush the perfection.
Dawkins is not my type though. He takes pleasure in abusing people verbally. He is as bad as some of these preachers that make jokes of the monkey to ape thing.
The Selfish Gene was a great idea at the time. Gould is one who did (RIP) do a great job in dismissing the perfection notion,

I felt the same way about Dawkins. I liked Hitchens but he represented "what happens when you don't have god" to a lot of theists. He was remarkably poignant in his speeches but I thought he became more interested in conversion than in anything else. He would take a debate and ignore his opponent, then speak to the audience instead. his opponent was quite often a buffoon and easily defeated, but Christopher lost his focus. Still an interesting person to watch however (not now, he doesn't do anything these days).

[xmas1997]

I felt the same way about Dawkins. I liked Hitchens but he represented "what happens when you don't have god" to a lot of theists. He was remarkably poignant in his speeches but I thought he became more interested in conversion than in anything else. He would take a debate and ignore his opponent, then speak to the audience instead. his opponent was quite often a buffoon and easily defeated, but Christopher lost his focus. Still an interesting person to watch however (not now, he doesn't do anything these days).

I don't know if you saw the post, or if you're interested if you have seen it, nor if you are even in this neck of the woods, but you are welcome at the GTG if you're able and of a mind to go.

[pgardn]

Good knots but I'd use 20lb powerpro with the same leader and some superglue to make it stick.

This fluoro I got today is really easy to tie and looks really stealthy, to me anyway.
First time I've used this type. I hope it holds up, it will get nicked.
20 lb, man that's getting close. The type I've used before has busted and nicks
My knots, I must say, are damn good. They hold. But the glue idea, interesting. Not (no pun) tried it.

its a trade off. If the water is a little off color I'll get away with it.
Reds fight like little trucks, but they rarely just pull off, rubbery mouths, lots of tissue.
its those oysters, they love to hang around.

[DMC]

It is all a matter of degrees, not necessarily a science degree per say.
For example, DMC pointed out my computer as being evidence and as such proof.
It is, for me.
And it is direct evidence, for me and anyone else who is here observing me. For you and everyone else on this site it is indirect evidence (second hand knowledge) and you have to take my word for whether I am telling you the truth for you to believe without a shadow of doubt.
You could be "they" if you are actively performing the experiments, or have performed, or even experienced the experiments being performed by others, etc. as the basis for your belief.
But even said, you need to be careful in drawing extensions from there when it comes to all of science in general.


I don't see how DMC gets along with people in the outside world if this is an example of how closed his mind is on this forum.
He even gives respectable atheists a bad name.
:lmao


As you can tell from his latest post, blake has no intention of debating or discussing.
His sole intention is to troll, that is all he ever does on here.
I am surprised you got DMC to debate because all he usually does is troll too.
It is what it is, we are used to it.


Again it is very telling that some of us can respect diverse opinions like the way chinook and others feel and believe even though we might not agree with them, yet so many others on here seem to find it offensive and try to ridicule, or feel so threatened that they they have to pick holes in people's beliefs or opinions.
Chinook certainly destroyed DMC even though I doubt that was his intention, and it goes without saying he made mincemeat of blake's trolling.


Not true. DMC believes he is better than you. He also thinks you're stupid. You are obviously a very well educated man but if you can't see that then you still have a lot of learning to do.


That is what we all, or most of us anyway, who possess open but critical thinking minds can hope to achieve IMHO.
You never know where insight and clarification will come from.
I have nothing against DMC personally, I recognize his intelligence, that is, when he isn't trolling, and only when he attacks me first do I respond in kind.
If you get a chance, I recommend you engage in a discussion with SBM sometime too, he has much to offer, that is, when he isn't busy making fun of the trolls on here.


I didn't realize this about DMC until he started trying to attack me in an emotional manner instead of using reason and civility.

It came as quite a surprise actually.

After which I began responding back somewhat the same as he was doing to me.

And then I was informed he was trolling, and it became pretty clear.


I would instead offer this;

Invite DMC to the gtg.

If DMC goes - I go.

This will tell you everything you need to know about DMC.

Fluorocarbon leader results

[Blake]

Lol

[xmas1997]

Fluorocarbon leader results

As I said before, no offense was ever meant.
I was returning what was thrown out at me.
Regardless, I harbor no animosity.
You are certainly welcome at the GTG if you want to go.
In fact, anyone who wants to go is welcome.

[pgardn]

Gould is incredible for those who have not read.

He has all the collections of his Natural History Articles in books.
Great 5 page reads. Bring the dictionary. hens teeth horses toes, pandas thumb, ever since Darwin, bully for brontosaurus ... And on.

Jared Diamond basically filled the spot and he is very good.
Also Issac Fkn Asimov is still awesome even though some of his non fiction is dated.
Ernst Mayr wrote an incredible book, the growth of biological thought, but it's a much tougher read than all the above.

[DMC]

As I said before, no offense was ever meant.
I was returning what was thrown out at me.
Regardless, I harbor no animosity.
You are certainly welcome at the GTG if you want to go.
In fact, anyone who wants to go is welcome.

I'll cancel my upcoming trip to Boston.

[xmas1997]

I'll cancel my upcoming trip to Boston.

Riiiight. :lmao

A simple, "no thank you", would have sufficed.

But anyway, you are still sincerely welcome to go.

You as well, dgardn.

Even you, blake.

[RD2191]

I'll cancel my upcoming trip to Boston.
:cat

[pgardn]

Riiiight. :lmao

A simple, "no thank you", would have sufficed.

But anyway, you are still sincerely welcome to go.

You as well, dgardn.

Even you, blake.


I am everywhere and nowhere.
I have a ridiculously unpredictable job. I could go out of town at 4 am if someone calls. I plan to go to Aransas Pass to fish. While I am down there I might have to go directly to Corpus airport, then Dallas (destination if lucky), and then I'm in Denver. It's sucks but....

Im quitting dammit. No. My wife would find out. I could just hide I guess. But my daughter...

[xmas1997]

I am everywhere and nowhere.
I have a ridiculously unpredictable job. I could go out of town at 4 am if someone calls. I plan to go to Aransas Pass to fish. While I am down there I might have to go directly to Corpus airport, then Dallas (destination if lucky), and then I'm in Denver. It's sucks but....

Im quitting dammit. No. My wife would find out. I could just hide I guess. But my daughter...

:lmao

[xmas1997]

I don't see why things said on a silly insignificant internet message board should be a hindrance for anyone IMHO.
In the grand scheme of things this is really a very minor thing and nothing to be taken seriously
But some hold grudges I suppose, others find it stupid (right blake?), and still others have better things to do.

[Chinook]

Franklin was also talking about intelligent design and complexity:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KOhKqgMD10cC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=ben+Franklin+clockmaker+analogy&source=bl&ots=EJgSLFovaN&sig=PcXVfNW3EFd0iUbXBJ2SQPd5Zco&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IXPpU9bhHKm57AbJqICoDQ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAw

Clock or watch; it's the same idea.

It sounds now like you're saying you simply believe in an indifferent designer and leaving it at that.

That's fine, but you should be more precise instead of throwing out terms you admit you don't know the origins of. Especially if you're going to take a sidebar to call me out on my own precision.

Lol. I don't need to know the origins of a term to know its application. Your problem wasn't failing to know who invented the word, "illogical." It was failing to know what the word actually means and how it extends in a philosophical debate. In any account, I have said my view clearly (many times) and used the clockmaker analogy as the closest thing we have to depicting it. Unlike you, I'm not looking for other people to quote to try to legitimize my views, and so it means nothing if that analogy fails.

In any event, that book said that the analogy had two extensions, the first being the one that fails in the face of later scientific discovery (the one that we've been calling the watchmaker analogy) and the second one that he did not publish and that deists were using earlier to describe god's lack of interference (the one that we've been calling the clockmaker analogy). So one of two things seems to be true. Either the two analogies have a common ancestor (the view Franklin held) and they have diverged as time has gone on, or the two analogies have always been separate, and Franklin held both views and concatenated them into his world-view on the matter.

Interesting read, though. I retract my statement that Franklin held my view, although he did seem to be the one who made both analogies popular.

[Chinook]

It's not whether or not he exists in this universe. It's whether or not you believe a god exists in this universe. You said you don't. How do you define "universe"? Doesn't the "uni" part mean anything?

I consider evolution a fact, but the ToE I haven't researched well enough to have a real opinion on it, however I do believe in the process of scientific testing and there are thousands of scientists out there who would love to debunk that theory. I don't have a belief in scientific theories. I acknowledge them for what they are, even the theory of gravity, but I do feel confident that gravity exists.

A name for that containing all that is relevant. A unique set of materials and the causal chain that binds them together. The "uni" part say to me that its self contained, that it's together. Do you think only one university exists?


You mean to say you believe something exists and you're labeling it "god", but it doesn't exist in the world we know. Is it the Christian God? Or is any being advanced enough to operate between realms good enough to consider a god? Again, why god?

You basically did with agnostics what I did with your claim of theism... you dismissed it by saying they really don't feel that way.

You're trying to apply unnecessary extensions to the term again. Since we agree god is unknown empirically, why would I have any of those answers? Why are they even relevant?

Nah. You are trying to redefine what a term means to essentially clump together all the religious people together. But that's unnecessary, since a category already exists. I'm saying belief is binary. The only people who don't have a stance are those two have either never been exposed to the issue or those who through a sheer act of will manage to keep the issue from every coming up. That's not a category so much as an unstable situation for which we must make allowances.


We did? How is something verifiable theoretically? Aren't you just changing "falsifiable" into "verifiable" and don't they basically mean the same things?

ver·i·fy verb \ˈver-ə-ˌfī\
: to prove, show, find out, or state that (something) is true or correct

Unless you mean "state that something is true or correct" then you're referring to the same thing as being falsifiable. How is a god theoretically verifiable?

Like, we could find out god exists by finding him. But we can't disprove god exists by failing to do so. That's why the question of god is unscientific. Dunno what you were thinking if it wasn't that.


How do you know that something bound by eternity (whatever that means) is bound by proximate mechanisms? How do you know an intelligence has the chance to not be? How are you differentiating between intelligence and other things? Is a bug an intelligence? Is a human? Do either of us have a chance to not be bound by proximate mechanisms?

These seem like things you want me to accept as a priori truths but they aren't.

I assume I wouldn't have to point out a priori truths to anyone. So I didn't mean that. If they were true, I wouldn't have to say words like, "have a chance to be", or "is probably intelligent".

I consider humans to be imperfect examples of intelligence. We can make all these decisions without obvious proximate mechanisms, but we are still bound by subtle mechanisms. Our thoughts are part of the causal chain. Theoretically, the only thing that could start a chain (without being part of another chain itself) is something free of causal chains altogether. That's why I suggested that the prime mover would have a somewhat free sense of sentience in a way we like to think of ourselves as having. That would allow the mover to begin existence without a cause.


Historically theists scientists have been shunned by other theists for their discoveries. The theists you mention are the forefathers of atheism, for the most part. What did Darwin get for making the claims he made, what did he get for his Origin of Species, from the other theists? Let's not revise history here. Deists have tip toed on the edges of belief, seemingly in fear of being labeled atheist in days when it would have been career suicide. Even today a professed atheist would likely not win the presidential race.

I pretty much agree with your last statement as a somewhat sad reflection of the times. The rest is just you explaining your bias. Again, you have this world-view about theists and atheists that pretty much infects the rest of your well-reasoned arguments.


That's circular reasoning, as the term "effect" implies "cause". Is god an effect? Whatever makes god not an effect in your mind, apply that to non-god like matter and energy.

It doesn't work that way. Since I consider being the PM god's only necessary attribute, the two terms are logically equivalent. So I can't apply the PM quality to a non-god. The closest I can come is to say that something is an effect (meaning something we can observe) that has no logical need for a cause.


Not so much as understanding of time, but understanding of the paradox created by applying time based things before time has started. It's not my problem, you're the one doing it. If you want to imply that time is nebulous, then do away with "beginning of time", and if you want to imply that time can having a beginning, then do away with "before the beginning of time". Before implies time, and unless you can show me an instance where the term "before" doesn't imply time, I'll probably maintain that stance. I know it can be used as a spatial reference "the road before you get to the interstate", but it is still implying time.

Think you have it backwards. "Before" is a spatial word applied to time. It just means, "in front of".

Anyway, again, it is only paradoxical in your mind, since you're asserting that there's only our existence as a necessary assumption. It's not. Such a view is self-centered. The only time any of us have is our life-spans. So to us, there is no before we were born nor an after when we die. But you can still understand that things happen outside of that range. So in that regard, the universe has its own life-span, which we call time. But if it were formed by proximate mechanisms, then from the perspective of anyone who could observe those mechanisms, there would be a before. Such a thought is not hard to hold in one's mind.


An uncaused prime mover is the only turtle in this conversation. It seems to be floating in space.

Not really.


You cannot test the view. When you presuppose the answer, you're always looking for the proof of that answer. So you're out there and you're looking for things this god created. You cannot be looking to validate your view, because it's not testable. If you presuppose a big bounce, for example, you could look at things around you and you might conclude "nope, not bouncing" but you cannot look and say "nope, no god" because it would be the picture of a cow eating grass thing... what? No grass? Cow must have eaten it... what? no cow? After he ate the grass he left, why stick around if there's no grass?

Here's the pic btw





So yeah.

Still a poor extension. If you don't believe you can find proof of god, then you won't look for it. If you aren't looking for it, then you're looking for other things just like everyone else. Hence why Galileo still looked at how the Earth moved despite believing god put it there.


It demonstrates that you were wrong, that it has been disputed. So now both Bertrand Russell and Stephen Hawking are lazy with poor understanding of their respective fields of expertise. I'm not one to use argument from authority, but let's not go down that road.

Do you think there was a first creature who could be called a true homo sapien? Do you not think it becomes a bit nebulous for a few thousand years? What if there were twins?

I didn't know "disputed" meant someone had a terrible, baseless argument. I kind of meant it in the sense of someone providing a real counterexample.

And obviously, you don't have twins in your family. There's ALWAYS a first born.


My grade school teacher did it all the time with a red ink pen.

I imagine that's just a joke on your part. Otherwise, I'm worried you don't actually know what it means to be falsifiable.


3000 years ago, probably could have gotten the same perspective from a nomad wondering around in the desert, that he has a good understanding of the world around him.

Just reinforces my argument.

[DMC]

A name for that containing all that is relevant. A unique set of materials and the causal chain that binds them together. The "uni" part say to me that its self contained, that it's together. Do you think only one university exists?

I think you have a limited, custom definition for the universe. You basically believe in the multiverse concept where quantum entanglement binds the universes together. It doesn't solve any problems though. You're merely altering the classical definition of the term "universe". If we are to just chose alternate definitions, we have no reason to even discuss things. Otherwise I could define it as the field behind my childhood home.


You're trying to apply unnecessary extensions to the term again. Since we agree god is unknown empirically, why would I have any of those answers? Why are they even relevant?

For god to be the answer, something has to be known about the answer to know it's the answer. That seems simple enough.


Nah. You are trying to redefine what a term means to essentially clump together all the religious people together. But that's unnecessary, since a category already exists. I'm saying belief is binary. The only people who don't have a stance are those two have either never been exposed to the issue or those who through a sheer act of will manage to keep the issue from every coming up. That's not a category so much as an unstable situation for which we must make allowances.

But belief isn't binary if we simply change the definition for belief to include a notion, a hope, an allowance and a conviction. Otherwise anyone who's heard the word "god" now must believe god exists, at least as a word.


Like, we could find out god exists by finding him. But we can't disprove god exists by failing to do so. That's why the question of god is unscientific. Dunno what you were thinking if it wasn't that.

Higgs Boson, for example... If it was just suggested and never found, it would eventually be dismissed. If it was known that it could never be found to begin with, it wouldn't have been suggested. If the god you propose cannot possibly be located, then the god doesn't exist. I didn't say we would find the god, but that we could. But we cannot. However it is indeed your freedom to believe such a thing exists or existed in whatever plane or universe that makes sense to you. I have some odd notions myself about certain things.


I assume I wouldn't have to point out a priori truths to anyone. So I didn't mean that. If they were true, I wouldn't have to say words like, "have a chance to be", or "is probably intelligent".

But you say them as if you know these things, and as if mentioning it is like mentioning that the sun rises in the East.


I consider humans to be imperfect examples of intelligence. We can make all these decisions without obvious proximate mechanisms, but we are still bound by subtle mechanisms. Our thoughts are part of the causal chain. Theoretically, the only thing that could start a chain (without being part of another chain itself) is something free of causal chains altogether. That's why I suggested that the prime mover would have a somewhat free sense of sentience in a way we like to think of ourselves as having. That would allow the mover to begin existence without a cause.

So you think humans are in the image of god, but imperfect? How would the mover begin it's own existence? I see that you are saying the mover exists out of necessity, so not contingent, but there's no reason to accept that to be the case and no reason to restrict that necessary aspect to a god.


I pretty much agree with your last statement as a somewhat sad reflection of the times. The rest is just you explaining your bias. Again, you have this world-view about theists and atheists that pretty much infects the rest of your well-reasoned arguments.

If you were to gather a room full of theists, randomly picked, and tell them your beliefs.... how many of them would claim you do not believe in god? You're claiming to be dry ice and then saying ice is misrepresented as turning into water too quickly.


It doesn't work that way. Since I consider being the PM god's only necessary attribute, the two terms are logically equivalent. So I can't apply the PM quality to a non-god. The closest I can come is to say that something is an effect (meaning something we can observe) that has no logical need for a cause.

Why can't you apply it to a non-god? Why can't a necessary thing be a non-god? Are you getting around to intent now? If so, that opens a new can of worms.




Think you have it backwards. "Before" is a spatial word applied to time. It just means, "in front of".

In front of something means you'd arrive at one point before you'd arrive at the other point. That's time based. If the two points are superimposed, as a singularity would be, then how can anything be before it where time and space are condensed to an infinite level of density, where neither time nor space obey our current rules? Why can't that exist without cause, since cause is only needed in the current model? Could there be another universe where uncaused events occur?


Anyway, again, it is only paradoxical in your mind, since you're asserting that there's only our existence as a necessary assumption. It's not. Such a view is self-centered. The only time any of us have is our life-spans. So to us, there is no before we were born nor an after when we die. But you can still understand that things happen outside of that range. So in that regard, the universe has its own life-span, which we call time. But if it were formed by proximate mechanisms, then from the perspective of anyone who could observe those mechanisms, there would be a before. Such a thought is not hard to hold in one's mind.

This is misleading at best. There's a huge difference between saying "what happened before I existed" and saying "what I did before I existed". I am not referring to a 1st person perspective of time. I am referring to something more along these lines:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg/600px-CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg


Now what happened before? Where's the time when there was only space and suddenly a singularity appeared and started fluctuating?



Not really.

Yes really. It's the only thing being proposed here that has to be supported by a magic carpet instead of just a paradigm shift. It's the only thing that cannot ever even theoretically be disproven or proven. It's no different than saying the solar system resides on the back of a turtle. If you don't know, why wouldn't a turtle make sense?


Still a poor extension. If you don't believe you can find proof of god, then you won't look for it. If you aren't looking for it, then you're looking for other things just like everyone else. Hence why Galileo still looked at how the Earth moved despite believing god put it there.

If you don't think you can find proof of something, you shouldn't consider it to be your answer. I could see a pessimist thinking "I bet it's that but if so I'm fucked", otherwise why select as an answer something you can never know to be true? I'd like to avoid asking personal questions, but part of me wants to know if you had a more devout belief system at one point in your life, and if you "regressed" to deism. I'd understand if you don't answer.


I didn't know "disputed" meant someone had a terrible, baseless argument. I kind of meant it in the sense of someone providing a real counterexample.

Because you consider it to be terrible and baseless doesn't make it so. You haven't given an example of god, you've only said one is necessary to satisfy the requirements. Well then why can't a non-god be uncaused as well, why can't there simply be no 1st event and why can't time be eternal? What stops it? You're saying the demonic possession theory is worthy, but the brand new, never before heard of virus that causes two heads to grow and causes a person to live 400 years is silly. Both require a vivid imagination, only the demonic possession thing has no basis in science. Your god has no basis in science and you've acknowledged that, but if your god created the universe, then your god must have a basis in science as the universe has a basis in science.


And obviously, you don't have twins in your family. There's ALWAYS a first born.

I have two twin brothers, twin uncles who both have twins. First born doesn't mean first found. What if they are found together? We can't go back that far and say "this one was born first" and pretty sure first homo sapiens types had no idea what a homo sapiens was.


I imagine that's just a joke on your part. Otherwise, I'm worried you don't actually know what it means to be falsifiable.

Oh I do know, and I know it's important when you're proposing an answer to something that your answer be testable to see if it's correct. Yours isn't, but then you aren't offering it as the opiate of the masses. It's just one way that belief means different things to different people. I think some people form beliefs inductively and others lean more toward a deductive belief system.


Just reinforces my argument.
Not really. He thought a god created everything, maybe several gods. He thought a god pulled the sun across the sky and that bad weather was angry gods. We don't know it's not, we cannot ever prove that bad weather isn't caused by angry gods. We can find easier explanations though, testable and falsifiable ones.

[spurraider21]

The truth is I probably give you more credit than you deserve by considering you a troll. The alternative is to consider you an idiot.
:rollin

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am only interested in premises that can be demonstrated empirically. The notion that god can not be demonstrated empirically is quite the presumption and seems the white flag to reason frankly.

[mouse]

I am referring to something more along these lines:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg/600px-CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg


You would think the Scientists that helped create that chart would know enough about our universe to explain Stonehenge or cure Ebola.

That's like me saying I know where and when the first time man used the wheel and created a colorful chart like yours that shows the beginning of moving vehicles until now and yet I still can't figure out how to change the tire on my sons bike.

You can't have it both ways either Science know exactly how we got here and needs to prove it or admit they don't know shit about the Universe and just STFU.

(in the meantime take the bullshit out of the school texts books)

[Blake]

Lol. I don't need to know the origins of a term to know its application. Your problem wasn't failing to know who invented the word, "illogical." It was failing to know what the word actually means and how it extends in a philosophical debate. In any account, I have said my view clearly (many times) and used the clockmaker analogy as the closest thing we have to depicting it. Unlike you, I'm not looking for other people to quote to try to legitimize my views, and so it means nothing if that analogy fails.

I'm not.

you're the one that stated "classic definition of clockmaker". I simply wanted to clarify what you were talking about since most creation threads argue about the existence of a god.

I'll admit, although I've heard plenty of talk of an impartial deity, I never heard the term "clockmaker" and wrongly assumed "watchmaker".

However, we are in a creation thread and the discussion is usually whether or not a creator exists. Your view presumes creator without discussing his existence at all. That's where my confusion was.

I've read through it and still come to the conclusion that you can't be holding a clockmaker view without holding a watchmaker view........which is really what you are holding on to in your back and forth with dmc.



In any event, that book said that the analogy had two extensions, the first being the one that fails in the face of later scientific discovery (the one that we've been calling the watchmaker analogy) and the second one that he did not publish and that deists were using earlier to describe god's lack of interference (the one that we've been calling the clockmaker analogy). So one of two things seems to be true. Either the two analogies have a common ancestor (the view Franklin held) and they have diverged as time has gone on, or the two analogies have always been separate, and Franklin held both views and concatenated them into his world-view on the matter.

Interesting read, though. I retract my statement that Franklin held my view, although he did seem to be the one who made both analogies popular.

Yeah, Franklin makes fun of the clockmaker analogy, calling "him" a mad man. Lol.

[xmas1997]

The truth is I probably give you more credit than you deserve by considering you a troll. The alternative is to consider you an idiot.

You emotionally resorting to ridicule (see the bold above) does nothing for "truth" except betray your "true" motivations here, thus it exposes you for being the fraud you are when it comes to reason and rationality.

If you want to act like a kid ranting because he didn't get his toy, fine.

A spanking can resolve that.

I thought you were a smart mature adult, but the more you post, the more you prove that thought to be wrong.

[spurraider21]

You would think the Scientists that helped create that chart would know enough about our universe to explain Stonehenge or cure Ebola.

That's like me saying I know where and when the first time man used the wheel and created a colorful chart like yours that shows the beginning of moving vehicles until now and yet I still can't figure out how to change the tire on my sons bike.

You can't have it both ways either Science know exactly how we got here and needs to prove it or admit they don't know shit about the Universe and just STFU.

(in the meantime take the bullshit out of the school texts books)
what about somebody that understands the workings of an internal combustion engine but simultaneously can't repair his car's engine

[Blake]

You emotionally resorting to ridicule (see the bold above) does nothing for "truth" except betray your "true" motivations here, thus it exposes you for being the fraud you are when it comes to reason and rationality.

If you want to act like a kid ranting because he didn't get his toy, fine.

A spanking can resolve that.

I thought you were a smart mature adult, but the more you post, the more you prove that thought to be wrong.

You're an emotional thin skinned pussy.

Lol you want to spank another man.

[leemajors]

now xmas wants to spank dudes?

[Blake]

now xmas wants to spank dudes?

Haha..I slid an edit in before you.

[RD2191]

You're an emotional thin skinned pussy.

Lol you want to spank another man.
How did it feel when you found out another man was cock slapping your wife?

[Blake]

How did it feel when you found out another man was cock slapping your wife?

Not good so I got a divorce.

Lol you believe in magic

[DMC]

I rest my case. ^ What you meant to say was, if you knew the truth, then you would never resorted to an emotional statement in the first place that were false, accusatory, and insulting.
If you act like an ignorant asshole, that reflects on you, not me.
I am always willing to give the benefit of the doubt, I have no personal investment in this, rather I am just responding back as to what is throw my way.
And even then, I hold no grudge, nor ever meant offense.
The truth is you started this emotional shit, not me, as verified in the posts.
Thus we can stop any time you choose to act like a mature and reasonable adult.


You emotionally resorting to ridicule (see the bold above) does nothing for "truth" except betray your "true" motivations here, thus it exposes you for being the fraud you are when it comes to reason and rationality.

If you want to act like a kid ranting because he didn't get his toy, fine.

A spanking can resolve that.

I thought you were a smart mature adult, but the more you post, the more you prove that thought to be wrong.


Two responses to the same post. You seem a bit affected by this. It's actually a compliment.

[RD2191]

Not good so I got a divorce.

Lol you believe in magic
Your ex was quite the magician, she was able to make large objects appear and disappear.

[DMC]

Your ex was quite the magician, she was able to make large objects appear and disappear.
You also seem personally invested in the outcomes of discussions with your internet peeps. You should perhaps step back from the keyboard and adjust your attitude, young man, else I'll get Xmas up there to bend you over his knee while he's in the mood.

[xmas1997]

Your ex was quite the magician, she was able to make large objects appear and disappear.

DMC and blake both apparently need spankings, they are both acting like bratty kids and "time out" failed.

I'm quite sure we can find someone willing to do the job.

It sounds like leemajors is volunteering, he was the first to speak up, I wonder why.

:lmao

:lmao

[RD2191]

DMC and blake both apparently need spankings, they are both acting like bratty kids and "time out" failed.

I'm quite sure we can find someone willing to do the job.

It sounds like leemajors is volunteering, he was the first to speak up, I wonder why.

:lmao

:lmao
:lmao

[xmas1997]

You're an emotional thin skinned pussy.

Lol you want to spank another man.

What "man"?

There is no "man" here, just an immature kid, like you.

Are you 13, 14, or 15?

But in your case a spanking won't help.

You probably need to go in your room, with your computer, phone, and TV privileges taken away from you, and think about how bratty you are.

You need to be seen, and not read.

Both you and your brother SBM.

[xmas1997]

Two responses to the same post. You seem a bit affected by this. It's actually a compliment.

It's an emotional response, rather than one of reason, and we all know it, I'm surprised it has to be explained to you.

Backhanded complements are just as insulting as straight forward ones and are nothing less than resorting to last ditch efforts to disguise your inability to engage in an intelligent coherent discussion or debate.

What it actually does is imply you are suffering from a serious lack of maturity and also of other deep seated issues such as an inferiority complex.

It's okay, you can't help it, but you should seek professional help ASAP.

[DMC]

It's an emotional response, rather than one of reason, and we all know it, I'm surprised it has to be explained to you.

Backhanded complements are just as insulting as straight forward ones and are nothing less than resorting to last ditch efforts to disguise your inability to engage in an intelligent coherent discussion or debate.

What it actually does is imply you are suffering from a serious lack of maturity and also of other deep seated issues such as an inferiority complex.

It's okay, you can't help it, but you should seek professional help ASAP.

Actually it's not emotional at all. When I read your attempts at entering the science discussion fray, I get a headache from all of your switchbacks that are either designed by you to get responses from people itching to correct you, or are unintentional because you simply lack a fundamental understanding of science.

Here's what you've offered:

1. Psychology is nebulous so you elected a science major
2. Science is testable so it's not nebulous (thus your comparison to psychology)
3. You have no evidence that science is true. (faith based argument)
4. You have evidence that science is true. (computer/phone)

So you're either trolling or stupid.

[Blake]

What "man"?

There is no "man" here, just an immature kid, like you.

Are you 13, 14, or 15?

But in your case a spanking won't help.

You probably need to go in your room, with your computer, phone, and TV privileges taken away from you, and think about how bratty you are.

You need to be seen, and not read.

Oh so you're saying you want to spank kids



Both you and your brother SBM.

Wut

[Blake]

Your ex was quite the magician, she was able to make large objects appear and disappear.

good one

Lol you believe in magic

[xmas1997]

Actually it's not emotional at all. When I read your attempts at entering the science discussion fray, I get a headache from all of your switchbacks that are either designed by you to get responses from people itching to correct you, or are unintentional because you simply lack a fundamental understanding of science.

Here's what you've offered:

To resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.
That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, which you do in this forum quite often if the majority of your posts are any indication.


1. Psychology is nebulous so you elected a science major

I found psychology to be quite nebulous in that it relied on generalizations in it's attempt to explain human behavior. I won't go into detail, but will just say that the "norm" is next to impossible to be replicated, and IMHO lacks in quantifiability.



2. Science is testable so it's not nebulous (thus your comparison to psychology)

Many of the social sciences suffer from these same problems including a "dearth of accurate terminology".



3. You have no evidence that science is true. (faith based argument)

You misunderstood this then, and still do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in essence you are doing is "assuming" at best, and assumptions are not proof, nor are they YOUR proof unless you have the evidence in your possession; Anything less than that, then you have a reliance on others, and depending on how much you trust those "others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.



4. You have evidence that science is true. (computer/phone)

You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.



So you're either trolling or stupid.

I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insults which is an emotional response rather than a reasonable and rational response. And this was your problem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.
Obviously this upset you, otherwise you would not have reacted in an emotional manner.



Oh so you're saying you want to spank kids Wut

Kids like you should be seen and not read, and when you act up in an unruly manner, then you need a good spanking (by commonly agreed upon extension, administered by your parents).
In case you weren't aware, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line.
You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.
And we can only laugh at the level you continually stoop to in showing how truly moronic you are on this site.
:lmao:rollin:lol

[silverblk mystix]

LOL the cuck and dmc getting schooled in this thread -


and both are too pussy to attend the gtg



:lmao:lmao

[silverblk mystix]

Your ex was quite the magician, she was able to make large objects appear and disappear.


:lmao:lmao


We know she "believed" in Magic!!!!!!!!

[xmas1997]

Your ex was quite the magician, she was able to make large objects appear and disappear.

:lmao:rollin:lol

EDIT: You mean like blake?

[xmas1997]

:lmao:lmao


We know she "believed" in Magic!!!!!!!!

:lmao:rollin:lol

[Blake]

LOL the cuck and dmc getting schooled in this thread -


and both are too pussy to attend the gtg



:lmao:lmao

Just sensitive mystix and xmas getting their feelings hurt and making it personal

same ol

[Blake]

:lmao:rollin:lol

^ laughing at peoples real life = troll

[xmas1997]

Just sensitive mystix and xmas getting their feelings hurt and making it personal

same ol

Wow, you still misunderstood and misinterpreted what was said even though it was made perfectly clear to you!

You will never have any room to talk about anyone else' reading comprehension ever again after this, you will never live it down!

Be a man, not an "immature kid begging for a spanking", and own up to the "truth" instead of embracing lie after lie.

Are you in the midst of a deep depression, is that what your problem is, why you live in abject denial?

[Blake]

You're a thin skinned idiot that has no clue what he's talking about.

[xmas1997]

You're a thin skinned idiot that has no clue what he's talking about.

Why the false claims, are you jealous or envious that some of us understand more than you do?

Did I strike a sensitive nerve?

Did I step on a toe?

You shouldn't have had it sticking out to be stepped on then.

I guess you going to the GTG is out of the question then.

:lmao

[Blake]

Just stop, pussy

[xmas1997]

Just stop, pussy

Oh, you mean I am wrong, you are going to the GTG after all? My mistake then.

Or is it you have lots of unreasonable hate in your heart?

Are you suffering from acute depression?

Do you feel like committing suicide?

Are you reaching out for help?

You should.

I'm just trying to understand why you act this way on here all the fucking time.

[RD2191]

Just stop, pussy
ROFL, meltdown. Seriously though, if you're depressed get help.

[xmas1997]

ROFL, meltdown. Seriously though, if you're depressed get help.

Yes, please do, get help, embrace God.

Now I understand why you act this way on here all the time, it all starts to make sense.

[silverblk mystix]

:lmao:lmao:lmao


depressed cuck

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not.

you're the one that stated "classic definition of clockmaker". I simply wanted to clarify what you were talking about since most creation threads argue about the existence of a god.

I'll admit, although I've heard plenty of talk of an impartial deity, I never heard the term "clockmaker" and wrongly assumed "watchmaker".

However, we are in a creation thread and the discussion is usually whether or not a creator exists. Your view presumes creator without discussing his existence at all. That's where my confusion was.

I've read through it and still come to the conclusion that you can't be holding a clockmaker view without holding a watchmaker view........which is really what you are holding on to in your back and forth with dmc.



Yeah, Franklin makes fun of the clockmaker analogy, calling "him" a mad man. Lol.

Frankly you should have stopped entertaining anything past the 'first cause' he is determined to use as initial premise. The proof has been shit on and disproven using 'formal logic' a long long time ago. Every other construct he has depends on it.

[DMC]

To resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, which you do in this forum quite often if the majority of your posts are any indication.I found psychology to be quite nebulous in that it relied on generalizations in it's attempt to explain human behavior. I won't go into detail, but will just say that the "norm" is next to impossible to be replicated, and IMHO lacks in quantifiability.Many of the social sciences suffer from these same problems including a "dearth of accurate terminology".You misunderstood this then, and still do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in essence you are doing is "assuming" at best, and assumptions are not proof, nor are they YOUR proof unless you have the evidence in your possession; Anything less than that, then you have a reliance on others, and depending on how much you trust those "others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insults which is an emotional response rather than a reasonable and rational response. And this was your problem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise you would not have reacted in an emotional manner.Kids like you should be seen and not read, and when you act up in an unruly manner, then you need a good spanking (by commonly agreed upon extension, administered by your parents). In case you weren't aware, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line. You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.And we can only laugh at the level you continually stoop to in showing how truly moronic you are on this site.:lmao:rollin:lol

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/didntread.gif

[Blake]

ROFL, meltdown. Seriously though, if you're depressed get help.

seriously, you're unintelligent. Low IQ.

[xmas1997]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/didntread.gif

Why am I not surprised?

:lmao

[RD2191]

seriously, you're unintelligent. Low IQ.
:lol

[xmas1997]

:lol

Geez, and you were only expressing concern for the little fart.
:lol

[DMC]

Why am I not surprised?

:lmao
Your stuff is only readable if I insert "hiccup... burp... uugh" between each phrase.

[xmas1997]

Your stuff is only readable if I insert "hiccup... burp... uugh" between each phrase.

That is all you ever post anyway, so what else is new?
Still waiting for something intelligible.
:lmao

[DMC]

That is all you ever post anyway, so what else is new?
Still waiting for something intelligible.
:lmao

You jelly because I won't debait you. :lmao

[xmas1997]

You jelly because I won't debait you. :lmao

It's no skin off my back, although I can tell you are the one all upset about it.
Emotions have no place in debates, or discussions for that matter, in case you didn't know.
There is no "crying" in baseball.
:lmao

[xmas1997]

LOL the cuck and dmc getting schooled in this thread -


and both are too pussy to attend the gtg



:lmao:lmao


Shit happens, in their case, more often than not.
:lmao

[~O~]

The trolling is real in here.

[DMC]

Shit happens, in their case, more often than not.
:lmao
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237792&page=26&p=7549331&viewfull=1#post7549331

[mouse]

what about somebody that understands the workings of an internal combustion engine but simultaneously can't repair his car's engine

Understanding something is not the same as telling someone you have all the answers. Scientists just don't say they understand the universe they give you times and bullshit reasons how it all happened.

Instead of saying 1000s of years ago or an undetermined length of time this or that took place they are actually foolish enough to say "12 Billion years ago"

this is what took place. "4.6 Billion years ago the earth was formed" "25 million years ago dinosaurs roamed the earth" and yet they still haven't explained how the pyramids were built?

The truth is they are guessing at best and need to stick with mixing vinegar with baking soda and stay out of the how and why mankind is here on earth business.

If they spent just 10% of the time wasted looking for the missing link on something we could all benefit from Ebola would have been cured 50 years ago.

[xmas1997]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237792&page=26&p=7549331&viewfull=1#post7549331

Karma, you get what you put out, you started the BS, now you're complaining because you are getting it back.
Enjoy.
:lmao

[DMC]

Karma, you get what you put out, you started the BS, now you're complaining because you are getting it back.
Enjoy.
:lmao
I'm in your head.

[xmas1997]

I'm in your head.

:lmao You wish.

When have you ever told the truth about anything without making exaggerated outlandish claims that are obviously false?

Uh huh, that's what I thought, never.

:lmao

[mouse]

I'm in your head.

which head?

[xmas1997]

which head?

:lmao

[DMC]

To resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, oblem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise you would not have reacted in an emotional manner.Kids like you should be seen and not read, and when you act up in an unruly manner, then you need a good spanking (by commonly agreed upon extension, administered by your parents). In case you weren't aware, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line. You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.To resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, which you do in this forum quite often if the majority of your posts are any indication.I found psychology to be quite nebulous in that it relied on generalizations in it's attempt to explain human behavior. I won't go into detail, but will just say that the "norm" is next to impossible to be replicated, and IMHO lacks in quantifiability.Many of the social sciences suffer from these same problems including a "dearth of accurate terminology".You misunderstood this then, and still do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in esill do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in essence you are doing is "assuming" at best, and assumptions are not proof, nor are they YOUR proof unless you have the evidence in your possession; Anything less than that, then you have a reliance on others, and depending on how much you trust those "others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insults which is an emotional response rather than a reasonable and rational response. And this was your problem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise you would not have reacted in an emotional manner.Kids like you should be seen e, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line. You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.And we can only laugh at the level you continually stoop to in showing how truly moronic you are on this site.:lmao:rollin:lol"others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insults which is an emotional response rather than a reasonable and rational response. And this was your problem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise best, and assumptions areTo resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, which you do in this forum quite often if the majority of your posts are any indication.I found psychology to be quite nebulous in that it relied on generalizations in it's attempt to explain human behavior. I won't go into detail, but will just say that the "norm" is next to impossible to be replicated, and IMHO lacks in quantifiability.Many of the social sciences suffer from these same problems including a "dearth of accurate terminology".You misunderstood this then, and still do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in essence you are doing is "assuming" at best, and assumptions are not proof, nor are they YOUR proof unless you have the evidence in your possession; Anything less than that, then you have a reliance on others, and depending on how much you trust those "others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insults which is an emotional response rather than a reasonable and rational response. And this was your problem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise you would not have reacted in an emotional manner.Kids like you should be seen and not read, and when you act up in an unruly manner, then you need a good spanking (by commonly agreed upon extension, administered by your parents). In case you weren't aware, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line. You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.To resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, which you do in this forum quite often if the majority of your posts are any indication.I found psychology to be quite nebulous in that it relied on generalizations in it's attempt to explain human behavior. I won't go into detail, but will just say that the "norm" is next to impossible to be replicated, and IMHO lacks in quantifiability.Many of the social sciences suffer from these same problems including a "dearth of accurate terminology".You misunderstood this then, and still do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in essence you are doing is "assuming" at best, and assumptions are not proof, nor are they YOUR proof unless you have the evidence in your possession; Anything less than that, then you have a reliance on others, and depending on how much you trust those "others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insults which is an emotional response rather than a reasonable and rational response. And this was your problem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise you would not have reacted in an emotional manner.Kids like you should be seen and not read, and when you act up in an unruly manner, then you need a good spanking (by commonly agreed upon extension, administered by your parents). In case you weren't aware, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line. You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.To resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, which you do in this forum quite often if the majority of your posts are any indication.I found psychology to be quite nebulous in that it relied on generalizations in it's attempt to explain human behavior. I won't go into detail, but will just say that the "norm" is next to impossible to be replicated, and IMHO lacks in quantifiability.Many of the social sciences suffer from these same problems including a "dearth of accurate terminology".You misunderstood this then, and still do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in essence you are doing is "assuming" at best, and assumptions are not proof, nor are they YOUR proof unless you have the evidence in your possession; Anything less than that, then you have a reliance on others, and depending on how much you trust those To resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, which you do in this forum quite often if the majority of your posts are any indication.I found psychology to be quite nebulous in that it relied on generalizations in it's attempt to explain human behavior. I won't go into detail, but will just say that the "norm" is next to impossible to be replicated, and IMHO lacks in quantifiability.Many of the social sciences suffer from these same problems including a "dearth of accurate terminology".You misunderstood this then, and still do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in essence you are doing is "assuming" at best, and assumptions are not proof, nor are they YOUR proof unless you have the evidence in your possession; Anything less than that, then you have a reliance on others, and depending on how much you trust those "others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insultsTo resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, which you do in this forum quite often if the majority of your posts are any indication.I found psychology to be quite nebulous in that it relied on generalizations in it's attempt to explain human behavior. I won't go into detail, but will just say that the "norm" is next to impossible to be replicated, and IMHO lacks in quantifiability.Many of the social sciences suffer from these same problems including a "dearth of accurate terminology".You misunderstood this then, and still do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in essence you are doing is "assuming" at best, and assumptions are not proof, nor are they YOUR proof unless you have the evidence in your possession; Anything less than that, then you have a reliance on others, and depending on how much you trust those "others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insults which is an emotional response rather than a reasonable and rational response. And this was your problem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise you would not have reacted in an emotional manner.Kids like you should be seen and not read, and when you act up in an unruly manner, then you need a good spanking (by commonly agreed upon extension, administered by your parents). In case you weren't aware, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line. You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.And we can only laugh at the level you continually stoop to in showing how truly moronic you are on this site.:lmao:rollin:lol which is an emotional response rather than a reasonable and rational response. And this was your problem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise you would not have reacted in an emotional manner.Kids like you should be seen and not read, and when you act up in an unruly manner, then you need a good spanking (by commonly agreed upon extension, administered by your parents). In case you weren't aware, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line. You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.And we can only laugh at the level you continually stoop to in showing how truly moronic you are on this site.:lmao:rollin:lol"others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insults which is an emotional response rather than a reasonable and rational response. And this was your problem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise you would not have reacted in an emotional manner.Kids like you should be seen and not read, and when you act up in an unruly manner, then you need a good spanking (by commonly agreed upon extension, administered by your parents). In case you weren't aware, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line. You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.To resort to insults, which is generally accepted as a vainly attempted emotional attack, backhanded or otherwise, is a last resort tactic that carries no weight in any kind of discussion or debate, this is common knowledge, which apparently you have no conception of, and if you do, chose to ignore it.That is fine, if your intent is to make a fool of yourself, which you did, or if your intent is to troll, which you do in this forum quite often if the majority of your posts are any indication.I found psychology to be quite nebulous in that it relied on generalizations in it's attempt to explain human behavior. I won't go into detail, but will just say that the "norm" is next to impossible to be replicated, and IMHO lacks in quantifiability.Many of the social sciences suffer from these same problems including a "dearth of accurate terminology".You misunderstood this then, and still do now. You resorted to the age old argument that just because someone somewhere has this "true" knowledge that that makes it true for all, but this is a common fallacy. What in essence you are doing is "assuming" at best, and assumptions are not proof, nor are they YOUR proof unless you have the evidence in your possession; Anything less than that, then you have a reliance on others, and depending on how much you trust those "others" determines how much you believe it to be true. And if you "believe" it to be truth, without possessing the evidnce, then that is no different than having faith that it is the truth.You brought up the typewriter analogy as being an example of evidence, and I extended it to include computers and cell phones.I believe you meant this about yourself since you failed to understand the comparisons, and logic, and thus resorted to insults which is an emotional response rather than a reasonable and rational response. And this was your problem, not mine. All I did was point out the fallacies of your arguments and the worthlessness of the tactics you vainly tried to use to support your contentions.Obviously this upset you, otherwise you would not have reacted in an emotional manner.Kids like you should be seen and not read, and when you act up in an unruly manner, then you need a good spanking (by commonly agreed upon extension, administered by your parents). In case you weren't aw:rollinare, the whole animal kingdom uses corporal punishment to keep their offspring in line. You demonstrated your ignorance on a colossal level by "generalizing" my statement to include "all" kids by "me", a major ad hominem on your part.And we can only laugh at the level you continually stoop to in showing how truly moronic you are on this site.:lmao:rollin:lolAnd we can only laugh at the level you continually stoop to in showing how truly moronic you are on this site.:lmao:rollin:lolAnd we can only laugh at the level you coe can only laugh at the level you continually stoop to in showing how truly moronic you are on this site.:lmao

[xmas1997]

Karma is a bitch. Be sure to add that.
:lmao

[DMC]

Karma is a bitch. Be sure to add that.
:lmao
So you believe in the Christian god and Vishnu?

[mouse]

DMC that was one hell of a quote. If you really posted all that Xmas1997 I suggest you bring some of that medication to the gtg I will purchase some. :smokin

[xmas1997]

So you believe in the Christian god and Vishnu?

Doesn't want to debate, and you claim you are in my head? :lmao

Sorry to burst your bubble and disappoint you there, sport, but I barely give you a second thought, except to be civil enough to reply to the posts you direct at me.

In that regard your posts are no more important to me than any others other than your emotional hostility which you have to deal with, not I.

You get back what you put out.

Karma is a bitch like that sometimes.

:rollin

[DMC]

:rollinDoesn't want to debate, and you claim you are in my head? :lmaoSorry to burst your bubble and disappoint you there, sport, but I barely give you a:rollin second thought, except to be civil:rollin enough to reply to the posts you direct at me.In that regard your posts are no more:rollin important to me than any others other than your emotional hostility which you have to deal with, not I. You get back what you :rollinput out.Karma is a bitch like that sometimes.:rollin

Let's be friends, scrah.

Let's have a debate. You pick the topic. I'll argue against.

[xmas1997]

Let's be friends, scrah.

Let's have a debate. You pick the topic. I'll argue against.

You must be bored.

:lmao

[Blake]

Lol post 2576

[ohmwrecker]

I wish there was a God and that he would smite you all.

[Blake]

I wish there was a God and that he would smite you all.

Or you could just put yourself out of your obvious misery and do the Robin Williams

[ohmwrecker]

:lol "misery"

[spurraider21]

Understanding something is not the same as telling someone you have all the answers. Scientists just don't say they understand the universe they give you times and bullshit reasons how it all happened.

Instead of saying 1000s of years ago or an undetermined length of time this or that took place they are actually foolish enough to say "12 Billion years ago"

this is what took place. "4.6 Billion years ago the earth was formed" "25 million years ago dinosaurs roamed the earth" and yet they still haven't explained how the pyramids were built?

The truth is they are guessing at best and need to stick with mixing vinegar with baking soda and stay out of the how and why mankind is here on earth business.

If they spent just 10% of the time wasted looking for the missing link on something we could all benefit from Ebola would have been cured 50 years ago.
scientists never claim they have all the answers.

they come up with those dates with several methods... for the universe (post bang) they use the observed rate of expansion the universe (a figure they derived with knowledge of distance of other galaxies and their relative speeds). if they determine that the rate of expansion is actually rapidly accelerating (another possibility), the math would imply the universe could be even older, upwards of 20 billion years. they don't take random guesses, its all math

as for the age of the earth, they know it is at least 4.4 billion years old due to radiometric age dating of the oldest known samples they have found, both on earth and on the moon, which have been pretty consistent. if they discover older material or meteorites, the earth could be older than thought. the age of fossils are determined in a similar matter. they dont just throw numbers out of thin air because they sound plausible.

science doesn't, nor has ever claimed to have all the answers. only religion does

[Blake]

Understanding something is not the same as telling someone you have all the answers. Scientists just don't say they understand the universe they give you times and bullshit reasons how it all happened.

Instead of saying 1000s of years ago or an undetermined length of time this or that took place they are actually foolish enough to say "12 Billion years ago"

this is what took place. "4.6 Billion years ago the earth was formed" "25 million years ago dinosaurs roamed the earth" and yet they still haven't explained how the pyramids were built?

The truth is they are guessing at best and need to stick with mixing vinegar with baking soda and stay out of the how and why mankind is here on earth business.

If they spent just 10% of the time wasted looking for the missing link on something we could all benefit from Ebola would have been cured 50 years ago.

mouseology

[RandomGuy]

Then it can be logically assumed that you two along with spurraider all have "faith" (1. confidence or trust in a person or thing, 2. belief that is not based on proof) in science, even though none of you have any evidence or proof of your own, it is someone else' evidence and proof you are relying on and taking the word for.

I reject your use of the word "faith".

As noted, I have a great deal of trust in science, as the empirical process has proven itself to be good at determining explanatory theories.

Further, the other strength of science is that you can gather proof and data, and recreate experiments and data.

This gives me a very good reason to trust that process. This requires no real faith, as faith is generally something that you "just believe", and can't rationally justify.

Attempting to make trust in science as somehow equivalent to faith in the existence of something for which there is no evidence, is not only wrong, but intellectually dishonest.

Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have a good reason to believe something.

[RandomGuy]

My problem with evolution is that it is taught as an absolute truth. Which is far from the truth. The only reason it is taught as truth is because the other alternative would be God/Creator/ID. Now before someone says well refute evolution people should know that plenty of scientist do and have. Yet the theory is simply expanded or twisted to fit around it. Any scientists that disagrees is quickly mocked/made fun of/labeled an idiot.

Science doesn't present anything as an absolute truth.

The theory of evolution is, however, as close as it gets. There is such a vast mountain of evidence that is explained by only this theory, and no other proposed alternative.

The ultimate strength of a theory, though, is that it makes predictions about future evidence.

Can parts of the theory be modified when new evidence is presented? Yes.

This is not "twisting" anything, but merely understanding reality and the mechanisms of evolution, and improving our knowledge base about those mechanisms.

One should change one's theories with new evidence, if that evidence points to an alternative explanation. That is the ultimate strength of the scientific method, i.e. that it does change.

The alternative is stagnation.

Lastly:
The goal of science is to improve our understanding. One becomes famous by overturning incorrect theories and replacing them with better ones. Any scientist that attempts to question such a strongly supported theory should have a much better theory that better explains all the evidence.

If you want to put forth a better theory that explains the diversity of life on our planet feel free to do so, and outline how it better fits the evidence we have collected.

If a scientist wants to present "bible God did it a few thousand years ago, and it was re-done after a global flood" as a viable theory, that scientist deserves to be mocked, because that isn't a scientific theory. Presenting it as such is laughable on its face, given all we know about our planet and the universe.

[RandomGuy]

I am only interested in premises that can be demonstrated empirically. The notion that god can not be demonstrated empirically is quite the presumption and seems the white flag to reason frankly.

I agree.

A good question to ask:

"How do you know that?"

Most people start pulling the imagined properties of "god", whatever they conceive that to be, out of their ass.

Even people who think they have an inerrant holy book still have to interpret that holy book, and flounder badly when you point out the errancy of that book.

[xmas1997]

I reject your use of the word "faith".

As noted, I have a great deal of trust in science, as the empirical process has proven itself to be good at determining explanatory theories.

Further, the other strength of science is that you can gather proof and data, and recreate experiments and data.

This gives me a very good reason to trust that process. This requires no real faith, as faith is generally something that you "just believe", and can't rationally justify.

Attempting to make trust in science as somehow equivalent to faith in the existence of something for which there is no evidence, is not only wrong, but intellectually dishonest.

Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have a good reason to believe something.

I understand where you're coming from and I am not using "faith" in this context to mean a "faith based science" in the same sense someone using a "faith based religious belief" would use.
It could be faith in "anything" that we believe and trust in, without proof.

All along I have been using the noun "faith" as defined by most dictionaries, specifically The Merriam-Webster dictionary primary definition, which is:
faith
noun \ˈfāth\

1.: strong belief or trust in someone or something
Full Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
— on faith
: without question <took everything he said on faith>


This would make it an synonym of the words "trust" and "belief", which may be where some of people's confusion comes from.



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

[Blake]

You're taking two different definitions of the word faith and saying it's the same thing for both science and religion.

[xmas1997]

You're taking two different definitions of the word faith and saying it's the same thing for both science and religion.

Terrible reading comprehension again and again and again.

Reread my post, I clearly used the words, "I am not using".

Do you ever get anything right without twisting things around?

:lmao

[Blake]

You're stupid.

[xmas1997]

You're stupid.

I didn't expect you to be able to understand. Morons never do.
:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Blake. Why do you do this? He does stupid things intentionally to annoy you and then when you do the round and round it's literally the same shit you have been doing for a year now. It's not not healthy.

[Blake]

Blake. Why do you do this? He does stupid things intentionally to annoy you and then when you do the round and round it's literally the same shit you have been doing for a year now. It's not not healthy.

I don't think he's intentionally stupid, imo.

[Chinook]

I think you have a limited, custom definition for the universe. You basically believe in the multiverse concept where quantum entanglement binds the universes together. It doesn't solve any problems though. You're merely altering the classical definition of the term "universe". If we are to just chose alternate definitions, we have no reason to even discuss things. Otherwise I could define it as the field behind my childhood home.

Honestly, I think you're the one being disingenuous about this. The whole point of trying to expand the scope isn't to get out of the existence/non-existence barrier. It is to get you away from arguing with empiricism about things that haven't yet been tested. You can either argue about time, existence and universe as logical constructs or as scientific ones. Science doesn't define things in terms of logical barriers. The "universe" stopped having its classical definition the moment we were able to study it as a mass system. After that, it got physical constraints, it no longer had its logical extensions.

If we discovered that this expanding ball was just one of many expanding balls, do you think we'd stop calling this the universe? No, we wouldn't. There would just be other universes, and then there'd be terms like multiversal cluster and mega-verse and whatever.


For god to be the answer, something has to be known about the answer to know it's the answer. That seems simple enough.

That's only for us to know god is the answer. That's not something either of us is asserting is going to happen.


But belief isn't binary if we simply change the definition for belief to include a notion, a hope, an allowance and a conviction. Otherwise anyone who's heard the word "god" now must believe god exists, at least as a word.

None of that prevents belief from being binary. It just splits the issue up into smaller issues that are still binary.


Higgs Boson, for example... If it was just suggested and never found, it would eventually be dismissed. If it was known that it could never be found to begin with, it wouldn't have been suggested. If the god you propose cannot possibly be located, then the god doesn't exist. I didn't say we would find the god, but that we could. But we cannot. However it is indeed your freedom to believe such a thing exists or existed in whatever plane or universe that makes sense to you. I have some odd notions myself about certain things.

Um, all right?


But you say them as if you know these things, and as if mentioning it is like mentioning that the sun rises in the East.

The sun rising in the East is absolutely not an a priori truth.


So you think humans are in the image of god, but imperfect? How would the mover begin it's own existence? I see that you are saying the mover exists out of necessity, so not contingent, but there's no reason to accept that to be the case and no reason to restrict that necessary aspect to a god.

I think that humans are the closest analogues to god, yes. At least as far as we can understand, we are the things most able to control the causal chain. However, since we are part of the chain, such a control is just an illusion.

I'm not saying a mover exists out of necessity. I am saying that I'd only belief it doesn't exist when I actually encounter a convincing argument for it.


If you were to gather a room full of theists, randomly picked, and tell them your beliefs.... how many of them would claim you do not believe in god? You're claiming to be dry ice and then saying ice is misrepresented as turning into water too quickly.

I imagine there'd be quite a few, but they'd say so for a different reason than that which you're suggesting. The primary reason would be that I don't conform to their idea of god, and as such can't be a theist. I think a lot of them would say that about people of other religions. A, "You don't really believe in god unless you believe in my god," kinda thing.


Why can't you apply it to a non-god? Why can't a necessary thing be a non-god? Are you getting around to intent now? If so, that opens a new can of worms.

Nope. I'm merely stating that the two terms aren't separable since there's no aspect that I assign to god besides being the PM. Like if I said god was necessarily the PM and kind, then an unkind PM would not be god. So I'm trying to meet you half-way and say the closest thing to an ungod-like PM would be a causesless effect. I guess technically speaking, if such an effect were at the head of the chain, I would accept it as the PM and be perfectly fine with people not calling it god.


In front of something means you'd arrive at one point before you'd arrive at the other point. That's time based. If the two points are superimposed, as a singularity would be, then how can anything be before it where time and space are condensed to an infinite level of density, where neither time nor space obey our current rules? Why can't that exist without cause, since cause is only needed in the current model? Could there be another universe where uncaused events occur?

I think you're just showing your bias. We both ultimately believe space and time are just parts of the same thing, so it's hard to really think about them separately.

As for the rest of what you say, I don't see why not. I think you're proposing magic, but I am not nearly as inclined to judge you harshly for it.


This is misleading at best. There's a huge difference between saying "what happened before I existed" and saying "what I did before I existed". I am not referring to a 1st person perspective of time. I am referring to something more along these lines:

There's actually no difference, especially from a factual space. The only thing you know for sure is that you exist, and once you're gone, that existence goes away with you. So the only existence protected by a priori truth is your own life-span. The rest is just our belief about how time works. We believe it's a physical construct of the universe (meaning in this case to be the expanding sphere that's about 13 Billion years old, not everything anywhere in any possible way).


Now what happened before? Where's the time when there was only space and suddenly a singularity appeared and started fluctuating?

That's simply a radiation (meaning expansion) chart. It's post-Bang, completely agnostic to whatever happened before. It's not even trying to claim that nothing happened before.

This is what I was trying to say up top. You keep mixing definitions of universe. On one hand, you want to describe it in a logical (classical) sense, to mean everything in existence. But it's not thought about that way in a physical sense. It's considered to be an actual object that we can study and learn things about. It has borders, and an age, and a life-span. If there is another such expanding sphere "somewhere" else, then it would be considered a different universe by science. It would have a different chart, a different radiation pattern. It might not be as big or as old. Or it could be older and bigger.


Yes really. It's the only thing being proposed here that has to be supported by a magic carpet instead of just a paradigm shift. It's the only thing that cannot ever even theoretically be disproven or proven. It's no different than saying the solar system resides on the back of a turtle. If you don't know, why wouldn't a turtle make sense?

The turtle analogy is from the second extension of world-turtle concept, not the first. When asked what the world turtle resided on, the reply was another turtle. It was a way of not answering the question and simply introducing an intermediate step and calling it done. the head of the causal chain, an uncaused effect, a prime mover, cannot be a turtle by definition. It's the actual ground the turtle stack is standing on. My whole point is that such ground has to exist, regardless of what turtles are on top of it. Something being cyclical is just another turtle because it's still on this side of the existence/non existence barrier.


If you don't think you can find proof of something, you shouldn't consider it to be your answer. I could see a pessimist thinking "I bet it's that but if so I'm fucked", otherwise why select as an answer something you can never know to be true? I'd like to avoid asking personal questions, but part of me wants to know if you had a more devout belief system at one point in your life, and if you "regressed" to deism. I'd understand if you don't answer.

Nope. Been a deist for a long time despite only being 24 year old. Family's nominally Christian, but we hardly did anything with it.

Anyway, it depends on how one define's "answer". It's not an answer to any physical phenomenon, but rather an answer to all of them. As a result, I can still look for proximate mechanisms without feeling like I already know the answer. Theism doesn't generate a lack of motivation for me.


Because you consider it to be terrible and baseless doesn't make it so. You haven't given an example of god, you've only said one is necessary to satisfy the requirements. Well then why can't a non-god be uncaused as well, why can't there simply be no 1st event and why can't time be eternal? What stops it? You're saying the demonic possession theory is worthy, but the brand new, never before heard of virus that causes two heads to grow and causes a person to live 400 years is silly. Both require a vivid imagination, only the demonic possession thing has no basis in science. Your god has no basis in science and you've acknowledged that, but if your god created the universe, then your god must have a basis in science as the universe has a basis in science.

It's a bad take, man. It's bad primarily because it's a poor analogy. There is no switching of scopes going on between the universe and extensions of the universe. It's also bad because it's misleading. Humans are individuals and so of course they can have mothers. But the human race is a mass group and so do not have a single mother. However, they have an origin, just like individual humans do. It was just a response by someone wanting to make headlines and feel good about himself. It means nothing to a plenum of empirical trends we've observed.


I have two twin brothers, twin uncles who both have twins. First born doesn't mean first found. What if they are found together? We can't go back that far and say "this one was born first" and pretty sure first homo sapiens types had no idea what a homo sapiens was.

I said nothing about them being found. I'm speaking logically, not archaeologically.


Oh I do know, and I know it's important when you're proposing an answer to something that your answer be testable to see if it's correct. Yours isn't, but then you aren't offering it as the opiate of the masses. It's just one way that belief means different things to different people. I think some people form beliefs inductively and others lean more toward a deductive belief system.

"Two plus two equals four," is not testable. It's just true.

As far as the rest of the quote goes, yeah, I'll accept that. I think people use both belief systems depending on the situation. I will say, that Marx wasn't talking about theism necessarily when he said that. He was anti-religious and saw no reason to consider god at all, whereas Freud was a straight-up atheist and thought the idea of god was damaging to people.


Not really. He thought a god created everything, maybe several gods. He thought a god pulled the sun across the sky and that bad weather was angry gods. We don't know it's not, we cannot ever prove that bad weather isn't caused by angry gods. We can find easier explanations though, testable and falsifiable ones.

He thought all those things because they were the most reasonable at the time. Empiricists had to work to show they were right. It's perfectly reasonable to attribute big actions to be actors. The only difference is now we understand that actions are complex and require a lot more understanding to know their causes and effects.

[Chinook]

I'm not.

you're the one that stated "classic definition of clockmaker". I simply wanted to clarify what you were talking about since most creation threads argue about the existence of a god.

I'll admit, although I've heard plenty of talk of an impartial deity, I never heard the term "clockmaker" and wrongly assumed "watchmaker".

However, we are in a creation thread and the discussion is usually whether or not a creator exists. Your view presumes creator without discussing his existence at all. That's where my confusion was.

I've read through it and still come to the conclusion that you can't be holding a clockmaker view without holding a watchmaker view........which is really what you are holding on to in your back and forth with dmc.



Yeah, Franklin makes fun of the clockmaker analogy, calling "him" a mad man. Lol.

Well, I'm glad we all understand each other now. I definitely feel I learned a bit from your objection after seeing that both the analogies were held by the same people.

We disagree on the bold part, though. At least we do in a proximal sense. I don't believe that saying god created the universe is an explanation for how the universe works. It's one thing to look at something complex and say, "Wow, look at god's handiwork." That's what deists often did, according to that Franklin book. They took the complexity of life as proof of god's existence. I don't do that, but I can understand people thinking I do.

But what is completely different is to look at something complex and say, "There's no other explanation but to say god has created this directly. No way could any proximate mechanisms lead to this." That's how the analogy was used by opponents of evolution. They thought you could slap the "god" stamp on something and call it solved, no science necessary. I don't swing that way. Even though I believe this universe was set into motion, I do not believe there's anything about this universe that we can't learn through investigation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think he's intentionally stupid, imo.

I'm not arguing that. Him being stupid and doing stupid things intentionally to bait you are both possible.

[Blake]

I'm not arguing that. Him being stupid and doing stupid things intentionally to bait you are both possible.

I don't think he's intentionally baiting when he stays on topic.

Imo.

[DMC]

Honestly, I think you're the one being disingenuous about this. The whole point of trying to expand the scope isn't to get out of the existence/non-existence barrier. It is to get you away from arguing with empiricism about things that haven't yet been tested. You can either argue about time, existence and universe as logical constructs or as scientific ones. Science doesn't define things in terms of logical barriers. The "universe" stopped having its classical definition the moment we were able to study it as a mass system. After that, it got physical constraints, it no longer had its logical extensions.

If we discovered that this expanding ball was just one of many expanding balls, do you think we'd stop calling this the universe? No, we wouldn't. There would just be other universes, and then there'd be terms like multiversal cluster and mega-verse and whatever.

We have to work with what we currently know. We simply cannot work with what we don't know. We can propose things, but they have to have some foundation in empiricism. God has no foundation in empiricism. There's no question in science or any of the sciences that is answered with metaphysics. There's no reason to think a god did any of it. If a god suddenly appeared and proved to everyone that he did it, we'd all have to change how we think, but until that happens, it's not a good answer, and not even really an answer at all. That's the issue.



That's only for us to know god is the answer. That's not something either of us is asserting is going to happen.

What? Aren't you saying god is the answer?


None of that prevents belief from being binary. It just splits the issue up into smaller issues that are still binary.

No.


The sun rising in the East is absolutely not an a priori truth.

And I didn't say it did in the statement you quoted.

You're no longer discussing the topic. You're now discussing semantics. Semantics are important in discussions because they get the participants on the same wavelength, so they understand one another and aren't being misrepresented in the responses. They are only as good as their need however, which is to help one person understand what the other person is saying. Do you know what I meant? It's odd that you can make the mental leap needed to propose a god's existence but get hung up on semantics.


I think that humans are the closest analogues to god, yes. At least as far as we can understand, we are the things most able to control the causal chain. However, since we are part of the chain, such a control is just an illusion.

Which is it? How are we most able to do something we aren't really able to do?


I'm not saying a mover exists out of necessity. I am saying that I'd only belief it doesn't exist when I actually encounter a convincing argument for it.

You're saying you lack a disbelief in a god, as if disbelief is the result of learning. Do newborns therefore believe a god exists? Do they not believe a god exists? Or do they lack a disbelief?


I imagine there'd be quite a few, but they'd say so for a different reason than that which you're suggesting. The primary reason would be that I don't conform to their idea of god, and as such can't be a theist. I think a lot of them would say that about people of other religions. A, "You don't really believe in god unless you believe in my god," kinda thing.

But all theists, not just one type or another. You've stated you don't necessarily have the belief in a necessary god, but that you don't have a disbelief. That's an agnostic position.

ag·nos·tic
agˈnästik/Submit
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.



Nope. I'm merely stating that the two terms aren't separable since there's no aspect that I assign to god besides being the PM. Like if I said god was necessarily the PM and kind, then an unkind PM would not be god. So I'm trying to meet you half-way and say the closest thing to an ungod-like PM would be a causesless effect. I guess technically speaking, if such an effect were at the head of the chain, I would accept it as the PM and be perfectly fine with people not calling it god.

Therefore not theist. That's how this debate started.


I think you're just showing your bias. We both ultimately believe space and time are just parts of the same thing, so it's hard to really think about them separately.

A bumper and a fanbelt are part of the same car, but they are not the same things and we cannot use the term "before" without inferring time. The term "in front of" is more of a spatial reference than a time reference, and doesn't infer time. However in order to have that term make sense, there has to be a front and rear of the subject and that is either agreed upon by those discussing or it too is a time based reference.

I'm open to suggestions and examples where "before" doesn't reference time.


As for the rest of what you say, I don't see why not. I think you're proposing magic, but I am not nearly as inclined to judge you harshly for it.

I'm glad you think cause without cause requires magic, as long as you don't think that changes by naming the cause "god".


There's actually no difference, especially from a factual space. The only thing you know for sure is that you exist, and once you're gone, that existence goes away with you. So the only existence protected by a priori truth is your own life-span. The rest is just our belief about how time works. We believe it's a physical construct of the universe (meaning in this case to be the expanding sphere that's about 13 Billion years old, not everything anywhere in any possible way).

So you're going to introduce the solipsism argument where anything goes because it's all perception? I don't think you're using that in your lack of disbelief in a god's existence.


That's simply a radiation (meaning expansion) chart. It's post-Bang, completely agnostic to whatever happened before. It's not even trying to claim that nothing happened before.

Its not, but like Hawking stated, there's no reason to suppose "before". If time began there, that's especially true. It more closely represents the idea of the big bang and the time since than a nebulous concept of a multiverse where quantum entanglement was caused by an uncaused god. Let's keep the discussion in perspective: your alternative is that a magical being did it.


This is what I was trying to say up top. You keep mixing definitions of universe. On one hand, you want to describe it in a logical (classical) sense, to mean everything in existence. But it's not thought about that way in a physical sense. It's considered to be an actual object that we can study and learn things about. It has borders, and an age, and a life-span. If there is another such expanding sphere "somewhere" else, then it would be considered a different universe by science. It would have a different chart, a different radiation pattern. It might not be as big or as old. Or it could be older and bigger.

If its borders aren't the border of existence, then it's not the border. Sounds like a paradox, right? How can you imagine beyond it yet it not be in existence?


The turtle analogy is from the second extension of world-turtle concept, not the first. When asked what the world turtle resided on, the reply was another turtle. It was a way of not answering the question and simply introducing an intermediate step and calling it done. the head of the causal chain, an uncaused effect, a prime mover, cannot be a turtle by definition. It's the actual ground the turtle stack is standing on. My whole point is that such ground has to exist, regardless of what turtles are on top of it. Something being cyclical is just another turtle because it's still on this side of the existence/non existence barrier.

I know what it's from but the issue isn't the 2nd turtle. The issue is the 1st. The issue is the god that doesn't need a 2nd turtle. Had the woman simply said "it doesn't need anything" would that have been a better answer?


Nope. Been a deist for a long time despite only being 24 year old. Family's nominally Christian, but we hardly did anything with it.

But you at least are somewhat versed in the god idea. Do you think part of you idea of a god comes from Christianity?


Anyway, it depends on how one define's "answer". It's not an answer to any physical phenomenon, but rather an answer to all of them. As a result, I can still look for proximate mechanisms without feeling like I already know the answer. Theism doesn't generate a lack of motivation for me.

You cannot suppose the final answer to the puzzle then pretend you're solving it piece by piece in a way that justifies your presupposition and not be spinning your wheels.


It's a bad take, man. It's bad primarily because it's a poor analogy. There is no switching of scopes going on between the universe and extensions of the universe. It's also bad because it's misleading. Humans are individuals and so of course they can have mothers. But the human race is a mass group and so do not have a single mother. However, they have an origin, just like individual humans do. It was just a response by someone wanting to make headlines and feel good about himself. It means nothing to a plenum of empirical trends we've observed.


A single event might have a cause but that doesn't mean the universe in which events happen has a cause.


I said nothing about them being found. I'm speaking logically, not archaeologically.

Do you think the 1st homo sapiens is the cause for homo sapiens?


"Two plus two equals four," is not testable. It's just true.

So then anything you cannot test is just as likely to be true, is that what you're saying?


As far as the rest of the quote goes, yeah, I'll accept that. I think people use both belief systems depending on the situation. I will say, that Marx wasn't talking about theism necessarily when he said that. He was anti-religious and saw no reason to consider god at all, whereas Freud was a straight-up atheist and thought the idea of god was damaging to people.



He thought all those things because they were the most reasonable at the time. Empiricists had to work to show they were right. It's perfectly reasonable to attribute big actions to be actors. The only difference is now we understand that actions are complex and require a lot more understanding to know their causes and effects.

How have we eliminated the non-testable suggestions however? If we find a method, does that negate the underlying "god"? If Empiricists were right, and if we've eliminated the multitude of various gods over time using empiricism, why is this last god any different?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But what is completely different is to look at something complex and say, "There's no other explanation but to say god has created this directly. No way could any proximate mechanisms lead to this." That's how the analogy was used by opponents of evolution. They thought you could slap the "god" stamp on something and call it solved, no science necessary. I don't swing that way. Even though I believe this universe was set into motion, I do not believe there's anything about this universe that we can't learn through investigation.

God must've done this because I have no other explanation is the 'god stamp.' In order to prove a negative you have to have a closed set. It's obvious that you are trying to get one with the 'proximate systems' and semantics of the word 'universe,' but there are two problems. First as Hume first pointed out, human perception is limited and flawed. Just because you think that you have exhausted all of the possibilities does not mean that you have. This has been demonstrated time and time again empirically. Second, just because we call it the 'universe' does not mean reality conforms to the things you attribute to a universe. There is nothing that it's not a multiverse without end and we just call it a universe.

You also can use empirical premises to create rational constructs. This notion that the world of ideas is exclusive from the empirical is also wrong. I can demonstrate that empirically by pointing to anything that has ever been engineered.

Most of what you are doing with 'logical constructs' is to take human experiences and ordering of the universe and assuming that the cosmos operates in the same manner. Man is created in his own image arguments just without scripture as justification. There still is no reason to believe in your platonic ideals.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think he's intentionally baiting when he stays on topic.

Imo.

Most of his topics are baiting and he takes both positions as a matter of course.

[Chinook]

We have to work with what we currently know. We simply cannot work with what we don't know. We can propose things, but they have to have some foundation in empiricism. God has no foundation in empiricism. There's no question in science or any of the sciences that is answered with metaphysics. There's no reason to think a god did any of it. If a god suddenly appeared and proved to everyone that he did it, we'd all have to change how we think, but until that happens, it's not a good answer, and not even really an answer at all. That's the issue.

What? Aren't you saying god is the answer?

We're talking about a question that is both unfalsifiable and has no bearing on any scientific endeavors. There's no issue to be found. The only reason why it's an issue to you is your bias. If you were an editor for a scientific journal, would you not run articles from theists because you feel their work is too tainted by their belief in god?


Which is it? How are we most able to do something we aren't really able to do?

We can't do it. But we pretend to do it to a high degree. Think Searle's Chinese Room for an example of how such a thing is possible.


You're saying you lack a disbelief in a god, as if disbelief is the result of learning. Do newborns therefore believe a god exists? Do they not believe a god exists? Or do they lack a disbelief?

But all theists, not just one type or another. You've stated you don't necessarily have the belief in a necessary god, but that you don't have a disbelief. That's an agnostic position.

Therefore not theist. That's how this debate started.

Newborn infants don't believe god exists. They don't believe anything.

I'm saying I have a belief that god exists. I have such a belief because it's the theory that makes the most sense to me. Like all beliefs, it is subject to change if I am provided with new information.

If you don't want to talk semantics, fine. But then don't constantly try to define what belief means.


I'm glad you think cause without cause requires magic, as long as you don't think that changes by naming the cause "god".

It's gonna require magic no matter how you slice it. That's been one of the central points of my argument.


Its not, but like Hawking stated, there's no reason to suppose "before". If time began there, that's especially true. It more closely represents the idea of the big bang and the time since than a nebulous concept of a multiverse where quantum entanglement was caused by an uncaused god. Let's keep the discussion in perspective: your alternative is that a magical being did it.

Case in point. Hawking provides a complete non-answer, but because it doesn't involve god, you give it the power of an answer.


If its borders aren't the border of existence, then it's not the border. Sounds like a paradox, right? How can you imagine beyond it yet it not be in existence?

No. We know the universe actually has borders, really physical (constantly expanding) ones with numbers attached. If there is existence outside those borders, then there's just existence outside those borders. The only reason why you think it's a paradox is because you keep mixing up definitions of universe. You either have to stick with the quantifiable universe we can study or the theoretical universe that necessarily has to contain all of existence. Otherwise you see paradoxes that aren't there.


I know what it's from but the issue isn't the 2nd turtle. The issue is the 1st. The issue is the god that doesn't need a 2nd turtle. Had the woman simply said "it doesn't need anything" would that have been a better answer?

Yes. It would have been just as wrong, but there'd be no needless regression.


But you at least are somewhat versed in the god idea. Do you think part of you idea of a god comes from Christianity?

Yeah. Not in the sense we're discussing here, though.


You cannot suppose the final answer to the puzzle then pretend you're solving it piece by piece in a way that justifies your presupposition and not be spinning your wheels.

That's what you're hung up on. There's no 'god science.' Functionally speaking, "God did it," is a non-answer for proximate mechanisms. It's like, "Yeah, so? How did he do it?" And everyone is back to trying to figure out mechanisms. Again, this is a horrible extension on your part that you have not backed up.


A single event might have a cause but that doesn't mean the universe in which events happen has a cause.

It doesn't. There's just no reason to assume that the universe is different. The human race is just a collective of humans in Russell's example. He's not referring to the lineage of humans (or at least I hope he's not, because that would destroy his argument before he could get it out of his mouth). Looking for the cause of the universe is looking for the head of the tree. It's not trying to gather all the separate events and saying, "How"?


Do you think the 1st homo sapiens is the cause for homo sapiens?

No. But it was the progenitor. That is what Russell was looking for (or rather asserting didn't exist).


So then anything you cannot test is just as likely to be true, is that what you're saying?

Not at all.


How have we eliminated the non-testable suggestions however? If we find a method, does that negate the underlying "god"? If Empiricists were right, and if we've eliminated the multitude of various gods over time using empiricism, why is this last god any different?

Empiricists did no such thing. They simply gave people an alternative explanation that had the bonus of being predictive. Essentially, science took away the extensions historic people gave to gods. Doing so took away some incentive for people to worship the gods. Had they assigned extensions to god that empiricism can't take away, the people would have gone right now believing in the them.

[Chinook]

God must've done this because I have no other explanation is the 'god stamp.' In order to prove a negative you have to have a closed set. It's obvious that you are trying to get one with the 'proximate systems' and semantics of the word 'universe,' but there are two problems.

Honestly man, I've been in this thread for a really long time already. I really don't feel like starting up a fresh debate with someone who just showed up. I don't mean to sound offensive. It's just been a really long time. I'll just try to give some shorter answers and we can go from there.


First as Hume first pointed out, human perception is limited and flawed. Just because you think that you have exhausted all of the possibilities does not mean that you have. This has been demonstrated time and time again empirically.

That idea is much older than Hume. No one is debating that.


Second, just because we call it the 'universe' does not mean reality conforms to the things you attribute to a universe. There is nothing that it's not a multiverse without end and we just call it a universe.

And then the thing we're currently calling the universe would get some other name. It's the same thing. The point is that once we reifyed the universe, it stopped being a concept and became a thing instead. While the term universe may include all things in existence, that doesn't mean it necessarily applies to this sphere we are currently calling the universe.


You also can use empirical premises to create rational constructs. This notion that the world of ideas is exclusive from the empirical is also wrong. I can demonstrate that empirically by pointing to anything that has ever been engineered.

I love having a classic rationalist/empiricist debate as much as anyone, but this has nothing to do with the topic.


Most of what you are doing with 'logical constructs' is to take human experiences and ordering of the universe and assuming that the cosmos operates in the same manner. Man is created in his own image arguments just without scripture as justification. There still is no reason to believe in your platonic ideals.

Not really. Rather, it's just saying that it's reasonable to assume patterns continue indefinitely unless you have evidence that they don't. That doesn't do anything to eliminate either the search for evidence or the appeal that such evidence can have.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Honestly man, I've been in this thread for a really long time already. I really don't feel like starting up a fresh debate with someone who just showed up. I don't mean to sound offensive. It's just been a really long time. I'll just try to give some shorter answers and we can go from there.



That idea is much older than Hume. No one is debating that.



And then the thing we're currently calling the universe would get some other name. It's the same thing. The point is that once we reifyed the universe, it stopped being a concept and became a thing instead. While the term universe may include all things in existence, that doesn't mean it necessarily applies to this sphere we are currently calling the universe.



I love having a classic rationalist/empiricist debate as much as anyone, but this has nothing to do with the topic.



Not really. Rather, it's just saying that it's reasonable to assume patterns continue indefinitely unless you have evidence that they don't. That doesn't do anything to eliminate either the search for evidence or the appeal that such evidence can have.

You skipped over the part about needing a finite set in order to prove a negative. There is no reason to think everything has to have a cause and there is no reason to believe that the universe is not infinite.

It's called saying we don't know.

I have a different way of looking at things. I admit the possibility of God but I do not buy the notion empirically God cannot be shown to exist. It's why I am not a christian.

[mouse]

scientists never claim they have all the answers.

Really? when was the last time you picked up a science school book? show me where there is a quote of a science book saying they have no clue.

The go into great detail how the universe was a result of a huge explosion they even have art work. I suggest you read a few Science books then come back when your a little more enlightened on the subject.



they come up with those dates with several methods...

name them one by one so I can debunk them one by one.



for the universe (post bang) they use the observed rate of expansion the universe (a figure they derived with knowledge of distance of other galaxies and their relative speeds). In theory or facts? watch how you answer that.


if they determine that the rate of expansion is actually rapidly accelerating (another possibility), the math would imply the universe could be even older, upwards of 20 billion years. they don't take random guesses,

Then how come the age of the earth has changed over the years? was it a bad guess at first? where are you getting these bullshit scenarios and if you believe them to be true doesn't that go against your first quote?


scientists never claim they have all the answers.



its all math

You want to talk math? Google how far the moon is drifting away from the earth each year then multiply it by 4.6 billion years and tell me how close to the earth does that put the moon.



as for the age of the earth, they know it is at least 4.4 billion years old due to radiometric age dating

we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its color, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
No matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it.

Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like. Geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds.




science doesn't, nor has ever claimed to have all the answers.

Link?


only religion does

I don't support religion.

[Blake]

Well, I'm glad we all understand each other now. I definitely feel I learned a bit from your objection after seeing that both the analogies were held by the same people.

We disagree on the bold part, though. At least we do in a proximal sense. I don't believe that saying god created the universe is an explanation for how the universe works. It's one thing to look at something complex and say, "Wow, look at god's handiwork." That's what deists often did, according to that Franklin book. They took the complexity of life as proof of god's existence. I don't do that, but I can understand people thinking I do.

But what is completely different is to look at something complex and say, "There's no other explanation but to say god has created this directly. No way could any proximate mechanisms lead to this." That's how the analogy was used by opponents of evolution. They thought you could slap the "god" stamp on something and call it solved, no science necessary. I don't swing that way. Even though I believe this universe was set into motion, I do not believe there's anything about this universe that we can't learn through investigation.

If you're not looking at the complexity of life/universe, then what is making you think there is a prime mover that did all this on purpose?

[Blake]

I'm not saying a mover exists out of necessity. I am saying that I'd only belief it doesn't exist when I actually encounter a convincing argument for it.

Back to infinite regress/first cause etc

It's irrational to believe that a deity exists until someone disproves it's existence.

Spaghetti.

[Blake]

Most of his topics are baiting and he takes both positions as a matter of course.

I dunno, I guess I get a cheap thrill pointing out his contradictions and then watching the subsequent meltdowns.

and sometimes I strike gold, like the time he couldn't help but brag that he graduated magna cum laude from Dartmouth to try to give his post some credence.

[Blake]

Really? when was the last time you picked up a science school book? show me where there is a quote of a science book saying they have no clue.

This sounds like a good book:



Just A Theory: Exploring The Nature Of Science

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1591022851?pc_redir=1407891193&robot_redir=1

[xmas1997]

I dunno, I guess I get a cheap thrill pointing out his contradictions and then watching the subsequent meltdowns.

and sometimes I strike gold, like the time he couldn't help but brag that he graduated magna cum laude from Dartmouth to try to give his post some credence.

You're still lost in your fantasies I see.
But just for you, although I know you won't be able to understand it, here is an excerpt from the internet that can be cited if necessary:

Faith as underlying rationality: In this view, all human knowledge and reason is seen as dependent on faith: faith in our senses, faith in our reason, faith in our memories, and faith in the accounts of events we receive from others. Accordingly, faith is seen as essential to and inseparable from rationality. According to René Descartes, rationality is built first upon the realization of the absolute truth "I think therefore I am", which requires no faith. All other rationalizations are built outward from this realization, and are subject to falsification at any time with the arrival of new evidence.

[Chinook]

You skipped over the part about needing a finite set in order to prove a negative. There is no reason to think everything has to have a cause and there is no reason to believe that the universe is not infinite.

I didn't skip over that part. It's just meaningless to the debate. No one is asserting that we'll find god, and no one is even advocating looking.

Of course there is a reason to think everything has a cause. I haven't seen something that doesn't. Have you?

The universe isn't infinite. We know how big it is. That's the whole point of the Big Bang theory. The universe actually being infinite breaks that whole idea apart.


It's called saying we don't know.

We don't know. Doesn't mean we don't have beliefs on that matter.


I have a different way of looking at things. I admit the possibility of God but I do not buy the notion empirically God cannot be shown to exist. It's why I am not a christian.

Not a bad view. In theory god could be shown to exist. I don't believe it, but I think that most folks no matter the side do.

[Chinook]

If you're not looking at the complexity of life/universe, then what is making you think there is a prime mover that did all this on purpose?

I don't see being likely that a prime mover could do this by accident. He wouldn't be the PRIME mover, since something would have to have caused him to do it.


Back to infinite regress/first cause etc

What do you mean, back to first cause? I never left that idea. That's the opposite of infinite regress, though.


It's irrational to believe that a deity exists until someone disproves it's existence.

Spaghetti.

It's irrational to believe that not being able to prove something does not exists is somehow proof that it does exist (Spaghetti). It's not irrational to supposed trends continue to the point that we'll need something at the head of the chain and that a prime mover is the likeliest thing to be there.

[DMC]

"Rationality is based on reason or evidence. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority." -same Wiki page

So Xmas needs a belief in inspiration, revelation or authority to realize that his computer is sitting there.

[spurraider21]

Really? when was the last time you picked up a science school book? show me where there is a quote of a science book saying they have no clue.

The go into great detail how the universe was a result of a huge explosion they even have art work. I suggest you read a few Science books then come back when your a little more enlightened on the subject.




name them one by one so I can debunk them one by one.


In theory or facts? watch how you answer that.



Then how come the age of the earth has changed over the years? was it a bad guess at first? where are you getting these bullshit scenarios and if you believe them to be true doesn't that go against your first quote?






You want to talk math? Google how far the moon is drifting away from the earth each year then multiply it by 4.6 billion years and tell me how close to the earth does that put the moon.




we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its color, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
No matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it.

Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like. Geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds.





Link?



I don't support religion.
A) I pick up science books all the time. More so than at other kind I book, to this point. Plenty of unknowns.

B) I merely told you how they determine the age of the earth. I didn't say it's definitely true to the decimal. You seem to think they just barf out randomly large numbers. Estimates in the age have shifted but have been fairly
constant since radiometric dating was used. The results are repeatable.

c) I told you the method used. Please refute radio metric or carbon dating. While your at it inform me of your credentials

d) your understanding if radiometric dating is as rudimentary as robdiaz's understanding of the thery of evolution. I don't need a link to show that. One of the staples of science is to be skeptical and not to be deterred wen encountering an unknown. Scientists don't claim to know everything. Since you brought this point up, YOU should provide evidence to support your claim

[xmas1997]

According to David H. Rogstad,

Agnostic theoretical physicist and popular author, Paul Davies, is more candid than most in admitting the role that a theistic worldview plays in science (as cited here):

“People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature—the laws of physics—are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”

Rationalists point out that many people hold irrational beliefs, for many reasons. There may be evolutionary causes for irrational beliefs — irrational beliefs may increase our ability to survive and reproduce. Or, according to Pascal’s Wager, it may be to our advantage to have faith in a PM, because faith may promise infinite rewards, while the rewards of reason are necessarily finite.

Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy which was devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)

Pascal's wager

The philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager (it is not optional).
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
7. But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.

Beliefs held “by faith” may be seen existing in a number of relationships to rationality:

* Faith as underlying rationality: In this view, all human knowledge and reason is seen as dependent on faith: faith in our senses, faith in our reason, faith in our memories, and faith in the accounts of events we receive from others. Accordingly, faith is seen as essential to and inseparable from rationality.

* Faith as addressing issues beyond the scope of rationality: In this view, faith is seen as covering issues that science and rationality are inherently incapable of addressing, but that are nevertheless entirely real. Accordingly, faith is seen as complementing rationality, by providing answers to questions that would otherwise be unanswerable.

* Faith as contradicting rationality: In this view, faith is seen as those views that one holds despite evidence and reason to the contrary. Accordingly, faith is seen as pernicious with respect to rationality, as it interferes with our ability to think, and rationality is seen as the enemy of faith, since it interferes with our ability to believe.

As you can see there are a number of ways to view "faith", I always go back to the first view because it best fits my view of reality and not because it supports any particular religious view.

[Blake]

You're still lost in your fantasies I see.
But just for you, although I know you won't be able to understand it, here is an excerpt from the internet that can be cited if necessary:

Faith as underlying rationality: In this view, all human knowledge and reason is seen as dependent on faith: faith in our senses, faith in our reason, faith in our memories, and faith in the accounts of events we receive from others. Accordingly, faith is seen as essential to and inseparable from rationality. According to René Descartes, rationality is built first upon the realization of the absolute truth "I think therefore I am", which requires no faith. All other rationalizations are built outward from this realization, and are subject to falsification at any time with the arrival of new evidence.

Didn't read

[Blake]

Rationalists point out that many people hold irrational beliefs, for many reasons. There may be evolutionary causes for irrational beliefs — irrational beliefs may increase our ability to survive and reproduce. Or, according to Pascal’s Wager, it may be to our advantage to have faith in a PM, because faith may promise infinite rewards, while the rewards of reason are necessarily finite.

Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy which was devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)

Pascal's wager

The philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager (it is not optional).
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
7. But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.

Beliefs held “by faith” may be seen existing in a number of relationships to rationality:

* Faith as underlying rationality: In this view, all human knowledge and reason is seen as dependent on faith: faith in our senses, faith in our reason, faith in our memories, and faith in the accounts of events we receive from others. Accordingly, faith is seen as essential to and inseparable from rationality.

* Faith as addressing issues beyond the scope of rationality: In this view, faith is seen as covering issues that science and rationality are inherently incapable of addressing, but that are nevertheless entirely real. Accordingly, faith is seen as complementing rationality, by providing answers to questions that would otherwise be unanswerable.

* Faith as contradicting rationality: In this view, faith is seen as those views that one holds despite evidence and reason to the contrary. Accordingly, faith is seen as pernicious with respect to rationality, as it interferes with our ability to think, and rationality is seen as the enemy of faith, since it interferes with our ability to believe.

As you can see there are a number of ways to view "faith", I always go back to the first view because it best fits my view of reality and not because it supports any particular religious view.

Lol pascal's wager.

:cry why not get the insurance just in case :cry

Fail.

[xmas1997]

Didn't read

Because you don't know HOW to read.
Not unexpected in your case, just a common ailment of yours to be laughed at again.
:lmao

[Blake]

Because you don't know HOW to read.
Not unexpected in your case, just a common ailment of yours to be laughed at again.
:lmao

You're behind the rest of us in this (and most) thread(s).

But bravo for educating yourself. :tu

[xmas1997]

Anyone is welcome to define"faith" in purely "religious" terms, but all that does is "limit" that particular person's view of it, rather than define it in it's totality.

"Literally billions of ideas and beliefs can be suggested to be true. We can propose assumptions, and make eloquent arguments based on those assumptions, which will send us off in any direction we might wish to go. Every day we see people who are certain of the absolute truth of their beliefs, never realizing they have subconsciously talked themselves into accepting as fundamentally and absolutely true that which is, and must be, based on their assumptions. Thus, we can argue persuasively that we are descendants of martians, that inanimate objects talk to each other, that we really do not exist at all, etc., etc., etc. Since we cannot know whether or not something or someone exists beyond our perception, we cannot know if the wildest of ideas may in fact be true somewhere outside our current existence. Yet even though "anything" may be true, we must not allow ourselves to become casual observers applying logical arguments to first "prove", and then "disprove", fundamental beliefs about the nature and meaning of life. What we want to emphasize is that the reader should put aside all assumptions and beliefs; take a journey into their heart, mind, and soul; and then decide what they want to believe is true.

What is true is true. What then is the difference in believing something to be true, and proving something is true, if indeed the belief is true? The difference is not in the truth of the matter, for the belief itself is either true or not regardless of any belief as to its truth. Rather the difference lies in the realization that what appears absolutely true MAY not be true. That realization, and the humility that should accompany it, emphasizes the importance of reviewing one's beliefs. If we cannot prove anything, how do we determine what is true? If the best we can do is believe something is true, what good is that? The answer lies in what we just said, if what we believe to be true is true, then not being able to prove it is true is not important."

EDIT: Do you need a cite?

[xmas1997]

You're behind the rest of us in this (and most) thread(s).

But bravo for educating yourself. :tu

As usual you have no clue of what you are talking about.
Just stay out of it if you are having so much trouble keeping up yourself.
It will save us a lot of trouble reading your nonsense.
We can't help laughing AT you though.
:lmao

[Blake]

I don't see being likely that a prime mover could do this by accident. He wouldn't be the PRIME mover, since something would have to have caused him to do it.

I'm asking your reason for being a deist if you don't subscribe to the watchmaker analogy.

I don't see how it's possible to claim deism and not.



What do you mean, back to first cause? I never left that idea. That's the opposite of infinite regress, though.

"first cause" always leads to infinite regress. There's no rational way to argue around it.

And infinite regress is the gaping flaw in your belief, in my opinion.



It's irrational to believe that not being able to prove something does not exists is somehow proof that it does exist (Spaghetti). It's not irrational to supposed trends continue to the point that we'll need something at the head of the chain and that a prime mover is the likeliest thing to be there.

And how did prime mover arrive?

Infinite regress.

[Blake]

What we want to emphasize is that the reader should put aside all assumptions and beliefs; take a journey into their heart, mind, and soul; and then decide what they want to believe is true.


Did you plagiarize this?

You did, didn't you.

[xmas1997]

Did you plagiarize this?

You did, didn't you.

You just hate it when someone makes you look like the moronic idiot that you are.
So, you resort to common sidetrack tactics, or throw out an insult.
Doesn't work though.
:lmao

EDIT: Do you have something against using someone else' statement (in quotations by the way) in support of something I explained in many different ways earlier in this same thread? Apparently you do, thus another one of your false accusations. I, like anyone else here, do not have to cite every single word used in every sentence, troll. :lol To save time that is why we use quotation marks.

[DMC]

We're talking about a question that is both unfalsifiable and has no bearing on any scientific endeavors. There's no issue to be found. The only reason why it's an issue to you is your bias. If you were an editor for a scientific journal, would you not run articles from theists because you feel their work is too tainted by their belief in god?

I wouldn't print your conclusion that a god created the universe, in a scientific journal. However that wasn't my point. If I believed like the most likely result of your child's endeavors in school was to fail, would you want me teaching your child? It doesn't mean I couldn't teach your child. If you didn't know that I held that belief, without even knowing your child, then you'd not have any reason to deny me that opportunity. Compare that to a scientist who believes that he cannot ever know the answer, yet continues to go through the motions of looking for it.


We can't do it. But we pretend to do it to a high degree. Think Searle's Chinese Room for an example of how such a thing is possible.

Again, then we are not "most able" to.


Newborn infants don't believe god exists. They don't believe anything.

So they are atheist?


I'm saying I have a belief that god exists. I have such a belief because it's the theory that makes the most sense to me. Like all beliefs, it is subject to change if I am provided with new information.

It's not a theory.


If you don't want to talk semantics, fine. But then don't constantly try to define what belief means.

I've asked you to define what belief means to you. I said semantics is fine, but you seem to ignore the point being made in favor of a semantics lesson.


It's gonna require magic no matter how you slice it. That's been one of the central points of my argument.

That's not necessarily true. It's only true for your belief.


Case in point. Hawking provides a complete non-answer, but because it doesn't involve god, you give it the power of an answer.

The difference is I don't need to believe Hawking in order to consider his statement, and I don't call myself a Hawking-ist. I can look at it as one of many ideas put forth, no more and no less. However Hawking doesn't arbitrarily cross over from the metaphysical to the physical just to solve the problem. He could have just as easily as you did. Why do you think he didn't?


No. We know the universe actually has borders, really physical (constantly expanding) ones with numbers attached. If there is existence outside those borders, then there's just existence outside those borders. The only reason why you think it's a paradox is because you keep mixing up definitions of universe. You either have to stick with the quantifiable universe we can study or the theoretical universe that necessarily has to contain all of existence. Otherwise you see paradoxes that aren't there.

The universe is all that exists. If something exists, it's part of our universe. If you can travel faster than light, and you reach the "edge" of the universe and you keep going, you are expanding the universe. The universe is what we define it to be, no more and no less. We've defined it to be all that exists.


That's what you're hung up on. There's no 'god science.' Functionally speaking, "God did it," is a non-answer for proximate mechanisms. It's like, "Yeah, so? How did he do it?" And everyone is back to trying to figure out mechanisms. Again, this is a horrible extension on your part that you have not backed up.

Actually no. "How did he do it?" is not the question. The question would assume a god exists, which negates any "how" questions. That's why you put a god there as a wall to infinite regress. The question should be "why do you break your own rules to solve the problem your own rules create when not having those rules to begin with would be parsimonious?"


It doesn't. There's just no reason to assume that the universe is different. The human race is just a collective of humans in Russell's example. He's not referring to the lineage of humans (or at least I hope he's not, because that would destroy his argument before he could get it out of his mouth). Looking for the cause of the universe is looking for the head of the tree. It's not trying to gather all the separate events and saying, "How"?

The answer is that the universe was the singularity. The singularity did not need a cause, necessarily.


No. But it was the progenitor. That is what Russell was looking for (or rather asserting didn't exist).

See above


Not at all.

For the sake of expediency, I will let this point go but I think you get my drift.


Empiricists did no such thing. They simply gave people an alternative explanation that had the bonus of being predictive. Essentially, science took away the extensions historic people gave to gods. Doing so took away some incentive for people to worship the gods. Had they assigned extensions to god that empiricism can't take away, the people would have gone right now believing in the them.

That's a really fancy way of saying they cut through the mythical nonsense to reveal the truths, most often against the will of the god believers.

[xmas1997]

I'm asking your reason for being a deist if you don't subscribe to the watchmaker analogy.

I don't see how it's possible to claim deism and not.



"first cause" always leads to infinite regress. There's no rational way to argue around it.

And infinite regress is the gaping flaw in your belief, in my opinion.



And how did prime mover arrive?

Infinite regress.

You should stay out of it because this was answered pages ago, but you refused to accept the answer.
:lmao
Pay attention.

[DMC]

Did you plagiarize this?

You did, didn't you.
He's trying to copy me. I carried on an entire debate/discussion with him using nothing but copy/paste paragraphs from random sites. It went on for a few pages. He's not recovered. I don't typically do that but I know his intent and decided to have fun with him while he's out looking for a bite.

[xmas1997]

He's trying to copy me. I carried on an entire debate/discussion with him using nothing but copy/paste paragraphs from random sites. It went on for a few pages. He's not recovered. I don't typically do that but I know his intent and decided to have fun with him while he's out looking for a bite.

More false accusations from you too?
Why do you resort to lying to try to make a point?
It doesn't fly, sorry.
But it is laughable.
:lmao

EDIT: Some of us don't have to lie to make our points and debunk your assertions, but then you wouldn't know about that. Epistemology is not one of your more knowledgeable subjects apparently since you misunderstand how faith is used by all us everyday, without even realizing it by taking our beliefs for granted instead of realizing what they truly are, mere "assumptions" of the truth.

[xmas1997]

"Rationality is based on reason or evidence. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority." -same Wiki page

So Xmas needs a belief in inspiration, revelation or authority to realize that his computer is sitting there.

From the same page, but "one" of a "number" of differentiations. I explained many times in this thread already the logic behind the one I deem most pertinent IMHO.

[cantthinkofanything]

From the same page, but one of a number of differentiations. I explained many times in this thread already the logic behind the one I deem most pertinent IMHO.

have you ever donkey punched a camel? http://www.thecoli.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/ehh.png

[silverblk mystix]

88 pages and we are in the same place...


No one knows but scientists "think they know"


leaving us back at...


no one knows...

[Blake]

You just hate it when someone makes you look like the moronic idiot that you are.
So, you resort to common sidetrack tactics, or throw out an insult.
Doesn't work though.
:lmao

EDIT: Do you have something against using someone else' statement (in quotations by the way) in support of something I explained in many different ways earlier in this same thread? Apparently you do, thus another one of your false accusations. I, like anyone else here, do not have to cite every single word used in every sentence, troll. :lol To save time that is why we use quotation marks.

Lol edit to add quotes.

You played it like it was your own thought. You plagiarized.

[Blake]

He's trying to copy me. I carried on an entire debate/discussion with him using nothing but copy/paste paragraphs from random sites. It went on for a few pages. He's not recovered. I don't typically do that but I know his intent and decided to have fun with him while he's out looking for a bite.

Yeah, I caught you doing it for shits and giggles.

I didn't really read his posts that close, so I didn't catch him doing it for realz.

Lol Dartmouth.

[silverblk mystix]

Yeah, I caught you doing it for shits and giggles.

I didn't really read his posts that close, so I didn't catch him doing it for realz.

Lol Dartmouth.


Still trying to find tex tch rump raiders on this list - though Dartmouth is @ #10


http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/data

[xmas1997]

Lol edit to add quotes.

You played it like it was your own thought. You plagiarized.

More sidetracking and false accusations as is your trollish schtick.

Do you really believe your lies, or does sociopathic behavior run in your family?

Whatever, it makes for lots and lots of laughter as you continue to humiliate yourself.

And now you have DMC humiliating himself as well, I didn't know it was contagious over the internet.:lol

:lmao:rollin:lol

[xmas1997]

Still trying to find tex tch rump raiders on this list - though Dartmouth is @ #10


http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/data

Wow, you don't say.

I keep trying to get you to weigh in with your views on the subject being debated because you have some pertinent truths to impart here that go way beyond God, and science.

But even though it would fly way over some heads on here, and impervious to ridicule, they are important points.

I wish you would share them, and just ignore the moronic troll's efforts to discredit them.

[xmas1997]

Lol edit to add quotes.

You played it like it was your own thought. You plagiarized.

Still lost?

You are telling lies about others in a vain attempt to gain some sort of credibility in the hopes of destroying mine, but it is backfiring on you, as it should.

You get what you put out.

You should go back to your little cave and sulk in private.

It is unseemly on here and makes us laugh AT you!

:lmao

[spurraider21]

mouse (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=220) the starting point used is the atmospheric carbon-14 levels, which is essentially the only c-14 source of plants and animals excluding some shellfish or mollusks that inherit some from ancient limestones which is why creationists laugh at some mussels being dated to be thousands of years old

carbon dating isn't particularly accurate for anything older than 20,000 years or so. We know that for roughly 20,000 years that fluctuations in c-14 havers rely exceeded ten percent in that time period but we are unsure of the levels prior to that

[silverblk mystix]

Wow, you don't say.

I keep trying to get you to weigh in with your views on the subject being debated because you have some pertinent truths to impart here that go way beyond God, and science.

But even though it would fly way over some heads on here, and impervious to ridicule, they are important points.

I wish you would share them, and just ignore the moronic troll's efforts to discredit them.


Well, sperm-raider pussied out of challenging - where I corrected his bible verse-translation -

and no one else can challenge it either because it was irrefutable - and they are bible bashers - but when given the chance - they did not try to defend sperm-raiders claim about what his choice of verses meant -

but the "sleeping scientists" want to argue semantics on an unknowable mystery 24/7

pretty boring - because they are like the blind men arguing over something they have yet to see

[xmas1997]

88 pages and we are in the same place...


No one knows but scientists "think they know"


leaving us back at...


no one knows...

True, "no one knows", but we can "hypothesize", or some of us can, and think outside the box.

Some of the rest just want to confuse, lie, and sidetrack the issue (see blake, fuzzy, and half the time DMC), because they have no other recourse or tactic to use, which goes to show that this topic is way out of their league. This is apparent in the way DMC and blake keep getting confused by chinook's and my explanations, and can only resort to emotional responses.

[xmas1997]

mouse (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=220) the starting point used is the atmospheric carbon-14 levels, which is essentially the only c-14 source of plants and animals excluding some shellfish or mollusks that inherit some from ancient limestones which is why creationists laugh at some mussels being dated to be thousands of years old

carbon dating isn't particularly accurate for anything older than 20,000 years or so. We know that for roughly 20,000 years that fluctuations in c-14 havers rely exceeded ten percent in that time period but we are unsure of the levels prior to that

I do like that you endeavor to keep an open mind on all of this and for the most part refrain from a judgmental stance.

Undoubtedly your science background (major) helps you in this regard.

Did you say you also studied philosophy in depth?

[spurraider21]

I do like that you endeavor to keep an open mind on all of this and for the most part refrain from a judgmental stance.

Undoubtedly your science background (major) helps you in this regard.

Did you say you also studied philosophy in depth?
no, not much at all, outside of some political philosophy. its why i haven't tried to get in between DMC and Chinook as they go at it. i feel i'm learning with each of their posts

[spurraider21]

Well, sperm-raider pussied out of challenging - where I corrected his bible verse-translation -

and no one else can challenge it either because it was irrefutable - and they are bible bashers - but when given the chance - they did not try to defend sperm-raiders claim about what his choice of verses meant -

but the "sleeping scientists" want to argue semantics on an unknowable mystery 24/7

pretty boring - because they are like the blind men arguing over something they have yet to see
what did i ever pussy out of :lol

[silverblk mystix]

what did i ever pussy out of :lol


you posted a bible verse and ridiculed and posted your mocking interpretation of what bible believers believe that it means -

I refuted it by posting what else it could mean -

you never replied.


so your bible interpretation was bullshit.

[spurraider21]

you posted a bible verse and ridiculed and posted your mocking interpretation of what bible believers believe that it means -

I refuted it by posting what else it could mean -

you never replied.


so your bible interpretation was bullshit.
i didn't reply, therefore i was wrong? interesting logic. i'll look forward to debating dead people.

i interpreted it. you interpreted another way. thats all it was. once we realize the book is completely up to interpretation, you'll see why its pretty silly to take it literally

[xmas1997]

no, not much at all, outside of some political philosophy. its why i haven't tried to get in between DMC and Chinook as they go at it. i feel i'm learning with each of their posts

From reading their debate, I have already realized that DMC is really quite confused by what chinook is trying to explain to him. He is debating in circles and getting caught up in semantics.

At first he made some good points, but digressed from there.

When he started using emotion to explain himself, I grew bored and basically humored him.

In essence I do believe DMC knows what he is talking about, but he completely missed my point on faith, as did you at first.

But you finally "got" (I think) what I was saying, that I was not referring to "religious faith" per say, which IMHO has nothing to do with logic and reason, but rather faith in the more general and commonly used or epistemological sense.

Plus you do not resort to emotional responses to lend some sort of mythical credibility to your points.

Emotion IMHO is an illogical method to go about such things and for most reasonable people it lends no rational credibility whatsoever.

As for blake, what can I say, he is insignificant, always was, and always will be IMHO. :lol

IMHO, you and SBM got off on the wrong foot for some reason, because all three of us do not interpret the bible, or any other religious book, literally. Hope I straightened that out.


Speaking of emotional responses, as an aside to the discussion/debate: here's hoping the Raiders move here despite all the opposition and objections.

[spurraider21]

i do believe you misrepresent the word faith. do i need faith to think that there is a person on the other end responding to my posts? as DMC implied, there are different levels and its based on impact. i'm not home, but i dont require faith to know that my home exists even though i have "no direct evidence" right now

[xmas1997]

i do believe you misrepresent the word faith. do i need faith to think that there is a person on the other end responding to my posts? as DMC implied, there are different levels and its based on impact. i'm not home, but i dont require faith to know that my home exists even though i have "no direct evidence" right now

I understand what you are saying, and agree that you do not need faith to know that there is a person on the other end responding to your posts, but that is direct evidence and thus validated proof, so it does not require any faith in order to believe it.

There is faith, and there is Faith.

A good example I can think of to demonstrate what I am saying is the bridge example:
I am quoting now so as to not be falsely accused of plagiarism again by blake and DMC, "In Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the final test required Indy to "step out" in faith, even though he was on one side of a cavern that appeared to be thirty feet across, without any visible way to reach the other side.
Following the instructions from his father's diary, Indy stepped into the void, and to his amazement, his foot came down on solid ground.
It turned out that there was a bridge across the cavern but because the rocky texture of the bridge perfectly matched the facing wall of the cavern, the bridge was invisible from Indy's perspective."

Or another example, more common to us all is:
"If you were going to jump out of a plane, you’d check out the plane, you’d check out the pilot, the company, the statistics, the parachute, all of the gear. You’d check that out so that you’re not just jumping out of a plane blindly. You’ve looked at the evidence that you’re going to be safe, and yet, you’ve still got to open the door and jump. That takes faith, not Faith (religious) to believe you will survive."

You have everyday faith (trust, belief, confidence, whatever) that the chair you want to sit in, or a bridge you want to cross will not collapse.
"The faith you use in everyday life to not be worried about chairs or bridges collapsing isn't the same as religious Faith. Everyday life faith is more a weighing of the risks. Chairs and bridges do collapse once in awhile but they are relatively rare occurrences so you don't bother yourself much about them.
The alternative is to never leave your house and even then you can't entirely avoid some level of faith (e.g. your house won't just fall down)."

Do you see what I mean by everyday faith (not capitalized) we all use all the time, as well as in science, but take for granted, as opposed to Faith (capitalized) in the religious sense?

[xmas1997]

i didn't reply, therefore i was wrong? interesting logic. i'll look forward to debating dead people.

i interpreted it. you interpreted another way. thats all it was. once we realize the book is completely up to interpretation, you'll see why its pretty silly to take it literally

Another side issue, I think it is going to take some faith to believe that the Raiders are going to relocate to San Antonio. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't skip over that part. It's just meaningless to the debate. No one is asserting that we'll find god, and no one is even advocating looking.

Of course there is a reason to think everything has a cause. I haven't seen something that doesn't. Have you?

The universe isn't infinite. We know how big it is. That's the whole point of the Big Bang theory. The universe actually being infinite breaks that whole idea apart.



We don't know. Doesn't mean we don't have beliefs on that matter.



Not a bad view. In theory god could be shown to exist. I don't believe it, but I think that most folks no matter the side do.

If it doesn't matter then you have invalidated all of your commentary on 'formal logic.' The author whose proof you regurgitate realizes it matters; that is why you are trying to limit the sets. If you have a finite set you can exclude everything systematically. If you have an infinite set then you cannot exclude every possibility because no matter how much you have already excluded there will always be more possibilities.

None of your proofs have shown reality to be finite nor natural law to be finite. We infer the end points of the universe from a knowledge of the speed of light and the laws of gravity and the electrostatic force. We do not experience them directly. We are not sure of any 'endpoint.' The schism between quantum theory and classic mechanics screams how we don't understand all your 'proximate systems.'

This goes back to what I was saying about human perception. Yes, you think that you are were 'created' but thermodynamics and atomic theory teaches us that matter is never created or destroyed. While you think you are 'created' there is nothing to say that your 'creation' is nothing more than a reordering of existing material governed by natural laws. We know where the egg and sperm comes from and we know how a woman's body provides material for the embryo to use to grow using preexisitng matter.

But because of how human's rationalize things people think they are 'creating life' when they have sex but there is no proof that human behavior is more than just a reaction to gene expressions which in its own right is a product of natural law. Not everything is created. The only point in human experiencce where we really see something come from nothing, even QM obeys conservation principles, is from the big bang but even there we don't know that something 'caused' it or that it actually is an endpoint.

[DMC]

??
More sidetracking and false accusations as is your trollish schtick.

Do you really believe your lies, or does sociopathic behavior run in your family?

Whatever, it makes for lots and lots of laughter as you continue to humiliate yourself.

And now you have DMC humiliating himself as well, I didn't know it was contagious over the internet.:lol

:lmao:rollin:lol


True, "no one knows", but we can "hypothesize", or some of us can, and think outside the box.

Some of the rest just want to confuse, lie, and sidetrack the issue (see blake, fuzzy, and half the time DMC), because they have no other recourse or tactic to use, which goes to show that this topic is way out of their league. This is apparent in the way DMC and blake keep getting confused by chinook's and my explanations, and can only resort to emotional responses.


From reading their debate, I have already realized that DMC is really quite confused by what chinook is trying to explain to him. He is debating in circles and getting caught up in semantics.

At first he made some good points, but digressed from there.

When he started using emotion to explain himself, I grew bored and basically humored him.

In essence I do believe DMC knows what he is talking about, but he completely missed my point on faith, as did you at first.

But you finally "got" (I think) what I was saying, that I was not referring to "religious faith" per say, which IMHO has nothing to do with logic and reason, but rather faith in the more general and commonly used or epistemological sense.

Plus you do not resort to emotional responses to lend some sort of mythical credibility to your points.

Emotion IMHO is an illogical method to go about such things and for most reasonable people it lends no rational credibility whatsoever.

As for blake, what can I say, he is insignificant, always was, and always will be IMHO. :lol

IMHO, you and SBM got off on the wrong foot for some reason, because all three of us do not interpret the bible, or any other religious book, literally. Hope I straightened that out.


Speaking of emotional responses, as an aside to the discussion/debate: here's hoping the Raiders move here despite all the opposition and objections.


I understand what you are saying, and agree that you do not need faith to know that there is a person on the other end responding to your posts, but that is direct evidence and thus validated proof, so it does not require any faith in order to believe it.

There is faith, and there is Faith.

A good example I can think of to demonstrate what I am saying is the bridge example:
I am quoting now so as to not be falsely accused of plagiarism again by blake and DMC, "In Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the final test required Indy to "step out" in faith, even though he was on one side of a cavern that appeared to be thirty feet across, without any visible way to reach the other side.
Following the instructions from his father's diary, Indy stepped into the void, and to his amazement, his foot came down on solid ground.
It turned out that there was a bridge across the cavern but because the rocky texture of the bridge perfectly matched the facing wall of the cavern, the bridge was invisible from Indy's perspective."

Or another example, more common to us all is:
"If you were going to jump out of a plane, you’d check out the plane, you’d check out the pilot, the company, the statistics, the parachute, all of the gear. You’d check that out so that you’re not just jumping out of a plane blindly. You’ve looked at the evidence that you’re going to be safe, and yet, you’ve still got to open the door and jump. That takes faith, not Faith (religious) to believe you will survive."

You have everyday faith (trust, belief, confidence, whatever) that the chair you want to sit in, or a bridge you want to cross will not collapse.
"The faith you use in everyday life to not be worried about chairs or bridges collapsing isn't the same as religious Faith. Everyday life faith is more a weighing of the risks. Chairs and bridges do collapse once in awhile but they are relatively rare occurrences so you don't bother yourself much about them.
The alternative is to never leave your house and even then you can't entirely avoid some level of faith (e.g. your house won't just fall down)."

Do you see what I mean by everyday faith (not capitalized) we all use all the time, as well as in science, but take for granted, as opposed to Faith (capitalized) in the religious sense?

You're seeing red, scrah.

[xmas1997]

??

You're seeing red, scrah.



And laughing AT you and blake the whole time, and I'm not the only one laughing AT you!

Plus your baseless accusation makes it even funnier, so please, keep it up!

:lmao:rollin:lol

[DMC]

And laughing AT you and blake the whole time, and I'm not the only one laughing AT you!

Plus your baseless accusation makes it even funnier, so please, keep it up!

:lmao:rollin:lol
Remember that one movie with Harrison Ford? I think life is a lot like that and I can prove beyond a doubt that nothing is provable in science. By the way, I dropped out of class because it was nebulous. Just saying.

So let's debate.

[Blake]

I think matter can actually be destroyed. I'd have to look it up though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And laughing AT you and blake the whole time, and I'm not the only one laughing AT you!

Plus your baseless accusation makes it even funnier, so please, keep it up!

:lmao:rollin:lol

When you have to tell them that you are trolling them to try and getback at them then you have lost, dipshit. I get that you will just take both positions so any 'rebuttal' of yours will be ignored. Just know that it was seen for what it was.

[johnsmith]

When you have to tell them that you are trolling them to try and getback at them then you have lost, dipshit. I get that you will just take both positions so any 'rebuttal' of yours will be ignored. Just know that it was seen for what it was.

:lmao

[xmas1997]

Remember that one movie with Harrison Ford? I think life is a lot like that and I can prove beyond a doubt that nothing is provable in science. By the way, I dropped out of class because it was nebulous. Just saying.

So let's debate.

You are a liar! And as bad as blake is in lying.

You know that isn't what I said, troll.

I will dumb things down for you from now on too.

And I have your "debate" hanging, you want it that badly?

:lmao

[xmas1997]

When you have to tell them that you are trolling them to try and getback at them then you have lost, dipshit. I get that you will just take both positions so any 'rebuttal' of yours will be ignored. Just know that it was seen for what it was.

Still playing your fictitious internet message board contest?

You don't win or lose on a message board.

There is no crying in baseball, dimwit.

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think matter can actually be destroyed. I'd have to look it up though.

It is converted into energy at the rate of e=mc^2. On the quantum scale the uncertainty principle prevents us from verifying conservation however. Uncertainty =! god. It comes out in the wash though

[DMC]

Still playing your fictitious internet message board contest?

You don't win or lose on a message board.

There is no crying in baseball, dimwit.

:lmao

You managed to find a way around it.

[mouse]

some serious quoting up in here up in here

[xmas1997]

You managed to find a way around it.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.
But then you already knew that.
Next you'll spout nonsense about the Matrix.
:lmao

[DMC]

Your ignorance knows no bounds.
But then you already knew that.
Next you'll spout nonsense about the Matrix.
:lmao

Why wasn't Harrison Ford considered for the part of Morpheus tbh? With his ability to see past his own blindness and find the holy grail, he should have been a shoo in. I think Harrison Ford is likely a reincarnated god.

[xmas1997]

Why wasn't Harrison Ford considered for the part of Morpheus tbh? With his ability to see past his own blindness and find the holy grail, he should have been a shoo in. I think Harrison Ford is likely a reincarnated god.

Keep it up, but surely you can make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already are, I have confidence in you!
How about that Harry Potter guy?
:lmao:rollin:lol

[DMC]

Keep it up, but surely you can make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already are, I have confidence in you!
How about that Harry Potter guy?
:lmao:rollin:lol



A good example of faith is how Rocky Balboa was able to get the eye of the tiger working with his former nemesis. Rocky knew Clubber Lane was a beast, but he had the eye of the tiger. Still, he had to have faith that he could actually see through the tiger's eye because, let's be real, how can you see though a tiger's eye? Rocky could because he had faith.

That's the kind of faith I am talking about, the kind where you can see though the severed eye of an otherwise irrelevant to boxing animal.

[xmas1997]

A good example of faith is how Rocky Balboa was able to get the eye of the tiger working with his former nemesis. Rocky knew Clubber Lane was a beast, but he had the eye of the tiger. Still, he had to have faith that he could actually see through the tiger's eye because, let's be real, how can you see though a tiger's eye? Rocky could because he had faith.

That's the kind of faith I am talking about, the kind where you can see though the severed eye of an otherwise irrelevant to boxing animal.

Your "ignorance" is on full display and has run amok for all to see.

You can't blame it on stupidity which is usually a temporary condition.

The sad and pathetic part is, you truly believe what your rants.
:lmao

[pgardn]

Reaction to Chinook post:

Ok I have a somewhat better understanding of where you lie. We basically believe the same thing about the word random.

And I have a different view of what is knowable.

I don't believe human beings, evolved 100,000 years for a life on Earth and thus equipped with a set of senses that act and influence a nervous system set up for life on Earth, will ever understand everything. The machines follow our rules, our logic. We are too specialized for a particular environment. All of our understanding is based on incomplete models and metaphors and are in constant flux. We just refine the same stuff imo. We get closer to good descriptions for what we have access to.

We pretend math takes us into a different realm. We use the math now heavily in physics to make models and then we hunt for some experiment to test the model. Science is very powerful, but limited. Individuals that work outside of science and reason (math and logic), get further off course when answering questions that science can model imo.

Thats how I see it.

[mouse]

http://www.lebanondemocrat.com/sites/www.lebanondemocrat.com/files/styles/small/public/Checkers_2_.jpg?itok=FX1-09I2

Check. Mate.

You do know that's a checker board right?

[spurraider21]

You do know that's a checker board right?
that joke went right over your head huh... just like everything in science classes

[mouse]

that joke went right over your head huh... just like everything in science classes

I'm proud to admit even at a young age I knew bullshit when I read it and avoided being brainwashed to learn the unproven lies of Science.

So thank you for the compliment.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/1111.jpg

[spurraider21]

thats one way to rationalize being a lazy student

[Uriel]

524392708564344832

[boutons_deux]

A new vetulicolian from Australia and its bearing on the chordate affinities of an enigmatic Cambrian group

Background

Vetulicolians are one of the most problematic and controversial Cambrian fossil groups, having been considered as arthropods, chordates, kinorhynchs, or their own phylum. Mounting evidence suggests that vetulicolians are deuterostomes, but affinities to crown-group phyla are unresolved.
Results

A new vetulicolian from the Emu Bay Shale Konservat-Lagerstätte, South Australia, Nesonektris aldridgei gen. et sp. nov., preserves an axial, rod-like structure in the posterior body region that resembles a notochord in its morphology and taphonomy, with notable similarity to early decay stages of the notochord of extant cephalochordates and vertebrates. Some of its features are also consistent with other structures, such as a gut or a coelomic cavity.

Conclusions

Phylogenetic analyses resolve a monophyletic Vetulicolia as sister-group to tunicates (Urochordata) within crown Chordata, and this holds even if they are scored as unknown for all notochord characters. The hypothesis that the free-swimming vetulicolians are the nearest relatives of tunicates suggests that a perpetual free-living life cycle was primitive for tunicates. Characters of the common ancestor of Vetulicolia + Tunicata include distinct anterior and posterior body regions – the former being non-fusiform and used for filter feeding and the latter originally segmented – plus a terminal mouth, absence of pharyngeal bars, the notochord restricted to the posterior body region, and the gut extending to the end of the tail.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/14/214

[boutons_deux]

Creationists cry salty tears over blasphemous ‘Come Back To The Sea’ cruise ship evolution ad


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/godfish-800x430.png

This year, Carnival Cruise Lines — who have had yet another rocky year, poop cruise-wise – (http://gawker.com/5984334/disabled-shit-covered-cruise-ship-descends-to-new-circle-of-hell-off-the-coast-of-alabama) dropped some serious cash to say “Come back to the sea,” using the solemn voice-over skills of former President John F. Kennedy, whom some people believe was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald on a moon-landing soundstage in the Arizona desert where lizard people were inventing jet fuel that can’t melt steel.

Yeah, you know who you are… or do you?

Kennedy — whose head may still be being kept alive in a jar — said this:

I really don’t know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it’s because in addition to the fact that the sea changes and the light changes, and ships change, it’s because we all came from the sea. And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have, in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch it we are going back from whence we came.


According to to the Jesus-rode-a-dinosaur crowd, Carnival just slapped them right across their highly-pronounced supraorbital ridge with one of those Darwin fish things with the feet.

Creationist Ken Ham — who is both evolution’s biggest foe as well as evolution’s slowest evolving work-in-progress — took particular offense (http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/02/01/carnival-cruise-corporation-blatant-use-of-evolution-for-super-bowl-advertisement/) at the commercial:

Don’t you just feel this “personal connection?” After all, your ancestor came out of the sea and evolved by natural processes to produce you. Don’t you feel the connection? Don’t you just want to go on one of their cruises so you can stand on the deck of a big cruise ship, look at the sea, and contemplate your accidental beginnings—and perhaps worship the sea, because it gave birth to you!

Oh—and really, you can spend a lot of money on such a cruise, but because you evolved from the sea and are just an evolved animal, and when you die you won’t even know you existed—so you won’t even remember the cruise—so what’s the point anyway? You just evolved to have an ultimately meaningless existence!


Obviously Ham has never been on a cruise and experienced the divine joy of an all-you-can-eat buffet with its seductive chocolate pudding fountain.

Seriously, they have those. It’s like Jesus with the fish and loaves only … endless pudding.

On Twitter, others were umbrage-taking and declaring that they too will never set one Croc-shod foot on one of Carnival’s Satan-Boats to Perdition.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/creationists-cry-salty-tears-over-blasphemous-come-back-to-the-sea-cruise-ship-evolution-ad/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[Blake]

You do know that's a checker board right?

You're quick

[Blake]

Creationists cry salty tears over blasphemous ‘Come Back To The Sea’ cruise ship evolution ad


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/godfish-800x430.png

This year, Carnival Cruise Lines — who have had yet another rocky year, poop cruise-wise – (http://gawker.com/5984334/disabled-shit-covered-cruise-ship-descends-to-new-circle-of-hell-off-the-coast-of-alabama) dropped some serious cash to say “Come back to the sea,” using the solemn voice-over skills of former President John F. Kennedy, whom some people believe was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald on a moon-landing soundstage in the Arizona desert where lizard people were inventing jet fuel that can’t melt steel.

Yeah, you know who you are… or do you?

Kennedy — whose head may still be being kept alive in a jar — said this:

I really don’t know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it’s because in addition to the fact that the sea changes and the light changes, and ships change, it’s because we all came from the sea. And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have, in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch it we are going back from whence we came.


According to to the Jesus-rode-a-dinosaur crowd, Carnival just slapped them right across their highly-pronounced supraorbital ridge with one of those Darwin fish things with the feet.

Creationist Ken Ham — who is both evolution’s biggest foe as well as evolution’s slowest evolving work-in-progress — took particular offense (http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2015/02/01/carnival-cruise-corporation-blatant-use-of-evolution-for-super-bowl-advertisement/) at the commercial:

Don’t you just feel this “personal connection?” After all, your ancestor came out of the sea and evolved by natural processes to produce you. Don’t you feel the connection? Don’t you just want to go on one of their cruises so you can stand on the deck of a big cruise ship, look at the sea, and contemplate your accidental beginnings—and perhaps worship the sea, because it gave birth to you!

Oh—and really, you can spend a lot of money on such a cruise, but because you evolved from the sea and are just an evolved animal, and when you die you won’t even know you existed—so you won’t even remember the cruise—so what’s the point anyway? You just evolved to have an ultimately meaningless existence!


Obviously Ham has never been on a cruise and experienced the divine joy of an all-you-can-eat buffet with its seductive chocolate pudding fountain.

Seriously, they have those. It’s like Jesus with the fish and loaves only … endless pudding.

On Twitter, others were umbrage-taking and declaring that they too will never set one Croc-shod foot on one of Carnival’s Satan-Boats to Perdition.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/creationists-cry-salty-tears-over-blasphemous-come-back-to-the-sea-cruise-ship-evolution-ad/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29




Lol that's hilarious

[mouse]

You're quick

Mainly just a little more observant given my photoshop background.

Good thing I don't support creation you dodged a huge truth bullet.

[Blake]

Mainly just a little more observant given my photoshop background.

Good thing I don't support creation you dodged a huge truth bullet.

When I said you're quick, I was joking. You're not.

But good observation though.