Wut? A belief in evolution is completely logical thanks to empirical evidence.
You have zero empirical evidence to support a watch maker belief.
That alone makes it an illogical belief.
so back to "dunno".
Probably. Depends on the knowledge level of the maker. If he is omniscient, then we and everything else were known about and intended. But if he isn't, then we may well be coincidental.
No, damn it. That's not how it works. Empirical evidence does not determine logic. Empirical evidence determines belief. Did you not read the previous pages where we all agreed on that? You're acting like rob right now, not understanding what you're talking about but just pushing on anyway.
At this point it might be helpful to bring up some more of the "isms".
agnosticism (a belief that no one can know if there is a god or not),
weak/empirical agnosticism (atheist or theist that still has some strong doubts about the existence or non existence of a god),
strong agnosticism (someone who believes that we will never know whether a god exists or not and that doesn't lean toward there being one or not),
apatheism (apathy towards the existence of a god),
non-theism (disbelief in a god or gods),
anti-theism (against all belief in a god or gods),
atheism (the disbelief in any god or gods),
strong/explicit atheism (atheist with no doubt about the non-existence of a god),
weak/implicit atheism (atheist with "some strong" doubts about the non-existence of a god),
ignosticism/igtheism (theological position that every other theological position assumes too much about a god),
theism (belief in a god or gods),
deism (within theism, a belief in a higher authority but not a "god" per say, takes the position that the universe was created by some hypothetical deity, but that it does not intervene in the operation of the universe, and, usually, that it does not particularly take notice of humans any more than it takes of any other aspect of the universe),
post-theism (also within theism, belief that we have developed beyond our need for a god),
autotheism (belief that even though God is all around us and everywhere at the same time, God is inherently "within" oneself (within all of us) and that each of us has the duty to become as perfect or divine and as "selflessly" as we possibly can).
Last edited by xmas1997; 08-07-2014 at 01:30 PM.
You are the one saying the bible has all the answers. Surely your expert scholarship has introduced you to the topic.
I would not care to admit to anything I didn't think was true any more than you would.
Is slavery moral or not?
You're getting bogged down in semantics.
Yes or no: do you have empirical evidence to support your watch maker belief?
No?
What's the logic in believing in something without some kind of empirical evidence?
It was unfair. My apologies.
I would not give up on my beliefs if threatened with violence either.
I would, however, give up my beliefs if shown reasonable arguments and evidence that they were wrong. That is where we differ. I care about the truth, and being honest. You do not.
Didn't imply anything actually.
If something is "unknowable" that means no knowledge.
Quit trolling.
More trolling.
Blake is trolling you, that is all he ever does, he knows nothing about the topic and never did, plus he never ADDs anything constructive to the discussion.
His schtick is to make fun of you, distort or twist out of context what you say, or misquote and make false accusations of you, for his own amusement, even though he has absolutely no understanding of what you are talking about.
You can also join Rob in the "don't know what a theory is" club, if you want to, obvious trolling aside.
If you can neither accurately state what the theory of evolution is, or even what a theory is for that matter, why should anyone take such statements seriously?
There is no such think as getting bogged down in semantics during a philosophical debate. The term logical is one of the most powerful out there. It means a of a lot more than simply advisable or reasonable.
Yes. The fact that we've never observed an uncaused effect. I have no reason to believe such a thing exists in our universe.
A belief is not logical or illogical. Only relations of ideas can be logical or illogical. It's like asking what's the math behind the belief you have hands. It doesn't make sense.
Shocking. How do you explain atavisms?
I have no reason to believe the "cause" of the universe is some creator or sentient actor. I would then ask, what caused the creator, if that were indeed the case, and off we go on the infinite regression.
A gust of wind can cause a deck of cards to fall over. That doesn't mean the wind is sentient.
Our universe is.
That is as far as I will go, until given some evidence otherwise.
Secondly, cause and effect require time.
We have no idea if time existed prior to the beginning of the universe.
You implying that God is unknowable implies the existence of a God.
Think.
Just so you can put this in order, although I doubt you will understand any of it:
log·ic
noun \ˈlä-jik\
: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
: a particular way of thinking about something
: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning
reasoning
noun
: the process of thinking about something in a logical way in order to form a conclusion or judgment
: the ability of the mind to think and understand things in a logical way
Full Definition of REASONING
1
: the use of reason; especially : the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason
2
: an instance of the use of reason : argument
em·pir·i·cal
adjective \im-ˈpir-i-kəl\
: based on testing or experience
Full Definition of EMPIRICAL
1
: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2
: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3
: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4
: of or relating to empiricism
http://www.sciences360.com/index.php...vidence-22212/
Empiricism is the basic practice of science. Science can be described as empirical because it relies on direct experience or observation in order to describe or explain phenomena. In other words, a scientific or empirical approach is inductive, and bases its explanations upon that which can be directly observed in a replicable or repeatable manner.
The requirement concerning empirical observations being potentially replicable is key. This is what differentiates science from mystical or religious traditions. Science does not rely on dreams, or visions, or faith in the authority of sacred texts or spiritual beings as a basis for knowledge. That's why science does not recognize the existence of the human soul, for example, since it cannot be observed. Similarly, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, since God is generally believed to be transcendent (i.e. as existing beyond nature, and therefore potential observation).
"Empirical evidence" is confined to only those phenomena which more than one person can observe.
truth
noun \ˈtrüth\
the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true
: the quality or state of being true
: a statement or idea that is true or accepted as true
plural truths
Full Definition of TRUTH
1
a archaic : fidelity, constancy
b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2
a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics>
c : the body of true statements and propositions
3
a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
b chiefly British : true 2
c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4
capitalized Christian Science : god
— in truth
: in accordance with fact : actually
be·lief
[bih-leef] Show IPA
noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief
I concur with Mencken.Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." - H. L. Mencken
What about the infants who couldn't know what God's laws were?
What was the basis of their judgment?
What their parents did?
Original sin? Sorry the entire concept of original sin is ing stupid too. That bible God somehow found it made more sense to sacrifice himself to himself than to forgive the descendants of a man and woman who ate a piece of fruit after listening to a talking snake is, on its face, ridiculous.
faith
[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
xmas we all have access to a dictionary. Get out of the way please.
faith
[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
Wr talked about infinite regression last night. You'd probably find my answers unsatisfactory, but they're there for you to peruse.
As far as sentience goes, I'd argue that the prime mover would probably be sentient as that's the only way a cause can't be a reaction.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
