Reply With Quote
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.
Franklin was also talking about intelligent design and complexity:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KOh...ed=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.
Last edited by Blake; 08-11-2014 at 09:25 PM.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Fluorocarbon leader resultsI 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.
Lol
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.
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.
I'll cancel my upcoming trip to Boston.
Riiiight.
A simple, "no thank you", would have sufficed.
But anyway, you are still sincerely welcome to go.
You as well, dgardn.
Even you, blake.
Riiiight.
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...
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.
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.
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'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?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.
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.
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.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?
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".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 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.
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.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.
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.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.
Think you have it backwards. "Before" is a spatial word applied to time. It just means, "in front of".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.
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.
Not really.An uncaused prime mover is the only turtle in this conversation. It seems to be floating in space.
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.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.
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.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 sapien? Do you not think it becomes a bit nebulous for a few thousand years? What if there were twins?
And obviously, you don't have twins in your family. There's ALWAYS a first born.
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.My grade school teacher did it all the time with a red ink pen.
Just reinforces my argument.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.
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.
For god to be the answer, something has to be known about the answer to know it's the answer. That seems simple enough.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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 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".
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 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.
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 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.
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.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.
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?
Think you have it backwards. "Before" is a spatial word applied to time. It just means, "in front of".
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: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.
Now what happened before? Where's the time when there was only space and suddenly a singularity appeared and started fluctuating?
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?Not really.
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 ed", 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.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.
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.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.
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 sapiens types had no idea what a sapiens was.And obviously, you don't have twins in your family. There's ALWAYS a first born.
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.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.
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.Just reinforces my argument.
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.
You would think the Scientists that helped create that chart would know enough about our universe to explain Stonehenge or cure Ebola.I am referring to something more along these lines:
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 about the Universe and just STFU.
(in the meantime take the bull out of the school texts books)
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.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.
Last edited by Blake; 08-12-2014 at 11:07 AM.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
